Agricultural Marketing Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Health Care Financing Administration
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
National Institutes of Health
Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Employment Standards Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institutes of Health
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Internal Revenue Service
Thrift Supervision Office
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Office of Personnel Management.
Interim rule with request for comments.
The Office of Personnel Management is issuing an interim retention regulation that clarifies a released employee's potential right to “Retreat” to another position in a reduction in force. This regulation states that an agency determines the potential grade range of a released employee's retreat right solely upon the position held by the employee on the effective date of the reduction in force rather than the grade range of the position to which the employee may have a right to retreat.
This regulation is effective on October 20, 2000. Written comments will be considered if received no later than December 19, 2000.
Send written comments to Carol J. Okin, Associate Director for Employment, Office of Personnel Management, Room 6F08, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415.
Thomas A. Glennon or Jacqueline R. Yeatman, 202-606-0960, FAX 202-606-2329.
This interim regulation clarifies OPM's longstanding policy that an agency determines the grade or grade-interval range of a released employee's potential retreat rights solely on the basis of the official position of record held by the employee on the effective date of the reduction in force. See 51 FR 319 (January 3, 1986). In determining an employee's potential retreat rights, an agency does not consider the grade or grade-interval range of the position to which the employee may have a retreat right.
OPM is publishing this interim regulation in response to a January 28, 2000, decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
Section 351.603 of OPM's retention regulations provides that a permanent competitive service employee who is released from a competitive level as the result of reduction in force competition has a potential “Bump” or “Retreat” right to other continuing positions before involuntary separation. For reference, OPM published a comprehensive history and explanation of the retreat right in the Supplementary Information section of final regulations that were published in the
OPM's reduction in force regulations generally limit the grade limits of an employee's potential bump and retreat rights to positions that are within, as appropriate, three grades or grade-intervals of the official position held on the effective date of the reduction in force. In addition, a preference eligible employee who competes under OPM's retention regulations in retention tenure subgroup I-AD on the basis of a service-connected compensable disability of 30% (or higher) has a potential retreat right to positions that are within, as appropriate, five grades or grade intervals of the official position held on the effective date of the reduction in force.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), I find that good cause exists for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking because it would be contrary to the public interest to delay access to benefits provided by law. Also, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), I find that good cause exists to waive the effective date and make this amendment effective in less than 30 days in order to provide eligible displaced employees with the full benefit of their retreat rights at the earliest practicable date.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only certain Federal employees.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees.
Accordingly, OPM is amending part 351 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
5 U.S.C. 1302, 3502, 3503; sec. 351.801 also issued under E.O. 12828, 58 FR 2965.
(c)
(1) Is held by another employee with lower retention standing in the same tenure group and subgroup; and
(2) Is not more than three grades (or appropriate grade intervals or equivalent) below the position from which the employee was released, except that for a preference eligible employee with a compensable service-connected disability of 30 percent or more the limit is five grades (or appropriate grade intervals or equivalent). (The agency uses the grade progression of only the released employee's position of record to determine the applicable grades (or appropriate grade intervals or equivalent) of the employee's retreat right. The agency does not consider the grade progression of the position to which the employee has a retreat right.); and
(3) Is the same position, or an essentially identical position, formerly held by the released employee on a permanent basis as a competing employee in a Federal agency (i.e., when held by the released employee in an executive, legislative, or judicial branch agency, the position would have been placed in tenure groups I, II, or III, or equivalent). In determining whether a position is essentially identical, the determination is based on the competitive level criteria found in § 351.403, but not necessarily in regard to the respective grade, classification series, type of work schedule, or type of service, of the two positions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule modifies the handler membership on the California Olive Committee (Committee). The Committee locally administers the California olive marketing order (order) which regulates the handling of olives grown in California. The Committee is composed of 16 industry members of which 8 are producers and 8 are handlers. Current handler representation on the Committee provides that the two handlers who handled the largest and second largest total volume of olives during the crop year in which nominations were made and in the preceding crop year shall be represented by three members and alternate members each, and that the remaining handler shall be represented by two members and alternate members. Recently, one of the handlers indicated that it was exiting the business, and no longer desired to serve on the Committee. This rule reallocates handler membership and enables the Committee to operate at full strength.
October 23, 2000.
Rose Aguayo, Marketing Specialist, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491; Fax: (202) 720-5698.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2525-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 148 and Order No. 932, both as amended (7 CFR part 932), regulating the handling of olives grown in California, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This action is not intended to have retroactive effect. This final rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This final rule modifies the order's administrative rules and regulations regarding the structure of handler membership on the Committee. The change in structure was unanimously recommended by the Committee.
Section 932.25 of the order provides for the establishment of the Committee to locally administer the terms and provisions of the order. The Committee is composed of 16 industry members, each with an alternate. Of the 16 industry members, 8 are producers and 8 are handlers. This section also specifies how the handler membership on the Committee is allocated. Authority is provided for the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, to change the allocation of both producer and handler members as may be necessary to assure equitable representation.
Based on this authority, § 932.159 of the administrative rules and regulations currently provides that the two handlers who handled the largest and second largest total volume of olives during the crop year in which nominations were made and in the preceding crop year shall be represented by three members and alternate members each, and the remaining handler shall be represented by two members and alternate members. This reallocation was implemented in January of 1999 (64 FR 4286) with an interim final rule. Comments were invited until March 29, 1999. The interim final rule was adopted without change in a final rule in April of 1999 (64 FR 23009).
The structure of the olive industry has changed over the years and the number of handlers, both cooperative and independent (or handlers not affiliated with a cooperative marketing organization), has decreased. At one time, there were a number of cooperative marketing organizations and independent handlers and the
In 1993, handler membership on the Committee was reallocated to reflect changes within the handler segment of the industry. The number of industry handlers declined to only five handlers—one cooperative and four independents. At that time, § 932.159 of the order's rules and regulations was modified to reapportion handler membership to provide cooperative handlers with two seats on the Committee and independent handlers with six seats.
When the number of handlers declined to one cooperative and two independent handlers, and restrictions on handler affiliation resulted in two vacant handler positions on the Committee, changes on handler allocation were implemented to allow those positions to be filled and to enable the Committee to operate at full strength. Section 932.159 was revised (64 FR 4286, January 28, 1999; 64 FR 23009, April 29, 1999) to eliminate the distinction between cooperative marketing organizations and independent handlers and § 932.160 on handler affiliation was removed. The eight handler seats on the Committee were reallocated based on the total volume of olives handled during the crop year in which nominations are made and the preceding crop year, with the handlers handling the first and second largest volume being represented by three members each, and the remaining handler being represented by two members.
Recently, one handler in the industry indicated that it was exiting the business, will no longer be handling olives after it markets its old crop inventory, and, that it no longer desired to serve on the Committee. The Committee met and unanimously recommended modifying the rules and regulations to reallocate handler membership equally between the two other handlers. Each handler will be represented by four handlers and four alternates. This rule modifies the Committee's handler membership to enable the Committee to operate at full strength;
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this final rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are 3 handlers of California olives who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 1,200 olive producers in the regulated area. One of these handlers informed the Committee that it plans to exit the industry, and will no longer be handling olives after it markets its old crop inventory. Small agricultural service firms have been defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000. None of the olive handlers may be classified as small entities.
A review of historical and preliminary information pertaining to the 1999-00 crop year (August 1 through July 31) indicates that total grower revenue for the 1999 crop will be approximately $39,500,000, and the average grower revenue will be approximately $33,000. Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of producers of California olives may be classified as small entities.
This rule modifies the rules and regulations of the olive order regarding the structure of handler membership on the Committee. Section 932.25 of the order provides for the establishment of the Committee to locally administer the terms and provisions of the order. The Committee is composed of 16 industry members, each with an alternate. Of the 16 industry members, 8 are producers and 8 are handlers. This section also specifies how the handler membership on the Committee is allocated. Authority is provided for the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, to change the allocation of both producer and handler members as may be necessary to assure equitable representation.
Section 932.159 of the administrative rules and regulations provides that the two handlers who handled the largest and second largest total volume of olives during the crop year in which nominations were made and in the preceding crop year shall be represented by three members and alternate members each, and the remaining handler shall be represented by two members and alternate members.
The structure of the olive industry has changed over the years and the number of handlers, both cooperative and independent, has decreased. At one time, there were a number of cooperative marketing organizations and independent handlers and the Committee's structure was designed so that four of the eight handler seats were held by cooperatives and four were held by independents. This representation was also weighted by the volume of olives handled so that if one group, either cooperatives or independents, handled 65 percent or more of the total industry's volume handled during the nominating crop year and the preceding crop year, that group would have five seats on the Committee and the other group would have three seats.
In 1993, handler membership on the Committee was reallocated to reflect changes within the industry. The number of industry handlers declined to only five handlers—one cooperative and four independents. At that time, § 932.159 of the order's rules and regulations was modified to reapportion handler membership to provide cooperative handlers with two seats on the Committee and independent handlers with six seats.
When the number of handlers declined to one cooperative and two independent handlers, and restrictions on handler affiliation resulted in two vacant handler positions on the Committee, changes on handler allocation were implemented to allow these positions to be filled and to enable the Committee to operate at full strength. Section 932.159 was revised (64 FR 4286, January 28, 1999; 64 FR 23009, April 29, 1999) to eliminate the distinction between cooperative marketing organizations and independent handlers and § 932.160 on handler affiliation was removed. The eight handler seats on the Committee were reallocated based on the total volume of olives handled during the crop year in which nominations are made and the preceding crop year, with the handlers handling the first and second largest volume being represented by three members each, and the remaining handler being represented by two members.
Recently, one of the handlers indicated that it was exiting the
One alternative to this rule discussed at the meeting was to leave the language in § 932.159 unchanged; however, the current language is no longer appropriate. The current language specifies that the two handlers who handled the largest and second largest volume of olives during the crop year in which nominations are made and in the preceding crop year shall be represented by three members and alternate members each, and that the remaining handler shall be represented by two members and two alternate members. Since one of the remaining handlers no longer desires to serve on the Committee, the language concerning the two seats allocated to the third handler is no longer appropriate. Therefore, the Committee recommended that handler membership be reallocated equally between two handlers and that each handler be represented by four members and four alternate members.
This final rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either of the two olive handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. In addition, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the olive industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the meeting at which the recommendation was made was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. All of the industry handlers currently represented on the Committee participated in the deliberations. Finally, interested persons were invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at the following website: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
It is further found that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Olives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Pursuant to § 932.25, handler representation on the Committee is reallocated to provide that the two handlers who handled the largest and second largest total volume of olives during the crop year in which nominations are made and in the preceding crop year shall each be represented by four members and four alternate members.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplanes, that requires repetitive inspections to detect corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements of the airplane; corrective action, if necessary; and incorporation of certain structural modifications. This amendment is prompted by new recommendations related to incidents of fatigue cracking and corrosion in transport category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their economic design goal. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Effective November 24, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 24, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Lockheed Martin Aircraft & Logistics Center, 120 Orion Street, Greenville, South Carolina 29605. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal Register,
Thomas Peters, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Flight Test Branch, ACE-116A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30349; telephone (770) 703-6063; fax (770) 703-6097.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Lockheed Model L-1011-385 series airplanes was published in the
Since the issuance of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the FAA has reviewed and approved Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 2, dated October 21, 1999. The actions described in Revision 2 of the service bulletin are essentially similar to those described in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997 (which was referenced as the applicable source of service information for accomplishment of the actions specified in the NPRM). Revision 2 of the service bulletin corrects and updates certain references, and adds and revises certain “notes” to improve clarity. Therefore, the FAA finds that either Revision 1 or Revision 2 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040 (hereinafter referred to as “the Collector Service Bulletin”) is an acceptable source of service information for the actions required by this AD.
However, certain new revisions of the individual service bulletins listed in Tables I and II of Revision 2 of the Collector Service Bulletin have reduced the compliance times for certain actions below what was specified in the individual service bulletins listed in Revision 1 of the Collector Service Bulletin. The FAA finds that to reduce the compliance times in this way would necessitate issuance of a supplemental NPRM and reopening of the comment period to allow adequate time for public comment. The FAA finds that it is inappropriate to further delay issuance of the final rule in this way. Therefore, while this AD allows accomplishment of the actions in this AD in accordance with either Revision 1 or Revision 2 of the Collector Service Bulletin, the applicable compliance thresholds and repetitive intervals are those listed in the individual service bulletins listed in Tables I and II of Revision 1. Paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), which specify the compliance times for paragraph (a) of this AD, reference only Revision 1 of the Collector Service Bulletin, and a new note, “Note 2,” has been added to this final rule to clarify this issue.
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
One commenter supports the proposed rule.
One commenter notes that, though paragraph (a)(2) of the proposed rule provides a grace period of “one repetitive interval after the effective date of this AD” for the inspections specified in paragraph (a) of the proposed rule, certain inspections are one-time inspections and, therefore, do not have a repetitive interval.
The commenter makes no specific request for a change to the proposed rule. However, the FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA clarify the grace period for accomplishment of the subject one-time inspections. The FAA concurs that some clarification is needed, and notes that the inspections without repetitive intervals in Table I reference “Footnote 3,” which provides a grace period of the “next 'C' check not to exceed 14 months for aircraft exceeding threshold.” The FAA finds that a grace period of 14 months is adequate to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in a timely manner, without adversely affecting the safety of the airplane fleet. Therefore, paragraph (a)(2) of this AD has been revised to specify a grace period of 14 months after the effective date of this AD for the service bulletins listed in Tables I and II of the Collector Service Bulletin that do not specify a repetitive interval.
One commenter questions whether the repetitive inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-258, Revision 1, dated April 4, 1996, as listed in Table II of the Collector Service Bulletin, should be included in the proposed rule. The commenter notes that these inspections are already required by AD 95-17-03, amendment 39-9332 (60 FR 40753, August 10, 1995).
The commenter makes no specific request for a change to the proposed rule; however, the FAA infers that it is requesting that this AD eliminate the inspections in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-258, Revision 1, from the requirements of this AD. The FAA concurs. While the AD referenced by the commenter requires inspections with the original issue of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-258, dated February 20, 1990, the FAA finds that the inspections in accordance with that bulletin, as required by AD 95-17-03, are acceptable for compliance with this AD. Therefore, the FAA has revised paragraph (b) of this AD to state that the structural inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-258, Revision 1, are not required by this AD, and that equivalent inspections are already required by AD 95-17-03. The modifications of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-258, Revision 1, that terminate the inspections currently required by AD 95-17-03 are required by this AD.
The same commenter questions why the inspections in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 5, dated April 22, 1996, are included in the requirements of paragraph (a) of the proposed AD. The commenter points out that paragraph (e) of the proposed rule would require installation of the terminating modification in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-215, dated April 11, 1996, which eliminates the need for the inspections in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 5.
The FAA concurs with the commenter's intent, though not for the reason stated by the commenter. Accomplishment of the inspections described in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203 is necessary to ensure continued safety of the airplane fleet until accomplishment of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-215. However, the FAA notes that inspections similar to those specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 5, are currently required by AD 98-10-14, amendment 39-10526 (63 FR 26966, May 15, 1998). (AD 98-10-14 requires inspections in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 4, dated March 27, 1995, or Revision 6, dated August 18, 1997.) Thus, including these inspections in this AD would unnecessarily duplicate compliance requirements. Therefore, paragraph (b) of this AD has been revised to state that the structural
One commenter notes that the inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-249 are currently required as part of the requirements of AD 94-05-01, amendment 39-8839 (59 FR 10275, March 4, 1994). (AD 94-05-01 requires accomplishment of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-035, dated June 28, 1990—an older “Collector” service bulletin.) However, the proposed AD would reduce the repetitive inspection interval for the inspections in that bulletin from 5,000 to 4,500 flight cycles. The commenter requests that language be added to the proposed rule to acknowledge that accomplishment of the repetitive inspections in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-249, Revision 3, dated February 28, 1994, at 4,500 flight cycle intervals, in accordance with this AD, eliminates the need to record accomplishment of the inspections in that service bulletin as required by AD 94-05-01. The commenter notes that this will eliminate confusion and dual compliance tracking for operators.
The FAA partially concurs with the commenter's request. Because AD 94-05-01 requires accomplishment of another “Collector” service bulletin, which lists numerous service bulletins, the FAA is unable to revise the requirement to accomplish the actions in only one of those service bulletins without superseding that entire AD. Such an action cannot be undertaken in the context of this rulemaking action. Therefore, all of the requirements of AD 94-05-01 are still applicable. As noted by the commenter, this results in two parallel inspection requirements; operators will be responsible for tracking compliance for both requirements. However, the FAA notes that the inspection in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-249, Revision 3, need only be accomplished at the 4,500-flight-cycle interval required by this AD. To clarify this, a new note “Note 3” has been added following paragraph (a)(2) of this AD, to state, “The inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-249, Revision 3, dated February 28, 1994, are included in the requirements of both AD 94-05-01, amendment 39-8839, and paragraph (a) of this AD. Inspections in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-249, Revision 3, at the interval specified in Table I of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, as required by this AD, are acceptable for compliance with the inspections in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-249, Revision 3, required by AD 94-05-01.”
One commenter states that one of the purposes of Revision 1 of the Collector Service Bulletin was to require overhaul of the main landing gear (MLG) actuator within 10 years after previous modification or overhaul. The proper procedures for the MLG overhaul are described in Change Notice (CN) 1, dated September 21, 1998, for Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-32-238, Revision 3. However, Revision 1 of the Collector Service Bulletin references Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-32-238, Revision 3, with no mention of CN 1. The commenter asserts that the proposed AD would not mandate the MLG overhaul as intended.
The commenter makes no specific request for a change to the proposed AD. However, the FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the proposed rule be revised to reference CN 1 of the subject service bulletin. The FAA partially concurs. The FAA acknowledges that the current version of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-32-238 is Revision 3, as revised by CN 1. The FAA also notes that Revision 2 of the Collector Service Bulletin incorporates the correct reference. However, to revise the proposed AD to specify overhaul of the MLG actuator in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-32-238, Revision 3, as revised by CN 1, would necessitate reopening the comment period to allow adequate time for public comment. Because of the criticality of the unsafe condition addressed in this AD, the FAA finds that to delay issuance of the final rule in this way would be inappropriate. However, the FAA is considering further rulemaking to ensure that overhaul of the MLG actuator is accomplished in a timely manner in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-32-238, Revision 3, as revised by CN 1. A new paragraph, paragraph (e), has been added to this final rule (and subsequent paragraphs have been reordered accordingly) to specify that overhaul of the main landing gear actuator in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-32-238, Revision 3, dated April 11, 1996, as listed in Table II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997, is not required by paragraph (d) of this AD.
One commenter expresses concern regarding the inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-270, Revision 1, dated August 23, 1996, and the modification specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-271, dated October 18, 1995. The commenter operates several airplanes modified in accordance with a certain supplemental type certificate. The configuration of those airplanes will necessitate request for approval of alternative methods of compliance (AMOC) for the actions specified in these service bulletins. The commenter is concerned that it will not be able to accomplish the AMOC's within the compliance time proposed in this AD for those actions.
The commenter makes no specific request for a change to this AD. However, the FAA infers that it is requesting extension of the compliance time for the subject requirements. The FAA does not concur that such an extension is appropriate. The inspection threshold of 13,000 or 9,000 flight cycles (depending on airplane configuration) and repetitive inspection interval of 2,500 flight cycles for the actions in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-270, Revision 1, and the threshold of 20,000 flight cycles for the actions in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-271, were established based on consideration of structural damage risk, damage probability, and damage growth rate. As noted by the commenter, if the commenter's unique circumstances make it impossible to comply with the requirements of this AD as written, it will need to submit a request for approval of an AMOC, in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. The FAA finds that the compliance time is adequate for the commenter to submit its request for approval of an AMOC and for the FAA to review the request. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
One commenter requests that the proposed rule be revised to clearly indicate which revisions of the service bulletins associated with the rear spar modification are acceptable for terminating the rear spar inspections described in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203 (which, as described previously, are currently required by AD 98-10-14). The commenter notes that Revision 1 of the Collector Service Bulletin lists Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-184, Revisions 2 through 7, and Service Bulletin 093-57-196, Revisions
The FAA does not concur and has determined that no change to the final rule is necessary relevant to the commenter's request. This determination is based on the following:
• As explained previously, structural inspections equivalent to those specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 5, are required by AD 98-10-14. [Paragraph (b) of this final rule has been revised to clarify this information.]
• AD 98-10-14 correctly states terminating action for the requirements of that AD. Therefore, use of any other revision to accomplish the modifications would necessitate request for approval of an AMOC in accordance with paragraph (c) of AD 98-10-14.
• Current revisions of the referenced modification bulletins, as well as Revision 2 of the Collector Service Bulletin (described previously), correctly indicate which revisions are acceptable for terminating the inspections in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203.
• Section 2.B. of Revisions 1 and 2 of the Collector Service Bulletin (page 9) states, “Aircraft effectivity, inspection thresholds, and repeat inspection intervals are shown for convenience, and in the event of conflicts, the individual service bulletin shall take precedence.”
One commenter requests an increase in the compliance threshold for the modification of the rear spar on Model L-1011-385-3 series airplanes specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-215, dated April 11, 1996, as listed in Table II of the Collector Service Bulletin. The commenter states that the proposed compliance threshold would preclude accomplishment of the rear spar modification during a regularly scheduled maintenance visit, thus increasing the cost of the modification for operators. The commenter requests that the compliance time be increased to coincide with the compliance threshold for a similar modification on Model L-1011-385-1 series airplanes. The commenter points out that current proposed thresholds for inspection and modification of the rear spar on the Model L-1011-385-3 series airplanes are lower, in terms of accumulated flight cycles, and earlier, in terms of design-life goal, than currently required actions on the Model L-1011-385-1 series airplanes. The commenter separately notes that while the L-1011-385-1 series airplanes are approaching 83 percent of the 36,000 flight-cycle design-life goal, the L-1011-385-1-14, L-1011-385-1-15, and L-1011-385-3 series airplanes are at less than 50 percent of this goal. The commenter justifies its request on the basis that Model L-1011-385-3 series airplanes are younger and accumulate flight cycles at a lower rate than L-1011-385-1 series airplanes.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request to increase the compliance threshold. The proposed compliance time for the modification of the rear spar on Model L-1011-385-3 series airplanes is based on established service history and predicted fatigue cracking. The FAA has determined that the unique characteristics of Model L-1011-385-3 series airplanes (principally, higher fuel loading than on Model L-1011-385-1 series airplanes) make it necessary to require modification of the rear spar at a lower threshold relative to the Model L-1011-385-1 series. Because of these unique characteristics, inspection thresholds and repetitive intervals are consistently lower for actions affecting the wing rear spar on Model L-1011-385-3 series airplanes than for actions affecting the same area on Model L-1011-385-1 series airplanes. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
One commenter requests that any airplane on which a rear spar modification has been installed previously be excluded from the requirement to accomplish Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-194, Revision 3, dated April 11, 1994, as listed in Table II of the Collector Service Bulletin. The commenter states that it sees little benefit in listing this requirement for any airplanes subject to AD 94-05-01, and the requirement should only apply to airplanes on which the rear spar has not been modified.
The FAA does not concur that any change to this AD is necessary. For the service bulletin referenced by the commenter, Table II of the Collector Service Bulletin clearly states, “Rear spar web replacement per Service Bulletin 093-57-184, 093-57-196, or 093-57-215 terminates these requirements.” The FAA finds that no clarification and no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
One commenter requests that Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-256, Revision 1, dated October 7, 1991, be removed from the listing of structural modifications in Table II of the Collector Service Bulletin. The commenter points out that there are certain inspection findings addressed by repetitive inspections and not by the immediate installation of a terminating modification.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The intent of this AD is that the inspections specified in Table II of the Collector Service Bulletin be accomplished according to the schedule cited in that bulletin, and that the specified terminating or corrective action be accomplished, unless otherwise noted in this AD. For the specific service bulletin referenced by the commenter, Table II states, “Terminate repeat inspections of Part I by performing Part II inspection and disposition of inspection findings per Service Bulletin 093-53-256 R1.” The FAA finds that these instructions are clear, and no change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
One commenter points out that Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-271, dated October 18, 1995, listed in Table II of the Collector Service Bulletin, is not an inspection bulletin. The commenter notes that inspections are contained in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-A271, as required by AD 95-10-17, amendment 39-9234 (60 FR 26683, May 18, 1995).
The commenter makes no specific request for a change to the proposal. The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the FAA acknowledge that there are no inspections in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-271. The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The listing in Table II of the Collector Service Bulletin for Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-271 refers to Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-A271, dated April 25, 1995, as the correct source of information for accomplishment of the inspections. The commenter is correct that AD 95-10-17 does require inspections in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-A271, dated April 25, 1995. However, Revision 2 of the Collector Service Bulletin correctly notes that the
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 214 Model L-1011-385 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 107 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
It will take approximately 315 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspections, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspections required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,022,300, or $18,900 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
It will take approximately 3,385 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required modifications, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $242,000 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the modifications required by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $47,625,700, or $445,100 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (g) 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 corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Except as provided by paragraph (b) of this AD, perform structural inspections to detect corrosion or fatigue cracking of certain structural elements of the airplane, in accordance with the applicable service bulletins listed under “Service Bulletin Number, Revision, and Date” in Tables I and II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997, or Revision 2, dated October 21, 1999. Perform the initial inspections at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, repeat each inspection at an interval not to exceed that specified in the applicable service bulletin listed in Revision 1 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040.
(1) Prior to the threshold specified in the individual service bulletin listed in Table I or II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, as applicable.
(2) Within one repetitive interval after the effective date of this AD, as specified in the individual service bulletin listed in Table I or II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, as applicable; or within 14 months after the effective date of this AD for the service bulletins in Tables I and II that do not specify a repetitive interval; as applicable.
Operators should note that paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD reference only Revision 1 of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040. Certain new revisions of the individual service bulletins listed in Tables I and II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 2, have reduced the compliance times below those specified in the service bulletin revision levels listed in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1. While this AD allows accomplishment of the actions in this AD in accordance with either Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, or Revision 2, the applicable compliance thresholds and repetitive intervals are those listed in the individual service bulletins listed in Table I or II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1.
The inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-249, Revision 3, dated February 28, 1994, are included in the requirements of both AD 94-05-01, amendment 39-8839, and paragraph (a) of this AD. Inspections in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-249, Revision 3, at the interval specified in Table I of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040,
(b) The following service bulletins listed in Table II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997, and Revision 2, dated October 21, 1999, are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(1) The structural inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletins 093-53-268, Revision 1, dated July 2, 1996, and 093-53-272, Revision 1, dated March 17, 1997, are not required by this AD. The inspections specified in these service bulletins are required by AD 99-08-20, amendment 39-11128.
(2) The structural inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-258, Revision 1, dated April 4, 1996, are not required by this AD. Inspections equivalent to those specified in that bulletin are required by AD 95-17-03, amendment 39-9332.
(3) The structural inspections specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 5, dated April 22, 1996, are not required by this AD. Inspections equivalent to those specified in that bulletin are required by AD 98-10-14, amendment 39-10526.
(c) If any cracking is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish the actions specified in paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), or (c)(4) of this AD.
(1) Repair in accordance with the applicable service bulletin referenced in Table I or II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997, or Revision 2, dated October 21, 1999.
(2) Repair in accordance with the applicable section of the Lockheed L-1011 Structural Repair Manual.
(3) Accomplish the terminating modification in accordance with the applicable service bulletin referenced in Table I or II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997, or Revision 2, dated October 21, 1999.
(4) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.
(d) Except as provided by paragraph (e) of this AD, install the terminating modification referenced in each service bulletin listed in Table II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997, or Revision 2, dated October 21, 1999; in accordance with the applicable service bulletin listed under “Service Bulletin Number, Revision, and Date” in Table II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1 or Revision 2. Except as provided by paragraph (f) of this AD, install each modification at the later of the times specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this AD. Such installation constitutes terminating action for the applicable structural inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD.
(1) Prior to the threshold specified in the applicable service bulletin listed in Table II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1 or Revision 2.
(2) Within 5 years or 5,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
Installation of the terminating modifications specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-268, Revision 1, dated July 2, 1996, and Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-53-272, dated November 12, 1996, does not constitute terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of AD 99-08-20, amendment 39-11128.
(e) Overhaul of the main landing gear actuator in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-32-238, Revision 3, dated April 11, 1996, as listed in Table II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997, is not required by paragraph (d) of this AD.
(f) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD: Install the terminating modification listed in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-215, as referenced in Table II of Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997, or Revision 2, dated October 21, 1999. Such installation constitutes terminating action for the inspections required by AD 98-10-14, amendment 39-10526.
(1) Prior to the threshold specified in Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-57-203, Revision 5, dated April 22, 1996.
(2) Within 2 years or 2,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(g) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
(h) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(i) Except as provided by paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) of this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 1, dated October 1, 1997; or Lockheed Service Bulletin 093-51-040, Revision 2, dated October 21, 1999. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Lockheed Martin Aircraft & Logistics Center, 120 Orion Street, Greenville, South Carolina 29605. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(j) This amendment becomes effective on November 24, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all British Aerospace BAe Model ATP airplanes. This action requires repetitive inspections to detect damage of the torque link apex joint of the left-and right-hand main landing gear (MLG); and replacement of nuts, pins, and bolts with new parts, if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent separation of the top and bottom torque links, and consequent loss of directional control of the MLG. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective November 6, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 6, 2000.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before November 20, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-123-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Norman B. Martenson, Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2110; fax (425) 227-1149.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on all British Aerospace BAe Model ATP airplanes. The CAA advises that it received reports of failures of the torque links of the main landing gear (MLG). The failures have occurred at the bolt assembly (apex joint) that attaches the top link to the bottom link. The failures are caused by wear in the threads of the pin and nut of the bolt assembly. This wear is caused by lateral oscillatory loading of the joint coupled with its normal movement as the MLG oleo compresses and extends. Excessive wear in the threads can result in loss of the nut and separation of the joint when the attachment pin migrates from its bushes in the torque links. Separation of the top and bottom torque links could result in loss of directional control of the MLG.
British Aerospace has issued Service Bulletin ATP-32-99, dated February 21, 2000. The service bulletin references Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-263, including Appendix A, dated February 1, 2000, as an additional source of service information for accomplishment of the recommended actions. The Messier-Dowty service bulletin describes procedures for repetitive inspections to detect damage of the torque link apex joint of the left-and right-hand MLG; and replacement of nuts, pins, and bolts with new parts, if necessary.
The CAA classified the British Aerospace service bulletin as mandatory and issued British airworthiness directive 008-02-2000 in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom.
This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.19) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the CAA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, this AD is being issued to prevent separation of the top and bottom torque links, and consequent loss of directional control of the MLG. This AD requires accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins described previously.
None of the BAe Model ATP airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. All airplanes included in the applicability of this rule currently are operated by non-U.S. operators under foreign registry; therefore, they are not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that any of these subject airplanes are imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should an affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it would require approximately 2 work hours to accomplish the required actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this AD would be $120 per airplane.
Since this AD action does not affect any airplane that is currently on the U.S. register, it has no adverse economic impact and imposes no additional burden on any person. Therefore, prior notice and public procedures hereon are unnecessary and the amendment may be made effective in less than 30 days after publication in the
Although this action is in the form of a final rule and was not preceded by notice and opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-123-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent separation of the top and bottom torque links, and consequent loss of directional control of the main landing gear (MLG), accomplish the following:
(a) Within 800 landings or 4 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform an inspection to detect damage of the torque link apex joint of the left- and right-hand MLG, in accordance with British Aerospace Service Bulletin ATP-32-99, dated February 21, 2000, and Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-263, including Appendix A, dated February 1, 2000. If any damage exceeds the limit specified in the Messier-Dowty service bulletin, prior to further flight, replace the nut, bolt, and pin with new parts, as applicable, in accordance with that service bulletin. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 landings.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with British Aerospace Service
Bulletin ATP-32-99, dated February 21, 2000, and Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin 200-32-263, including Appendix A, dated February 1, 2000. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in British airworthiness directive 008-02-2000.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on November 6, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes, that requires revising the Airplane Flight Manual to include new flight operational procedures for the fuel system; repetitive inspections of the trim transfer fuel line in the vicinity of the aft pressure bulkhead located between frame (FR) 77 and FR86 to detect any discrepancy; and corrective actions, if necessary. This amendment also requires modification of the air release valve in the fuel trim tank transfer system, which constitutes terminating action for the requirements of this AD. This amendment is prompted by issuance of mandatory continuing airworthiness information by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent damage to the fuel trim transfer system, which could cause rupture of the trim transfer fuel line due to pressure build-up, and result in fuel leakage from that fuel line. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective November 24, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 24, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained
Norman B. Martenson, Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2110; fax (425) 227-1149.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Airbus Model A330 and A340 series airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 3 Airbus Model A330 series airplanes of U.S. Registry will be affected by this AD.
It will require approximately 1 work hour to accomplish the revision to the AFM, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on this figure, the cost impact of the AFM revision required by this AD action will be $180, or $60 per airplane.
It will require approximately 2 work hours to accomplish each inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on this figure, the cost impact of each inspection required by this AD action will be $360, or $120 per airplane.
It will require approximately 3 work hours to accomplish the installation of the additional pressure relief valves in the fuel trim tank, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on this figure, the cost impact of the installation required by this AD action will be $540, or $180 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) 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 damage to the fuel trim transfer system, which could cause rupture of the trim transfer fuel line due to pressure build-up, and result in fuel leakage from that line; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 10 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations and Normal Procedures section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the information specified in Airbus Temporary Revision (TR) 4.03.00/09, TR 4.03.00/10, and TR 4.03.00/12 (for Model A330 series airplanes); or TR 4.03.00/20 (for Model A340 series airplanes); all dated July 23, 1999; as applicable.
The AFM revision required by paragraph (a) of this AD may be accomplished by inserting a copy of the applicable TR into the applicable section of the AFM. When the temporary revisions required by paragraph (a) of this AD have been incorporated into the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions may be inserted into the AFM, provided that the information contained in the general revisions is identical to that specified in the temporary revisions.
(b) Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a detailed
Inspections accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with Operator Information Telex/Flight Operations Telex (OIT/FOT) 999.0142/98, dated December 23, 1998, are considered acceptable for compliance with the INITIAL detailed visual inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD.
(1) If any discrepancy is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (b) of this AD, prior to further flight, accomplish applicable corrective actions [including replacement of any damaged components and deactivation of the trim fuel pipe isolation valve and auxiliary power unit (APU) isolation valve] in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions and Figure 2 of the applicable service bulletin.
(2) If the isolation valves of the trim fuel pipe and APU are deactivated in accordance with the FAA-approved Master Minimum Equipment List during accomplishment of the corrective actions required by paragraph (b)(1) of this AD: Within 10 days after deactivation, replace the pipe shroud and pipe, as applicable, and reactivate the valves, in accordance with the applicable service bulletin.
(c) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, modify the air release valve (ARV) in the trim tank system (including cleaning and lubricating certain components, installing two additional pressure relief valves, and installing the adapter and ARV) in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3063 or A340-28-4079, both dated October 6, 1999, as applicable. Accomplishment of such modification constitutes terminating action for the AFM revisions and the repetitive inspections required by this AD.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(e) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(f) The actions shall be done in accordance with Airbus Temporary Revision 4.03.00/09, dated July 23, 1999; Airbus Temporary Revision 4.03.00/10, dated July 23, 1999; Airbus Temporary Revision 4.03.00/12, dated July 23, 1999; Airbus Temporary Revision 4.03.00/20, dated July 23, 1999; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3060, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated May 27, 1999; Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4077, Revision 02, including Appendix 01, dated May 27, 1999; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-28-3063, dated October 6, 1999; and Airbus Service Bulletin A340-28-4079, dated October 6, 1999; as applicable. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directives 1999-046-091(B), Revision 4 (for Model A330 series airplanes), and 1999-045-111(B), Revision 4 (for Model A340 series airplanes), both dated December 15, 1999.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on November 24, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Model Astra SPX and 1125 Westwind Astra series airplanes, that requires a one-time inspection of the position of the aileron autopilot servo and attachment arm; follow-on actions; and corrective actions, if necessary; and installation of a stopper angle on the servo bracket. This action is necessary to prevent the control link of the aileron autopilot servo from being driven overcenter, which could result in roll oscillations when the autopilot is engaged. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective November 24, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 24, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Galaxy Aerospace Corporation, One Galaxy Way, Fort Worth Alliance Airport, Fort Worth, Texas 76177. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Norman B. Martenson, Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2110; fax (425) 227-1149.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Model Astra SPX and 1125 Westwind Astra series airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public.
The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 38 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $100 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $8,360, or $220 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent the control link of the aileron autopilot servo from being driven overcenter, which could result in roll oscillations when the autopilot is engaged, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 50 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time general visual inspection of the aileron autopilot servo and attaching linkage to determine whether the attachment arm on the servo is in the correct position, in accordance with Astra (Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd.) Alert Service Bulletin 1125-27A-157, dated September 14, 1999.
(1) If the attachment arm is in the correct position, prior to further flight, install a stopper angle on the servo bracket in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(2) If the attachment arm is in the incorrect position, prior to further flight, perform a general visual inspection to detect damage of the bellcrank arm, control link, and attachment arm, in accordance with the alert service bulletin. Prior to further flight after accomplishment of all applicable corrective actions specified by this paragraph, install a stopper angle on the servo bracket in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(i) If no damage is detected, prior to further flight, reposition the attachment arm in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(ii) If any damage is detected and the damage is within the limits specified by the alert service bulletin, prior to further flight, repair the damaged part in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(iii) If any damage is detected and the damage exceeds the limits specified by the alert service bulletin, prior to further flight, replace the damaged part with a new part in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
For the purposes of this AD, a general visual inspection is defined as: “A visual examination of an interior or exterior area, installation, or assembly to detect obvious damage, failure, or irregularity. This level of inspection is made under normally available lighting conditions such as daylight, hangar lighting, flashlight, or drop-light, and may require removal or opening of access panels or doors. Stands, ladders, or platforms may be required to gain proximity to the area being checked.”
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with Astra (Israel Aircraft Industries Ltd.) Alert Service Bulletin 1125-27A-157, dated September 14, 1999. This incorporation by
(e) This amendment becomes effective on November 24, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes, that requires installation of sleeving on the 90-minute auxiliary power unit (APU) standby power feeder cable at body station 1351. This amendment is prompted by a report of damage to the 90-minute APU standby power feeder cable caused by shifting of unrestrained cargo containers during flight. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent damage to the 90-minute APU standby power feeder cable, which could result in arcing between the standby power feeder cable and the shroud of the APU fuel line, penetration of the fuel line shroud, and a consequent fire in the main deck floor above the aft cargo compartment.
Effective November 24, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 24, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Dennis Kammers, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2956; fax (425) 227-1181.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.
The commenter notes that paragraph (a) of the proposal states, “Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, install sleeving on the 90-minute APU standby power feeder cable at body station 1351 on the left side of the airplane * * *” The commenter also reiterates a portion of the Discussion section that reads, “The cargo containers damaged the 90-minute APU standby power feeder cable and the cabin floor support beam at body station 1351, on the right side of the airplane. Investigation revealed evidence of arcing between the cable and the beam.” The commenter inquires as to why there is no proposed requirement for sleeving of the cable on the right-hand side of the airplane. The commenter further states that even though the fuel line is not on the right-hand side of the airplane, any cable arcing may still become a potential hazard and should be addressed. Therefore, the commenter requests that paragraph (a) of the proposal be revised to read, “* * * on the left and right sides of the airplane * * *”
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. Accomplishment of the corrective action of the APU standby power feeder cable, as required by paragraph (a) of the final rule, is to reduce the fire hazard associated with an unrestrained cargo container impacting the cable. Damaging the cable in the region specified could cause arcing against the APU fuel line shroud, which could penetrate the fuel line and result in a cabin fire. The arcing damage between the APU standby power feeder cable and the cargo floor beam, which was reported in the initial investigation, although serious in nature, was not deemed an unsafe condition or a threat to continued safe operation of the airplane. Further investigation determined that no structural or fire concerns resulted from the incident. Therefore, sleeving of the standby power feeder cable is necessary only in areas where damage to the cable may cause arcing to the APU fuel line. No change to paragraph (a) of the final rule is necessary in this regard.
After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
There are approximately 151 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 14 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required action, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $840, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations 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
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent damage to the 90-minute auxiliary power unit (APU) standby power feeder cable, which could result in arcing between the standby power feeder cable and the shroud of the APU fuel line, penetration of the fuel line shroud, and a consequent fire in the main deck floor above the aft cargo compartment, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, install sleeving on the 90-minute APU standby power feeder cable at body station 1351 on the left side of the airplane, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-24A0126, dated February 24, 2000.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The installation shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-24A0126, dated February 24, 2000. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on November 24, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes, that requires a detailed visual inspection to detect evidence of wear or contact between the precooler support fitting and link assembly; and rework and reidentification of the fitting. This amendment is prompted by a report of rupturing of a diffuser case on a PW JT9D-7Q engine due to cracking in the outer pressure wall in the rear skirt area. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent contact between the precooler support link and the precooler support fitting, which could contribute to an uncontained failure of the diffuser case and damage to the airplane.
Effective November 24, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 24, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Dionne Krebs, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2250; fax (425) 227-1181.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 747 series airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
One commenter states that the reidentification part number (P/N) 65B09024-601, as specified in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) of the proposal, is incorrect, and should be revised to P/N 65B90924-601. The FAA concurs with the commenter's statement; there was an error in the part number specified in the proposed rule and it has been corrected in the applicable paragraphs of the final rule.
One commenter repeats a sentence in the Discussion section of the proposal which states, “The diffuser case fracture was due to a crack that most likely developed in a toolmark that was left by a blending operation adjacent to the dog-bone-shaped embossment at the 11 o'clock circumferential location of the outer pressure wall of the case in the area of the rear skirt.” The commenter requests information on the action that has been taken to address the toolmark and blending issue that is the apparent root cause of the unsafe condition.
The FAA previously issued AD 99-04-05, amendment 39-11029 (64 FR 6784, February 11, 1999), which addresses the toolmark and blending issue. That AD requires a fluorescent penetrant inspection (FPI) of the rear skirt of the diffuser case for cracks, and, if necessary, blending down to a minimum wall thickness to remove cracks and subsequent FPI to determine if cracks have been removed, polishing, and shotpeening. If the cracks are shown by subsequent FPI not to have been removed, that AD requires removing the diffuser case from service and replacing it with a serviceable part. No change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.
One commenter requests the proposal be revised to reference Boeing Service Bulletin 747-36-2135 for accomplishment of the bracket modification. The commenter states that Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-36-089, dated August 10, 1998 (the service information referenced in the proposal for accomplishment of the bracket modification), will be revised to refer to the new service bulletin for the modification instructions. The commenter disagrees with the wording in the proposal stating that the service letter will be revised to reidentify the P/N on the bracket, and plans to revise the service letter to reference the new service bulletin, which will contain modification instructions for the bracket.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. The referenced service bulletin has not been submitted for review and approval by the FAA; therefore, the final rule cannot be revised to cite as-yet unapproved service information. However, under the provisions of paragraph (c) of the final rule, the FAA may approve requests for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 747-36-2135 after it has been approved by the FAA and submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety that addresses the identified unsafe condition. Additionally, the proposal does not state that the service letter will be revised to reidentify the P/N on the bracket. No change to the final rule is necessary in this regard.
One commenter requests the proposed compliance time for accomplishment of the detailed visual inspection be extended to “Within 8,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,” with no calendar grace period. The commenter states that, since removal of the precooler is necessary to accomplish the rework, the task is best accomplished during a scheduled ‘L,’ ‘H,’ or ‘M’ maintenance check of the airplane. The commenter also states that an extension of the compliance time will ensure that it can accomplish the inspection on all of its affected airplanes during one of the scheduled checks described above.
The FAA does not concur with the commenter's request. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this action, the FAA considered not only the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, but the manufacturer's recommendation as to an appropriate compliance time, and the practical aspect of accomplishing the required inspection and rework within an interval of time that parallels the normal scheduled maintenance for the majority of affected operators. The FAA has determined that 6,000 hours, time-in-service or 18 months represents an appropriate compliance time allowable for the inspection and rework to be accomplished during scheduled maintenance intervals. However, under the provisions of paragraph (c) of the final rule, the FAA may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment would provide an acceptable level of safety.
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the changes previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 79 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 27 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD.
It will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,240, or $120 per airplane.
It will take approximately 16 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required rework, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. No parts are required to accomplish the rework. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required rework on U.S. operators is estimated to be $25,920, or $960 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent contact between the precooler support link and the precooler support fitting, which could contribute to an uncontained failure of the diffuser case and damage to the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For any precooler support fitting having P/N 65B90924-1 or P/N 65B90924-600 that has not been reworked to the dimensions specified in Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-36-089, dated August 10, 1998: Within 6,000 hours time-in-service after the effective date of this AD, or within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, perform a detailed visual inspection to detect evidence of contact wear or contact between the precooler support fitting and link assembly, P/N 69B93162-1 or 69B93162-3, in accordance with the service letter.
(1) If no evidence of contact wear or contact between the precooler support fitting and link assembly is found: At the next engine removal, rework the precooler support fitting to the dimensions specified in the service letter, in accordance with the service letter; and permanently and legibly reidentify the support fitting as P/N 65B90924-601.
(2) If any evidence of contact wear or contact between the precooler support fitting and link assembly is found: Prior to further flight, rework the precooler support fitting to the dimensions specified in the service letter, in accordance with the service letter; and permanently and legibly reidentify the support fitting as P/N 65B90924-601.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed visual inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(b) For any precooler support fitting having P/N 65B90924-1 or P/N 65B90924-600 that has been reworked to the dimensions specified in Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-36-089, dated August 10, 1998, but has not been permanently and legibly reidentified: Within 6,000 hours time-in-service or 18 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, permanently and legibly reidentify the reworked fitting as P/N 65B90924-601.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) Except as provided by paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), and (b) of this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Service Letter 747-SL-36-089, including attachment, dated August 10, 1998. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on November 24, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP's) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of
An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
Incorporation by reference—approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAP's. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 14 CFR 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Form 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAP's, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. The SIAP's contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports.
The FAA has determined through testing that current non-localizer type, non-precision instrument approaches developed using the TERPS criteria can be flown by aircraft equipped with a Global Positioning System (GPS) and or flight Management System (FMS) equipment. In consideration of the above, the applicable SIAP's will be altered to include “or GPS or FMS” in the title without otherwise reviewing or modifying the procedure. (Once a stand alone GPS or FMS procedure is developed, the procedure title will be altered to remove “or GPS or FMS” from these non-localizer, non-precision instrument approach procedure titles.)
The FAA has determined through extensive analysis that current SIAP's intended for use by Area Navigation (RNAV) equipped aircraft can be flown by aircraft utilizing various other types of navigational equipment. In consideration of the above, those SIAP's currently designated as “RNAV” will be redesignated as “VOR/DME RNAV” without otherwise reviewing or modifying the SIAP's.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAP's and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are, impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113-40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which affected airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description on each SIAP is contained in the appropriate FAA Form 8260 and the National Flight Data Center (FDC)/Permanent (P) Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) which are incorporated by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation's Regulations (FAR). Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes SIAPs. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained in the content of the following FDC/P NOTAMs for each SIAP. The SIAP information in some previously designated FDC/Temporary (FDC/T) NOTAMs is of such duration as to be permanent. With conversion to FDC/P NOTAMs, the respective FDC/T NOTAMs have been canceled.
The FDC/P NOTAMs for the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these chart changes to SIAPs by FDC/P NOTAMs, the TERPS criteria were applied to only these specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30 days.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the TERPS. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; 49 U.S.C. 106(g); and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AmcAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK. 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK. 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or revoking Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Final rule.
This document establishes new Federal motor vehicle safety standard (FMVSS) No. 401; Internal trunk release, that requires all new passenger cars with trunks be equipped with a release latch inside the trunk compartment beginning September 1, 2001. Instead of a release latch, this document also permits the installation of an alternative system such as a passive trunk release system which would detect the presence of a human in the trunk and would automatically unlatch the trunk lid. During the summer of 1998, eleven children died when they inadvertently trapped themselves in the trunk of a car. This new standard will provide children and others who find themselves trapped inside a passenger car trunk a chance to get out of the trunk alive.
In your petition for reconsideration, you should refer to the docket number and notice number at the beginning of this final rule, and submit the petition for reconsideration to: Administrator, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590.
Kenneth O. Hardie, Office of Crash Avoidance Standards, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington DC 20590. Mr. Hardie's telephone number is (202) 366-6987 and his facsimile number is (202) 493-2739.
The issue of motor vehicle trunk entrapment was initially raised in May
After reviewing the petition and the available relevant information, NHTSA published a notice of denial of petition for rulemaking which concluded that the likelihood of an internal trunk lever ever being used was remote (49 FR 47277; December 3, 1984). NHTSA stated in 1984 that it was not aware of any data indicating that there is much likelihood of occurrence of unintentional entrapment in a vehicle's trunk. NHTSA's rationale for its conclusion stated that trunk lids are spring-loaded in the open position and, therefore, not likely to close by themselves with someone inside. Because the lids are spring loaded, it is difficult to close the trunk from any position except standing behind the vehicle and pushing down on the outer surface of the trunk lid. From that position, a person has a full view of the trunk interior. The agency stated that it believed it would be extremely unlikely that a person would accidentally close the lid with someone inside. Concerning an elderly person falling into the trunk, the petitioner suggested that entrapment could occur if snow on the trunk closed the lid when the person fell. It was unclear to NHTSA how the trunk would entrap the person in this circumstance, since it is unlikely that the individual would fall in such a way that more than his or her upper torso is inside the trunk. Again, in this situation, NHTSA stated its belief that an internal trunk release lever would not likely need to be used.
The 1984 notice stated that NHTSA was aware that victims of crime or pranks are, on occasion, purposely locked in the trunk of a vehicle. However, the petitioner did not provide any data supporting the benefits of an internal release mechanism in these circumstances. The agency did not and still does not know, for example, how often a victim of a crime or prank who is purposely locked in a vehicle's trunk might also be secured so that an internal release mechanism could not be operated.
Between May 1984 and July 1998, NHTSA received approximately two dozen letters expressing concern about trunk entrapments. In no case was data provided to the agency about the size of this safety problem.
In June 1998, Congress directed NHTSA to conduct a study of the benefits to the public of a regulation requiring the installation in motor vehicles of an interior device to release the trunk lid. NHTSA was required to submit a report on the results of the study to Congress by December 1999. Additionally, during a three-week period between July and August of 1998, eleven children died in three separate incidents when they locked themselves in the trunk of an automobile.
In September 1998, NHTSA began to gather all available information on the issue of trunk entrapments. In general, it appears that the victims of trunk entrapment include two distinct categories: people who are intentionally locked in a motor vehicle trunk by criminals and people, mostly children, who inadvertently lock themselves in the trunk. The problem's solution requires some understanding of criminal and child behavior, the human factors problem of designing a mechanism that children and others will be able to operate quickly when frightened and in the dark, and other issues including location and possible power requirements. Considering the broad array of issues, NHTSA decided that instead of having the government develop a solution on its own, a more effective way of addressing and understanding the issue would be to bring business, government and civic leaders, medical and engineering researchers and a broad coalition of concerned organizations together to work to prevent trunk entrapments. To accomplish this, NHTSA decided to convene an independent panel of experts.
In November 1998, NHTSA asked Ms. Heather Paul of the National Safe Kids Campaign to chair an Expert Panel for the purpose of developing recommendations and strategies by mid-1999 for addressing the issue of deaths and injuries resulting from motor vehicle trunk entrapment. The Expert Panel on Trunk Entrapment consisted of representatives from various industries, including vehicle manufacturers, law enforcement groups, experts in child psychology and behavior, child safety advocates, the medical community, other Federal government agencies, and other interested parties. NHTSA officials were not members of the panel, but attended all meetings as observers. NHTSA's role was to be available to provide information and advice to the Panel members when asked, on issues such as outreach, marketing, education, training, existing federal standards, research and statistical information.
This Expert Panel met three times in Washington, DC, in January, March, and May 1999. At the first meeting, at the request of the Panel's chairperson, NHTSA presented an overview of the available data on the size of the safety problem. NHTSA's report is available in the public docket in both its original and revised form (Docket No. NHTSA 1999-5063-2 and 5063-3, respectively). The report concluded that existing Federal databases had very little information on the problem of trunk entrapment, and described our search of data collected by this agency, as well as the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Center for Health Statistics, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The available data indicated there have been 21 deaths in 11 incidents of inadvertent trunk entrapment from 1987 to 1999.
Also at the first meeting, Janette Fennell of Trunk Releases Urgently Needed Coalition (TRUNC), a non-profit group dedicated to improving trunk safety, made a presentation suggesting that trunk entrapments happen with greater regularity than is generally believed. Ms. Fennell said that, as of January 1999, she had gathered anecdotal evidence and media reports of more than 900 cases of trunk entrapment. Ms. Fennell's presentation was followed by a presentation by Lenore Terr, a child psychologist. Ms. Terr explained that evidence suggests that small children basically “shut down” and passively wait for rescue in situations like trunk entrapment. Hence, she recommended that any trunk release must be very simple or it will not help small children.
The next presentation at the first meeting was by Mr. Robert Lange of General Motors Corporation (GM). Mr. Lange presented GM's research and trunk safety retrofit solution. GM's interior release mechanism is a handle that is lighted for 30 minutes after the trunk is closed. GM's research found that most 3- to 6-year old children could successfully use this handle. The success rate increased dramatically as children got older. However, Mr. Lange
The final presentation at the first meeting was by Wayne Lord, of the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. Mr. Lord said we learn about criminals by studying their reactions to certain situations or stimuli. These reactions allow one to predict likely future behavior when confronted with those situations or stimuli. There are currently no studies of which Mr. Lord is aware that involve the behavior of criminals who knew there was a trunk release inside the trunk. Hence, there is no scientific basis for predictions about what criminals will do if there are inside trunk releases (either harm or immobilize victims or ignore or forget about the trunk release). Any prediction as to which of these two courses criminals will take is just a guess, and the FBI will not do that.
At the second meeting of the Expert Panel on March 9, 1999, the first presentation was by Dr. Jonathan Arden, a forensic pathologist and the Medical Examiner for the District of Columbia. Dr. Arden provided a detailed medical description of asphyxiation and hyperthermia, the diagnoses on the death certificates of the children who died in the trunks of cars. Dr. Arden suggested the preferred approach would be to get the children out of the trunk as quickly as possible. The other presentation at the second meeting was by Lois Fingerhut of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), who gave information about the pilot program NHTSA and NCHS have undertaken to look at non-crash deaths in vehicles. Ms. Fingerhut gave out a copy of a standard death certificate and explained how and where the information on the cause of death is coded.
The Expert Panel spent a significant part of the second meeting discussing possible paths for getting inside trunk releases into vehicles. The options considered were:
1.
2.
3.
The Expert Panel did not decide on any one of these three options at its second meeting, but there was significant discussion of each of these courses of action. The Panel decided to wait to make any recommendation as to the approach it would recommend.
At the third meeting of the Expert Panel on May 3, 1999, Mr. Michael Stando of Ford Motor Company gave a presentation about the inside trunk release that will be original equipment on all of its model year 2000 cars. This decision by Ford affects 1.8 million cars and three latch suppliers. Mr. Stando said that Ford generated 22 different potential approaches. Ford consulted a psychologist specializing in child behavior. The psychologist said that the most natural response for children 18 months to 4 years old to an object that interests them is to grasp the object and pull it toward themselves, to put it in their mouth if they are younger and to visually examine it more closely if they are older. Mr. Stando stated that Ford human factors specialists then tested their symbol and symbol/handle recognition on 27 children between the ages of three and five. Eighteen of the 27 children achieved at least partial symbol/handle recognition. Ford's inside trunk release is cable-operated with a T-shaped handle. The handle is sized for a child's hand and made of polypropylene, like many food containers. Mr. Stando said that the handle has a phosphorescent “glow-in-the-dark” additive, so it needs no electrical power. The handle is quick-charging—it needs only 10 seconds of garage light to glow visibly inside the closed trunk. The glow was said to be very long-lasting (up to 8 hours when fully charged). The handle operates with a pull motion. It is low effort and requires only one inch of travel, factors designed to make the trunk release system child-friendly, according to Mr. Stando. In addition, this mechanism can be retrofitted on Ford cars from one to five model years back. Mr. Stando announced that Ford will make this release available as a retrofit option for these older vehicles.
As a result of the information and discussions at these three meetings, the Expert Panel announced a series of recommendations on June 8, 1999. One of these recommendations was that “[a]ll automobile manufacturers should design and install trunk safety features, including internal trunk release mechanisms, into all new vehicles by January 1, 2001.” Another recommendation was that NHTSA “should issue a standard requiring vehicles to be equipped with internal trunk release mechanisms.” The standard should hold the automobile industry accountable for taking action, yet allow manufacturers the freedom to determine optimal design solutions. Manufacturers are urged to pursue voluntary action rather than waiting for the effective date of this final rule.
On December 17, 1999, NHTSA published an NPRM in the
A significant number of commenters simply stated their support for the proposed rule. In general, the commenters can be categorized into four different groups, general public; vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, and associated trade associations; safety advocate institutions; and other groups and entities,
The following is a summary of issues raised and concerns expressed regarding the NPRM. These concerns and issues are as summarized below:
•
NHTSA's decision to limit the application of this new standard to passenger cars is based on the following information. The available data and anecdotal evidence of entrapment are associated with passenger cars only. There is essentially no mention of any entrapment having occurred in buses or trucks or in multipurpose passenger vehicles. Additionally, there does not appear to be evidence of accidental entrapment involving medium or heavy-duty vehicles. Medium and heavy-duty vehicles are not readily accessible to small unattended children to the same extent as are passenger cars.
With respect to buses, the School Bus Manufacturers Technical Council commented that,
The storage doors on school buses often are provided with latches and locking devices, and require a key to unlock and open. Unlike passenger cars, there is no lever or switch in the occupant compartment that unlocks and opens the storage compartment. If the compartment is locked, in order for entrapment to occur, the child would have to obtain a key from the bus driver or facility where the bus was stored or parked. It seems unlikely that a bus driver or other adult would give a bus key to a child.
In those instances where the storage compartment on a school bus does not require a key to unlock, the physical size and weight of the storage compartment door raise serious questions as to whether a child could open the door fully.” “If a child were able to fully open a storage compartment door on a school bus and climb into the storage compartment, it does not appear the child could then close the door behind himself or herself.
The same appears to be true for commercial passenger buses. For buses, and most trucks and multipurpose passenger vehicles, “trunks” consist of storage compartments contained in the exterior sides of the vehicles, usually below the floor of the passenger compartment. These storage compartments are used for storage of battery, luggage and/or cargo, the spare tire and tools, etc. The compartment doors (trunk lids) on these vehicles are typically contained in a vertical plane when closed and open outward and upward to allow items to be placed horizontally into the compartment (trunk). These doors are large, commonly 22 by 54 inches, and heavy, approximately 40 pounds.
Since the proposed rule offers no apparent benefits in its applicability to these other vehicle types,
If in the future, NHTSA concludes that trunk entrapment is a problem with multipurpose passenger vehicles, buses, and trucks, the agency will at that time evaluate the hazard and determine what solution will best prevent entrapment.
Concerning the applicability of this Standard to hatchbacks, if a movable body panel, that provides access to a space wholly partitioned from the occupant compartment, encloses that space upon closing a permanently attached lid such as a hatchback lid, then the closing lid is considered a trunk lid for the purposes of this rule.
•
Many trucks produced for commercial or vocational use have storage compartments (a movable body panel that provides access from outside the vehicle to a space wholly partitioned from the occupant compartment by a permanently attached partition or a fixed or fold-down seat back) that could be included under the “trunk lid” definition. This would include locking storage cabinets on the side of a truck body or roll up door of a beverage delivery truck. The National Truck Equipment Association (NTEA), recommended that the definition of trunk lid be clarified to exclude such storage compartments and/or that the scope of the proposal be restricted to vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating of 6,000 pounds or less. Many vehicle manufacturers, including General Motors, Ford Motor Company, Daimler Chrysler, Blue Bird Body Company, and the Truck Manufacturers Association recommended that NHTSA
•
NHTSA rejects the recommendation of using a rectangular box dimensioned to the specifications proposed by some of the automobile manufacturers,
•
NHTSA is aware that unlocking and opening a front opening trunk/hood while the vehicle is in motion results in a risk of injuring the driver, passenger and other motorist due to obstruction of the driver's forward view. However, we conclude that the interest in getting the victim out of the trunk is paramount. Therefore, the Standard No. 113 requirement for the secondary latch must be subservient to the requirement for an interior trunk release in those situations,
•
•
These manufacturers also stated that, if the final rule applies to non-passenger cars and depending on the definition of “trunk lid,” additional leadtime would be required, because it is not possible to estimate the time necessary to redesign latch systems and vehicles until they know which additional vehicles will be affected.
NHTSA has decided on an effective date for this Standard on September 1, 2001. This will provide a leadtime of approximately one year from the date of issuance of this final rule. This effective date will require manufacturers to finish any remaining design and production decision quickly, but allow them sufficient time to implement the changes at the start of a new model year.
•
Additionally, to assure that automatic systems exist in a manner consistent with the intent of this rulemaking, a requirement has been added regarding the performance of these systems. These systems must open the trunk lid within the first five minutes of an entrapment of a human being. We believe that this requirement will assure that the time of entrapment is sufficiently short that interior trunk temperature and heat will not cause a health crisis to entrapped persons. Thus, the text of S4, Requirements, has been modified to have a subsection for manual releases and a subsection for automatic releases.
•
One manufacturer asked if the agency would permit a special “valet” key feature that could mechanically block out the internal trunk latch release system. This “special valet key” allows the owner to mechanically override the electronic locking system of the vehicles and thus prevent anyone from accessing the trunk or its contents, even with the remote transmitter, should the owner be required to turn his vehicle over to a valet or parking attendant. As noted earlier, this feature mechanically blocks out the internal trunk latch.
NHTSA has typically organized its safety standards so that the 100 series of standards represents the crash avoidance standards (those designed to reduce the likelihood of being in a crash), the 200 series of standards represents the crashworthiness standards (those designed to protect the occupant in the event of a crash), and the 300 series of standards represents the post-crash fire standards (those designed to minimize the likelihood of a fire after a crash). A standard for an internal trunk release doesn't fit into any of these categories because there is no crash associated with the problem of becoming trapped inside a locked trunk. Therefore, we have decided to establish a new series of standards, the 400 series, that will be dedicated to motor vehicle injury prevention in non-crash events. This standard for internal trunk releases will therefore be Standard No. 401.
This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866. It is not significant within the meaning of the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures. Information indicates that an approach to internal trunk releases such as Ford's can be implemented for about $2.00 per vehicle. Thus, we anticipate total costs of about $14 million. This impact is so minimal as to not warrant the preparation of a full regulatory evaluation.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the effect of the rule on small entities (
This rulemaking action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132. This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on 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. Accordingly, NHTSA has determined that this rule will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Accordingly, a Federalism Assessment has not been prepared.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually. This rule would not have any such impacts on those parties. As noted above, the agency expects the costs associated with this rule to be about $2.00 per car, or about $14 million in the aggregate.
This rule is consistent with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113). Under the Act, “all Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.” There are no such standards available at this time. However, one of the Expert Panel's recommendations was that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) should begin work to develop a recommended practice for the design and performance of trunk safety features, including internal trunk release mechanisms. NHTSA will consider any such SAE recommended practice when it becomes available.
NHTSA has analyzed this rulemaking action for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that adoption of this rulemaking action as a final rule will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
This rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under section 49 U.S.C. 30103, whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state may not adopt or maintain a safety standard applicable to the same aspect of performance which is not identical to the Federal standard, except to the extent that the state requirement imposes a higher level of performance and applies only to vehicles procured for the State's use. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. That section does not require submission of a petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court.
This rule does not have any requirements that are considered to be information collection requirements as defined by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 5 CFR Part 1320.
Imports, Incorporation by reference, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tires.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166 and 30177; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
(a) Is intended to be used for carrying luggage,
(b) Is wholly separated from the occupant compartment of a passenger car by a permanently attached partition or by a fixed or fold-down seat back and/or partition,
(c) Has a trunk lid, and
(d) Is large enough so that the three-year-old child dummy described in Subpart C of Part 572 can be placed inside the trunk compartment and, with the test dummy in the trunk compartment, the trunk lid can be closed and latched. (Note: For purposes of this standard, the Part 572 Subpart C test dummy need not be equipped with the accelerometers specified in Part 572.21.)
S4.1 Each passenger car with a trunk compartment must have an automatic or manual release mechanism inside the trunk compartment that unlatches the trunk lid.
S4.2(a) Each manual release mechanism installed pursuant to S4.1 of this section must include a feature, like lighting or phosphorescence, that allows the release mechanism to be easily seen inside the closed trunk.
(b) Each automatic release mechanism installed pursuant to S4.1 of this section must unlatch the trunk lid within 5 minutes of when the lid is closed with a person inside the trunk compartment.
S4.3 Actuation of each release mechanism required by S4.1 of this section must completely release the trunk lid from all latching positions of the trunk lid latch, notwithstanding the requirements of any other standards in part 571 of this title.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Inseason transfer.
NMFS adjusts the October-December subquota for the General category Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT) fishery by transferring 25 metric tons (mt) from the Reserve, 15 mt from the Longline North subcategory quota, and 60 mt from the Angling category (large school size class for the northern area), for a revised coastwide General category subquota of approximately 264.4 mt for October-December, including addition of underharvest from the previous time periods. These actions are being taken to allow for maximum utilization of the U.S. landings quota of BFT while maintaining a fair distribution of fishing opportunities, preventing overharvest of the adjusted subquotas for the affected fishing categories, helping achieve optimum yield in the General category fishery, and allowing the collection of a broad range of data for stock monitoring purposes, consistent with the objectives of the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP).
Effective October 17, 2000 until December 31, 2000.
Pat Scida, 978-281-9208.
Regulations implemented under the authority of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) governing the harvest of BFT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction are found at 50 CFR part 635. Section 635.27 subdivides the U.S. BFT quota recommended by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas among the various domestic fishing categories.
Under the implementing regulations at 50 CFR 635.27 (a)(7), NMFS has the authority to allocate any portion of the Reserve to any category quota in the fishery, other than the Angling category school BFT subquota (for which there is a separate reserve), after considering the following factors: (1) The usefulness of information obtained from catches in the particular category for biological sampling and monitoring of the status of the stock; (2) the catches of the particular category quota to date and the likelihood of closure of that segment of the fishery if no allocation is made; (3) the projected ability of the vessels fishing under the particular category quota to harvest the additional amount of BFT before the end of the fishing year; (4) the estimated amounts by which quotas established for other gear segments of the fishery might be exceeded; (5) effects of the transfer on BFT rebuilding and overfishing; and (6) effects of the transfer on accomplishing the objectives of the HMS FMP.
NMFS is also authorized under 50 CFR 635.27(a)(8) to transfer quotas among categories, or, as appropriate, subcategories, of the fishery. If it is determined, based on the factors listed here and the probability of exceeding the total quota, that vessels fishing under any category or subcategory quota are not likely to take that quota, NMFS may transfer inseason any portion of the remaining quota of that fishing category to any other fishing category or to the reserve.
Annual BFT quota specifications issued under § 635.27 provide for a quota of 634.3 mt of large medium and giant BFT to be harvested from the regulatory area by vessels fishing under the General category quota during the 2000 fishing year. The General category BFT quota is further subdivided into time period subquotas to provide for broad temporal and geographic distribution of scientific data collection and fishing opportunities. The October-December subquota was initially set at 62.4 mt for the 2000 fishing year, and is currently 164.4 mt, after the addition of approximately 102 mt of unharvested subquota from previous periods. As of October 10, 2000, General category landings against this adjusted October-December subquota have totaled approximately 79 mt, reducing the available quota for the remainder of the season to 85.4 mt. An additional 10 mt has been set aside for the traditional fall New York Bight fishery.
After considering the factors for making transfers between categories and from the Reserve, NMFS has determined that 25 mt of the remaining 34.4 mt of Reserve should be transferred to the General category. In addition, NMFS has determined that 15 mt of the remaining Longline North subcategory quota of approximately 26 mt should be
Once the General category subquota for the October-December period has been attained, the coastwide fishery will be closed and NMFS will take action to reopen the New York Bight fishery. Announcement of the closure will be filed with the Office of the Federal Register, stating the effective date of closure, and further communicated through the Highly Migratory Species Fax Network, the Atlantic Tunas Information Line, NOAA weather radio, and Coast Guard Notice to Mariners. Although notification of closure will be provided as far in advance as possible, fishermen are encouraged to call the Atlantic Tunas Information Line at (888) USA-TUNA or (978) 281-9305, to check the status of the fishery before leaving for a fishing trip.
This action is taken under 50 CFR 635.27 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 971
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all British Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes. This proposal would require revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate life limits for certain items and inspections to detect fatigue cracking in certain structures. This proposal is prompted by issuance of a revision to the airworthiness limitations of the British Aerospace J41 Aircraft Maintenance Manual. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to ensure that fatigue cracking of certain structural elements is detected and corrected; such fatigue cracking could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes.
Comments must be received by November 20, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-250-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 99-NM-250-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Norman B. Martenson, Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2110; fax (425) 227-1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 99-NM-250-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NM-250-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, has notified the FAA that a revision to Section 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations Description and Operation,” of the British Aerospace J41 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) has been issued. [The FAA refers to the information included in that section of the AMM as the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS).] This revised section affects all British Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes. The section provides mandatory replacement times and structural inspection intervals approved under section 25.571 of the Joint Aviation Requirements and the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.571). As airplanes gain service experience, or as results of post-certification testing and evaluation are obtained, it may become necessary to add additional life limits or structural inspections to ensure the continued structural integrity of the airplane.
The CAA advises that analysis of fatigue test data has revealed that certain inspections must be performed at specific intervals to preclude fatigue cracking in certain areas of the airplane. In addition, the CAA advises that certain life limits must be imposed for various components on these airplanes to preclude the onset of fatigue cracking in those components. Such fatigue cracking, if not corrected, could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes.
British Aerospace has issued a revision to Section 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations Description and Operation,” dated July 15, 1999, of the British Aerospace J41 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). This revised section of the AMM describes airworthiness limitations and mandatory life limits for the main landing gear, nose landing gear, fuel system, flap control system, and main baggage bay door. The section also describes new inspections and compliance times for inspection and replacement actions. Accomplishment of those actions will preclude the onset of fatigue cracking of certain structural elements of the airplane.
The CAA has approved Section 05-10-10 of the AMM to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the United Kingdom. The CAA has not issued a corresponding airworthiness directive, although accomplishment of the additional life limits and structural inspections contained in the AMM may be considered mandatory for operators of these airplanes in the United Kingdom.
The FAA has reviewed the revision to Section 05-10-10 of the AMM and all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the bilateral airworthiness agreement, the CAA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. This airplane model is manufactured in the United Kingdom and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. The FAA has determined that the revision to Section 05-10-10 of the AMM must be incorporated into the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require a revision to the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate inspections to detect fatigue cracking of certain Significant Structural Items and to revise life limits for certain equipment and various components that are specified in the previously referenced maintenance document.
In accordance with airworthiness standards requiring “damage tolerance assessments” for transport category airplanes [§ 25.1529 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 25.1529), and the Appendices referenced in that section], all products certificated to comply with that section must have Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (or, for some products, maintenance manuals) that include an ALS. That section must set forth:
• Mandatory replacement times for structural components,
• Structural inspection intervals, and
• Related approved structural inspection procedures necessary to show compliance with the damage-tolerance requirements.
Compliance with the terms specified in the ALS is required by sections 43.16 (for persons maintaining products) and 91.403 (for operators) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.16 and 91.403).
In order to require compliance with these inspection intervals and life limits, the FAA must engage in rulemaking, namely the issuance of an AD. For products certificated to comply with the referenced part 25 requirements, it is within the authority of the FAA to issue an AD requiring a revision to the ALS that includes reduced life limits, or new or different structural inspection requirements. These revisions then are mandatory for operators under § 91.403(c) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 91.403), which prohibits operation of an airplane for which airworthiness limitations have been issued unless the inspection intervals specified in those limitations have been complied with.
After that document is revised, as required, and the AD has been fully complied with, the life limit or structural inspection change remains enforceable as a part of the airworthiness limitations. (This is analogous to AD's that require changes to the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual.)
Requiring a revision of the airworthiness limitations, rather than requiring individual inspections, is advantageous for operators because it allows them to record AD compliance status only once—at the time they make the revision—rather than after every inspection. It also has the advantage of keeping all airworthiness limitations, whether imposed by original certification or by AD, in one place within the operator's maintenance program, thereby reducing the risk of non-compliance because of oversight or confusion.
The FAA estimates that 59 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,540, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness by incorporating Section 05-10-10, “Airworthiness Limitations Description and Operation,” dated July 15, 1999, of the British Aerospace J41 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) into the ALS.
(b) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of this AD: After the actions specified in paragraph (a) of this AD have been accomplished, no alternative inspections or inspection intervals may be approved for the structural elements specified in the document listed in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with §§ 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.
This document contains proposed regulations relating to the filing of an application for an automatic 6-month extension of time to file an estate tax return (Form 706). The proposed regulations provide guidance to executors of decedents' estates on how to properly file the application for the automatic extension. This document also provides notice of a public hearing on these proposed regulations.
Written and electronic comments must be received by January 18, 2001. Outlines of topics to be discussed at the public hearing scheduled for January 24, 2001, at 10 a.m., must be received by January 3, 2001.
Send submissions to: CC:M&SP:RU (REG-106511-00), room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may also be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:M&SP:RU (REG-106511-00), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit comments electronically via the internet by selecting the “Tax Regs” option on the IRS Home Page, or by submitting comments directly to the IRS internet site at http://www.irs.gov/tax_regs/reglist.html. The public hearing will be held in Room 4716, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
Concerning the proposed regulations, Mary A. Berman, (202) 622-3090; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing, and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, LaNita Van Dyke, (202) 622-7180 (not toll-free numbers).
The collection of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)). Comments on the collection of information should be sent to the Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for the Department of the Treasury, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies to the Internal Revenue Service, Attn: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, OP:FS:FP, Washington, DC 20224. Comments on the collection of information should be received by December 19, 2000. Comments are specifically requested concerning:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including whether the information will have practical utility;
The accuracy of the estimated burden associated with the proposed collection of information (see below);
How the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected may be enhanced;
How the burden of complying with the proposed collection of information may be minimized, including through the application of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of service to provide information.
The collection of information in this proposed regulation is in § 20.6081-1(b). To receive an extension of time to file an estate tax return, the executor of a decedent's estate must file Form 4768, “Application for Extension of Time To File a Return and/or Pay U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Taxes.” This information is required to obtain a benefit (an automatic 6-month extension of time to file an estate tax return). The collection of information is mandatory if the extension is requested.
The reporting burden contained in § 20.6081-1(b) is reflected in the burden of Form 4768, “Application for Extension of Time To File a Return and/or Pay U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Taxes.”
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by the Office of Management and Budget.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
In 1970, Congress amended section 6075(a) to provide that the Federal estate tax return is to be filed within 9 months after the date of the decedent's death. Section 6081(a) provides that the Secretary may grant a reasonable extension of time for filing any return; however, except in the case of taxpayers who are abroad, no such extension may be for more than 6 months.
Under the current regulations, the district director or the service center has the discretion to grant an extension of time to file an estate tax return upon a showing of “good and sufficient cause.” Except in the case of executors who are abroad, the extension may not be granted for more than 6 months. Requests for an extension of time to file are made by completing Form 4768, “Application for Extension of Time To File a Return and/or Pay U.S. Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Taxes.” Upon receipt of a Form 4768, the IRS reviews the application, makes a determination, and notifies the applicant as to whether an extension is approved and, if so, the length of the extension.
In 1998, 110,100 estate tax returns were filed. In a significant number of these cases, the executors requested an extension of time to file. A majority of the applications requested and received the maximum 6-month extension allowed by the statute and the regulations. The IRS and the Treasury Department believe that executors of decedents' estates would benefit from the certainty created by an automatic 6-month extension of time to file Form 706 and that it is appropriate to provide for the extension.
Under the proposed regulations the executor of a decedent's estate will be allowed an automatic 6-month extension of time to file Form 706, “United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return,” beyond the 9 months provided for by section 6075(a). The application for the automatic extension must be submitted on Form 4768 (or in any other manner as may be prescribed by the Commissioner). The application must be filed with the IRS on or before the date prescribed by section 6075(a) for filing the Form 706 and it must include an estimate of the full amount of tax due. The automatic extension of time does not apply to filers of Forms 706-A, 706-D or 706-NA who will continue to use Form 4768 to request extensions of time to file and pay estate taxes. The automatic extension of time also does not apply to filers of Form 706-QDT who will continue to request any extension of time as provided in the instructions for Form 706-QDT. The proposed regulations continue to permit executors who are abroad to request extensions beyond the automatic 6-month period.
A return as complete as possible must be filed before the expiration of the automatic 6-month extension period. The return as filed will be the return required by section 6018(a)(1). An extension of time for filing the return does not operate to extend the time for payment of the tax.
The proposed regulations also revise § 20.6075-1 to conform to the changes proposed in § 20.6081-1.
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the regulations will be submitted to the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely (in the manner described in
A public hearing has been scheduled for January 24, 2001, at 10 a.m. in Room 4716, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the 10th Street entrance, located between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, NW. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 15 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the
The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons that wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit comments by January 3, 2001, and submit an outline of the topics to be discussed and the time to be devoted to each topic (signed original and eight (8) copies) by January 3, 2001. A period of 10 minutes will be allotted to each person for making comments. An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be prepared after the deadline for receiving outlines has passed. Copies of the agenda will be available free of charge at the hearing.
The principal author of these proposed regulations is Mary A. Berman, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), IRS. However, other personnel from the IRS and Treasury Department participated in their development.
Estate taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 20 is proposed to be amended as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Section 20.6081-1 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 6081(a). * * *
The estate tax return required by section 6018 must be filed on or before the due date. The due date is the date on or before which the return is required to be filed in accordance with the provisions of section 6075(a) or the last day of the period covered by an extension of time as provided in § 20.6081-1. The due date, for a decedent dying after December 31, 1970, is, unless an extension of time for filing has been obtained, the day of the ninth calendar month after the decedent's death numerically corresponding to the day of the calendar month on which death occurred, except that, if there is no numerically corresponding day in such ninth month, the last day of the ninth month is the due date. For example, if the decedent dies on July 31, 2000, the estate tax return and tax payment must be made on or before April 30, 2001. When the due date falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday, the due date for filing the return is the next succeeding day that is not Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday. For the definition of a legal holiday, see section 7503 and § 301.7503-1 of this chapter. As to additions to the tax in the case of failure to file the return or pay the tax within the prescribed time, see section 6651 and § 301.6651-1 of this chapter. For rules with respect to the right to elect to have the property valued as of a date or dates subsequent to the decedent's death, see section 2032 and § 20.2032-1, and section 7502 and § 301.7502-1 of this chapter. This section applies to estates of decedents dying after August 16, 1954.
(a)
(b)
(i) The application is filed on or before the date prescribed in section 6075(a) for filing the return;
(ii) The application is filed with the Internal Revenue Service office designated in the application's instructions (except as provided in § 301.6091-1(b) of this chapter for hand-carried documents); and
(iii) The application includes an estimate of the amount of estate and generation-skipping transfer tax liability with respect to the estate.
(2)
(c)
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations for arsenic in drinking water on June 22, 2000 (65 FR 38888), and comments on that action were due on September 20, 2000. Since that time, EPA has received new risk information which the Agency is considering during the development of the final regulation. This document summarizes the new risk information received and analyzed by the Agency. In addition, this document makes available the cost curves used to develop the costs published in the proposal. This information does not change the overall technical approach for the proposal. EPA is requesting comments on EPA's
Your comments on this document must be submitted to EPA in writing and should be postmarked or received November 20, 2000.
Send written comments to the W-99-16 NODA Arsenic Comments Clerk, Water Docket (MC-4101); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments may be hand-delivered to the Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street, SW; East Tower Basement, room EB-57; Washington, DC 20460; (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. Comments may be submitted electronically, marked docket number W-99-16 NODA, to
For technical inquiries about risk and benefits discussed in this notice, contact Dr. John B. Bennett, (202) 260-0446, email:
A public water system, as defined in 40 CFR 141.2, provides water to the public for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has “at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves an average of at least twenty-five individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.” A public water system is either a community water system (CWS) or a non-community water system (NCWS). A community water system, as defined in § 141.2, is “a public water system which serves at least fifteen service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least twenty-five year-round residents.” The definition in § 141.2 for a non-transient, non-community water system [NTNCWS] is “a public water system that is not a [CWS] and that regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year.” EPA has an inventory totaling over 54,000 community water systems and approximately 20,000 non-transient, non-community water systems nationwide. Entities potentially regulated by this action are community water systems and non-transient, non-community water systems. The following table provides examples of the regulated entities under this rule.
The 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 this table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in §§ 141.11 and 141.62 of the rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the general information person listed in the
Please submit an original and three copies of your comments and enclosures (including references) and identify your submission by the docket number W-99-16 NODA. To ensure that EPA can read, understand, and therefore properly respond to comments, the Agency would prefer that comments cite, where possible, the paragraph(s) or sections in the document or supporting documents to which each comment refers. Commenters should use a separate paragraph for each issue discussed. If you are submitting your comments electronically and mailing hard copies, please indicate on your electronic submission that hard copies are being sent separately. Electronic comments must be submitted as a WordPerfect 5.1, WP6.1 or WP8 file or as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters. Comments and data will also be accepted on disks in WP 5.1, WP6.1 or WP8, or ASCII file format. Electronic comments on this document may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Commenters who want EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
The docket for this document has been established under number W-99-16-II, and includes supporting documentation as well as printed, paper versions of electronic comments. The docket is available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, at the Water Docket; EB 57; in the East Tower basement of U.S. EPA; 401 M Street, SW; Washington, DC. For access to docket materials, please call (202) 260-3027 to schedule an appointment.
In the Thursday, June 22, 2000,
On page 39835 of the June 22, 2000, arsenic proposal, EPA noted that the unit cost curves are in the November 1999 “Technologies and Costs for the Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water.” It has come to EPA's attention that the cost curves used to develop the costs that are included in the proposal and supporting Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) are in an earlier version of this document dated April 1999. This document announces the availability of the April 1999 version, with curves that more accurately reflect the analysis in the preamble and the RIA. The overall approach to cost estimation in the proposed rule and the proposed Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) remain unchanged.
In the proposal we calculated bladder cancer benefits and risks using the bladder cancer risk analysis from the 1999 National Research Council (NRC) report,
The article “Risk of Internal Cancer from Arsenic in Drinking Water” (Morales
The Morales
The various model results present considerable variability in cancer risk estimates for arsenic. The authors propose several reasons for the variability, including the large variability of exposure among people within each village and use of a comparison population in the analysis. The authors also suggest that a variety of factors for which data were not available, including the dietary intake of inorganic arsenic, could influence or even confound these models. They observe that “* * * this is an ecological study wherein only relatively simple exposure and population characteristics could be measured. It will be important to consider this and other sources of uncertainty when interpreting the results (Morales
Ten risk models were presented in Morales
EPA believes, after consultation with the authors, that the models in Morales
Of the models that did not include a comparison population, EPA believes Model 1 fits the data best, based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC), a standard criterion of model fit, applied to the Poisson models. EPA did not consider the multi-stage Weibull model for additional analysis, because of its greater sensitivity to the omission of individual villages (Morales
The Poisson regression model (Model 1), without a comparison population, gave results for lifetime excess risk of bladder cancer for males from arsenic ingestion (about 1.3 in a 1000 at an arsenic level of 50 μg/L) which were approximately the same as those risks found by the NRC (approximately 1 in a 1000 at an arsenic level of 50 μg/L). Among females, lifetime excess risk of bladder cancer is estimated to be 2.0 in 1000 at 50 μg/L. We also considered estimates using this model for excess risks for lung and liver cancer due to arsenic. The lung cancer risk estimates, which were comparable to the bladder cancer risk estimates, were of special interest to the Agency, as the NRC report did not provide a statistical analysis of these risks.
However, EPA did not further consider the Taiwan liver cancer estimates for U.S. liver cancer risks. Angiosarcoma liver cancer (cancer in the liver's blood vessels) has been linked to arsenic exposure in Germany (Roth, 1957, as reported in Smith
This section describes EPA's risk analysis in the June 22, 2000, proposed arsenic rulemaking, then extends the analysis to incorporate new information from Morales
The June 22, 2000, proposed arsenic rulemaking contained an analysis of the excess exposed population risks associated with arsenic consumption for bladder cancer. This analysis was based on the 1999 National Research Council (NRC) report, in which the NRC examined risk distributions for male bladder cancer in 42 villages in Taiwan. This population was exposed to drinking water with arsenic ranging from 10 to 934 μg/L; arsenic exposure estimates were grouped by village. To monetize bladder cancer benefits, EPA calculated the number of cases potentially avoided, based on the NRC bladder cancer risk analyses, for populations exposed to MCL options of 3 μg/L, 5 μg/L, 10 μg/L, and 20 μg/L. The proposal's analytic approach included five components. First, EPA used data from the recent EPA water consumption study (US EPA, 2000a). Second, we used Monte Carlo simulations to develop a distribution of “relative exposure factors,” which account for individual variations in risk due to water consumption and body weight. Third, arsenic occurrence estimates (US EPA, 2000c) were used to identify the population exposed to levels above 3 μg/L. We assumed drinking water exposure reflected treatment to 80% of the MCL level, because water systems tend to treat below the MCL level in order to provide a margin of safety. Fourth, EPA chose four NRC risk distributions (NRC, 1999, from Tables 10-11 and 10-12) for the analysis, that used Poisson-model derived risk estimates, with and without baseline comparison data. Fifth, EPA used Monte Carlo simulations to develop estimates of the risks faced by the exposed population, using the relative exposure factors, occurrence, and the NRC risk distributions. These components of the analysis are described in the proposed rulemaking (US EPA, 2000d, section X.A). EPA also monetized the potential benefits of avoided lung cancer, using a “What If” analysis based on statements in the NRC report.
Table 1 shows the mean and 90th percentile bladder cancer incidence risks summarized from Tables X-4A, X-4B, X-2A, and X-2B in the June 22, 2000, arsenic proposed rulemaking (65 FR 38888), after treatment, for the U.S. population currently exposed at or above 3 μg/L, 5 μg/L, 10 μg/L, and 20 μg/L. These risk distributions are based on bladder cancer mortality data in Taiwan, in a section of Taiwan where arsenic concentrations in the water are very high by comparison to those in the U.S. It is also an area of low incomes (NRC, 1999, pg. 292) and poor diet (NRC, 1999, pg. 295), and the availability and quality of medical care is not of high quality, by U.S. standards. In its estimate of bladder cancer risk, the Agency assumed that within the Taiwanese study area at the time of the study, the risk of contracting bladder cancer was relatively close to the risk of dying from bladder cancer (that is, that
The Morales
The Agency also estimated the mean and 90th percentile lung cancer risks for U.S. populations, using the same analytical approach and the risk estimates from Morales
EPA believes, based upon this most recent risk information, that the combined risk of excess cases of lung and bladder cancer attributable to arsenic in drinking water could be at least twice that of bladder cancer alone. However, EPA will need to conduct additional analyses of this risk information, together with additional analyses of the various uncertainties associated with the underlying data, and of comments submitted in response to the proposed rule, to develop its best estimate of the overall risk in support of a final rulemaking.
The Agency performed a sensitivity analysis of the lower bound risk estimates, considering the effect on risk estimates of exposure to arsenic through water used in preparing food in Taiwan. The 1988 EPA “Special Report on Ingested Inorganic Arsenic” contained the following discussion:
For the studied population, rice and sweet potatoes were the main staple and might account for as much as 80% of food intake per meal. For the purpose of discussion we will assume that a man in the study population ate one cup of dry rice and two pounds of potatoes per day and that the amount of water required to cook the rice and potatoes was about 1 L. Under this assumption, the risk calculated before is overestimated by about 30% (1 L/ 3.5 L). This calculation considers only the water used for cooking; the arsenic content in the rice and potatoes that might have been absorbed from soil arsenic is not considered because of the lack of information.
The benefits of a regulatory option depend primarily on the number of cases of an illness avoided due to the reduction in risk resulting from the implementation of the option. For the arsenic proposed rule and following established Agency practices, EPA estimated the number of cases of bladder cancer avoided using mean exposed population incidence risk estimates at various MCL levels (these mean exposed population incidence risks are shown in Table 1). We converted lifetime risk estimates to annual risk factors, and applied these to the exposed population to determine the number of cases avoided (both fatal and non-fatal). We adjusted the upper bound bladder cancer number of cases estimates by assuming an 80% mortality rate in Taiwan, which is a plausible mortality rate for the area of Taiwan during the Chen study. The lower bound estimates assumed a 100% mortality rate from bladder cancer in Taiwan. For the benefits assessment, EPA used U.S. mortality information to divide the number of cases into fatal and non-fatal cases avoided. Benefits are assumed to begin to accrue on the effective date of the arsenic rule (65 FR 38888 at 38946).
The avoided cases of fatal bladder cancer are valued by what is known as the “value of a statistical life” (VSL), currently estimated at $6.1 million (in 1999 dollars).
In the arsenic proposed rule, EPA also estimated the number of lung cancer cases avoided, for the various options considered, using a “What If” analysis, and monetized these cases using the same process that was used to monetize the benefits of avoided bladder cancer cases. The “What If” analysis examined possible benefits from avoided lung cancer cases if the number of those cases in the U.S. which were fatal in outcome was 2-5 times the number of fatal bladder cancer cases (the implicit risk for lung cancer ranged from about half to about twice that of the risk for bladder cancer).
EPA plans to use the benefits evaluation process described in this section for the final rule, using the data and analysis of the bladder and lung cancer risks described in this document instead of the “What If” lung cancer analysis included in the proposal. These more definitive benefits estimates will be derived from the new risk calculations that will accompany the final rule (based upon further consideration of additive risk analyses) and other pertinent information. Background information on the economic concepts that provide the foundation for benefits valuation, and the methods that are typically used by economists to monetize the value of risk reductions, such as wage-risk, cost of illness, and contingent valuation studies are provided in the arsenic RIA.
Morales
In the June 22, 2000,
The RIA describes the model (SafeWaterXL) that was used by EPA to estimate national costs. The model uses data on arsenic occurrence, compliance decision trees, unit treatment technology train costs and other relevant data to generate national cost estimates. All of these inputs are described in the RIA. The treatment trains that were used in the national cost estimation are given in Exhibit 6-1 of the RIA. The RIA provides information on treatment technology costs by system size in Exhibit 6-2. The exhibit has cost estimates on treatment capital, treatment operation and maintenance (O&M), waste disposal capital, and waste disposal O&M costs for each treatment train.
Today's document is advising the public about the availability in the docket of “Technologies and Costs for the Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water,” April 1999, which provides the unit cost curves (regressions) that were used to generate Exhibit 6-1 of the RIA. The April 1999 technology and cost document contains curves for several removal efficiencies, including the ones corresponding to the removal efficiencies identified in Exhibit 6-1 of the RIA.
The unit cost treatment curves for each technology can be found in the April 1999 technology and cost document. The unit cost waste disposal curves can be derived from Table 4-1, “Summary of Residuals Characteristics,” in the technology and cost document. Those interested in reproducing the waste disposal curves should consult the “Small Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost” (EPA 1993a) document and the “Water System Byproducts Treatment and Disposal Cost” (EPA 1993b) document. The former is for small water systems, and the latter is for larger ones. An electronic copy of the treatment technology and waste disposal equations used in the development of the RIA can also be found in the docket.
The EPA has continued to refine and update cost estimates of the treatment technologies discussed in the proposed rule. In addition, EPA is following the development of emerging technologies that would be relevant for arsenic removal. An update of the April 1999 document was inadvertently included in the docket: EPA, “Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water,” November 1999. This was not, however, the version used to develop the RIA. The RIA costs were developed using the earlier April 1999 version, which is being provided with this document. This data and information is being made available to those interested in reproducing our national cost estimates.
The differences between the cost curves in the April and November drafts are attributable to the different design criteria assumptions made when running the unit cost models. Three unit cost models were used: “Very Small Systems” (for systems between 0.015 to 0.100 mgd), “Water model” (for systems between 0.27 and 1.00 mgd), and “W/W Cost” (for systems between 10 to 200 mgd). The design criteria assumptions are described prior to the presentation of the cost curves in each document. For example, the design criteria assumptions for coagulation assisted microfiltration are listed on page 3-47 of the November 1999 document and on page 3-60 of the April 1999 document. EPA will continue to refine the cost curves and other cost of compliance information and data based on comments submitted on the proposal.
EPA will carefully consider all comments on the proposed rule and will develop new national cost estimates for the final rule, along with a new supporting treatment technology and cost document, which would update both the April 1999 and November 1999 versions of the treatment technology and cost document. The new version that will be developed will include cost estimates for emerging technologies, and where necessary, updates to the treatment technology cost curves already developed. EPA may also develop an updated decision tree to refine and improve the cost estimates, based on comments received on the proposal. Changes in these inputs to EPA's models for determining the cost of compliance and any changes to the national cost estimates generated by the model will be presented in the final rule.
42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.
Office of Inspector General (OIG), HHS.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule sets forth several revisions and technical corrections to the OIG regulations. This rule proposes revisions or clarifications to the definition of the term “item or service”, to the reinstatement procedures relating to exclusions resulting from a default on health education or scholarship obligations, and to the limitations period applicable to exclusions. In addition, this rule would make a number of minor technical corrections to the current regulations, and serves to clarify various issues and inadvertent errors appearing in the OIG's existing regulatory authorities in order to achieve greater clarity and consistency.
To assure consideration, public comments must be mailed and delivered to the address provided below by no later than 5 p.m. November 20, 2000.
Please mail or deliver your written comments to the following address: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Room 5246, Attention: OIG-62-P, Washington, D.C. 20201.
Joel J. Schaer, Office of Counsel to the Inspector General, (202) 619-0089.
Consistent with existing regulatory authority, the OIG is proposing the following revisions to 42 CFR chapter V, many of which are technical in nature:
The purpose of an OIG program exclusion is to protect Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal health care programs from fraud and abuse, and to protect beneficiaries of those programs from untrustworthy providers. Questions have been raised as to whether a limitations period is applicable to the imposition of OIG program exclusions. The OIG frequently determines that conduct which occurred several years in the past does not warrant an exclusion (other than an exclusion that is mandated by statute). However, there is no statute of limitations specified for exclusions in the Social Security Act (the Act).
Thus, for example, when a program exclusion imposed under section 1128(b)(7) of the Act is based on violations of another statute, such as the civil money penalty (CMP) statute (section 1128A of the Act), which has a 6 year statute of limitations, the program exclusion is not similarly time limited.
In introductory paragraph (c) of § 1001.101, we propose to add the word “financial” before the word “misconduct.” This revision would be consistent with the statutory language set forth in section 1128(a)(3) of the Act which specifically uses the word “financial” to describe the felony under which the OIG will exclude an individual or entity. The revision to this paragraph is intended to mirror the statutory language.
Currently, §§ 1001.102 and 1001.201 set forth an aggravating factor for lengthening the period of exclusion when an individual's conviction, or similar acts, resulted in financial loss of $1,500 or more. First, we are proposing to revise §§ 1001.102(b)(1) and 1001.201(b)(2)(i) to increase the financial loss considered to be an aggravating factor from $1,500 to $5,000. We believe that this revision would more properly reflect the current economics of health care fraud in the programs and would establish a more reasonable threshold amount as an aggravating factor to be considered as a basis for lengthening a period of exclusion.
In addition, we are proposing to clarify §§ 1001.102(b)(1) and 1001.201(b)(2)(i) to reflect as an aggravating factor both the actual and intended loss to the programs associated with this conduct. We believe that any loss—not just the actual, out-of-pocket loss—that is designed to cause harm to the programs should be taken into consideration. For example, in a situation where an individual intends to commit damage to the programs by filing false cost reports, but whose plans are detected and prevented from reaching fruition by an intermediary who intercepts the damage before it can occur, we believe the intended loss, and not just any actual loss, should also be taken in consideration as a valid measure of the individual's culpability. Accordingly, we would also clarify §§ 1001.102(b)(1) and 1001.201(b)(2)(i)
Section 1001.102 addresses the length of an exclusion, and paragraph (b) of that section sets forth various factors that may be considered to be aggravating and a basis for lengthening the period of exclusion. We propose to revise paragraph (b)(9) by adding the word “even” to indicate that one factor we would consider is “[w]hether the individual or entity was convicted of other offenses besides those which formed the basis for the exclusion, or has been the subject of any other adverse action by a Federal, State or local government agency or board,
Section 231 of Public Law 104-191, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996, amended the CMP and criminal provisions in section 1128A and 1128B of the Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a and 1320a-7b) to encompass acts occurring with respect to a “Federal health care program,” as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Act. Section 4331(c) of Public Law 105-33, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997, further amended section 1128(a) and (b) of the Act to extend the scope of an OIG exclusion beyond the Medicare and State health care programs to all other Federal health care programs and to enable the OIG directly to impose exclusions from all other Federal health care programs. In the final regulations addressing OIG exclusion authorities resulting from HIPAA (63 FR 46676) and in the final rulemaking addressing revised OIG sanction authorities resulting from the BBA (64 FR 39420), while we made several revisions to part 1001 to include the term “Federal health care program,” conforming revisions were not made in §§ 1001.102(c)(1), 1001.951 and 1001.952. We propose to amend these sections to accurately reflect this expanded authority.
On November 19, 1999, we published a final rule setting forth clarifications to the initial OIG safe harbor provisions in 1991 and establishing additional safe harbor provisions under the anti-kickback statute (64 FR 63518). In that final rule, certain minor technical errors appeared in the regulations text when published, which we are proposing to clarify or correct at this time. Specifically, in paragraph (h)(1)(ii), we are proposing to substitute the phrase “Department or a State health care program,” with the phrase “Department or health agency,” to be consistent with similar context language used in this same paragraph. (The italics appearing in introductory paragraph (h)(1) in the November 19, 1999 final rule would also be removed.) In addition, in paragraph (h)(2) (ii)(A), the current introductory phrase reads: “[W]here a discount is required to be reported to Medicare or a State health care program under paragraph (h)(1) of this section, * * *” We are proposing to clarify this discussion by amending this introductory statement to read as “[W]here the value of the discount is known at the time of sale, * * *” This would be consistent with the current introductory language appearing in paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(B) of § 1001.952. We are also clarifying the definition of the term “rebate” in § 1001.952(h)(4) to make clear that a rebate is a price reduction after the time of sale. We are further proposing to clarify the language in paragraph (h)(5)(ii) by including an example as to what is meant by the phrase “same methodology” as used in this discussion. The example is consistent with the November 19, 1999 final rule preamble discussion. The additional language would indicate that the “same methodology” would reflect, as an example, the same DRG, prospective payment or per diem payment, but would not include fee schedules. For clarification purposes, we are also proposing to include a comma after the word “reflected” in this same paragraph to make clear that the phrase “where appropriate and as appropriate” modifies both the terms “disclosed” and “reflected.”
In addition, we are also proposing to clarify, gramatically, the introductory language for paragraph (r) to more clearly state the conditions under which “remuneration” does not include a payment that is a return on an investment interest for ambulatory surgical centers. Also, in paragraph (r)(2)(ii), we are proposing to substitute the word “physician's” for the word “surgeon's,” which was inadvertently set forth in the November 19, 1999 final regulations. As corrected, the paragraph would read as: “(ii) At least one-third of each physician investor's medical practice income from all sources for the previous fiscal year or previous 12-month period must be derived from the physician's performance of procedures (as defined in this paragraph).”
With regard to § 1001.952, we are only requesting comments on the changes set forth specifically in this proposed rule. We expect to address other substantive revisions to aspects of the November 19, 1999 new safe harbors, as appropriate, through a separate clarifying proposed rule.
Under section 1128(b)(14) of the Act, and § 1001.1501 of the implementing regulations, the OIG may exclude any individual that the Public Health Service (PHS) determines is in default on repayment of scholarship obligations or loans made in connection with health profession education. The current regulations provide that an individual may be excluded until such time as PHS notifies the OIG that the default has been cured or the obligations have been resolved to the PHS's satisfaction. This regulatory language has resulted in some uncertainty as to exactly when a determination may be made that a default is cured or that the obligations have been adequately resolved.
We propose to revise § 1001.1501(b) to make it clear that once an individual is excluded, he or she will be eligible for reinstatement only (1) after the debt is repaid by the individual or (2) when there is no longer an outstanding debt as determined by the PHS (
We are proposing to expand the designated programs which may request a waiver of an exclusion to conform with statutory amendments which broadened the scope of an OIG program exclusion. Prior to the BBA, an exclusion was applicable only to participation in Medicare and all State health care programs (as defined in section 1128(h) of the Act). In section 4331 of the BBA, Congress amended sections 1128(a) and (b) of the Act to provide that an exclusion will be from all “Federal health care programs,” as defined in section 1128B(f) of the Act. Notwithstanding this authority, current law only permits waivers to be requested by State health care programs.
Although Congress expanded the scope of exclusion under section 1128 of the Act to participation in all other Federal health care programs, it did not explicitly broaden the authority to request a waiver of an exclusion under either section 1128(c)(3)(B) or 1128(d)(3)(B) of the Act to include requests of waivers by Federal health care programs other than Medicare or State health care programs. However, we believe that the clear congressional intent was to broaden both the scope and applicability of the entire exclusion authority to “all other Federal health care programs.” Thus, we believe that it would be consistent for the implementing regulations to provide for a parallel approach with respect to requests for waiver of an exclusion. We are, therefore, proposing to amend § 1001.1801 to specify that a “Federal health care program” may request a waiver, thus replacing the current provision which only authorizes such waiver requests from a “State health care program.”
Many of the OIG exclusion authorities are predicated on prior determinations made by courts or other administrative agencies. Section 1001.2007 of the OIG regulations currently contains a provision that precludes, in the administrative appeal of such exclusions, the relitigation of the underlying determination. We are proposing to further clarify paragraph (d) of this section to specifically state that a civil judgment rendered by a Federal, State or local court is an additional type of prior determination that may serve as the basis for an exclusion (and may not be relitigated in the exclusion proceeding). This clarification is predicated on the general principles of collateral estoppel.
Section 1001.3005 provides that an individual or entity will be reinstated into the Medicare program retroactive to the effective date of the exclusion when such exclusion is based on either (1) a conviction that is reversed or vacated on appeal, or (2) an action by another agency, such as a State agency or licensing board, that is reversed or vacated on appeal. However, current regulations do not specify at what point in the appeal process retroactive reinstatement will occur. We are proposing to modify § 1001.3005 to provide that when an exclusion action is reversed or vacated at any stage of an administrative appeal process, the OIG will reinstate the individual or entity at that time retroactive to the effective date of the underlying exclusion. However, the regulation would make clear that the exclusion would be reimposed if the administrative decision reversing or vacating the exclusion is overturned upon further appeal.
Section 1003.100 sets for the basis and purpose for the OIG's CMP and assessment authorities. In final rulemaking published on July 22, 1999 (64 FR 39428), § 1003.100 was amended by, among other things, revising (b)(1)(iv), (viii), (x) and (xi) and by adding a new paragraph (b)(1)(xii). These revisions to § 1003.100 were not properly reflected in the OIG final rulemaking on April 26, 2000 (65 FR 24415) that also made additional revisions to this section. Accordingly, we are amending § 1003.100 to accurately reflect paragraph (b)(1)(iv). In addition, paragraphs designated in the July 22, 1999 final rule as (b)(1)(viii) and (b)(1)(xii) would now being set forth as paragraphs (b)(1)(xiv) and (b)(1)(xv), respectively, in the section.
The current definition of the term “item or service” set forth in § 1003.101 follows the statutory language by defining the term to
Section 1003.106(a)(4) sets forth six factors to be taken into account in determining a CMP amount for violations in accordance with § 1003.102(c), the patient anti-dumping provisions. One of the criteria for considering the amount of CMP to impose in a patient dumping case is “the prior history of offenses” under the Patient Anti-Dumping Act. The current language allows the OIG only to consider “prior” offenses, and does not allow the consideration of similar conduct after the incident in question. For example, if the OIG is pursuing a case against a physician responsible for an inappropriate transfer, and it is learned that the physician was later terminated for causing another inappropriate transfer, we cannot currently consider this in determining the CMP amount, even though we believe that this conduct is relevant in making a determination. In order to permit the OIG to consider this subsequent act in determining the amount of penalty to be assessed, we are proposing to revise paragraph (a)(4)(iii) of this section to allow the OIG to consider as a factor other related or similar allegations subsequent to the incident under review.
Section 1005.7(e) sets forth procedures and time frames governing the discovery process. The time frames set forth in paragraph (e)(1) are intended to ensure that the hearing process proceeds in an orderly and timely manner, and to induce parties to produce documents within a reasonable period of time. While the 15-day period set forth in the current regulations may be adequate in many cases, it has been
The OIG is proposing to amend § 1005.16(b) to give the ALJ discretion to admit written expert testimony that is reliable. Under the current regulations, the ALJ is not permitted to accept reliable written testimony, such as depositions, trial testimony and administrative proceedings, from experts. We are proposing to revise paragraph (b) by further stating that “[T]he ALJ may admit prior sworn testimony of experts which has been subject to adverse examination, such as a deposition or trial testimony.” We believe this revision would allow the ALJ the discretion to admit written testimony of experts if he or she finds it is relevant and reliable.
Section 1005.17 addresses the admissibility of evidence in administrative proceedings. While the ALJs are not strictly bound by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), paragraph (b) of this section permits the ALJs to apply the FRE where appropriate,
In the OIG final rule published in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, and has determined that it does not meet the criteria for an economically significant regulatory action. Specifically, Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when rulemaking is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits, including potential economic, environmental, public health, safety distributive and equity effects. In addition, section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, Public Law 104-4, requires that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits on any rulemaking that may result in an expenditure by State, local or tribal government, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. Further, under the Small Business Enforcement Act (SBEA) of 1996, if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small businesses, the Secretary must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small business entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule, and under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, if a rule has a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small businesses, the Secretary must specifically consider the economic effect of a rule on small business entities and analyze regulatory options that could lessen the impact of the rule. Executive Order 13132, Federalism, further requires agencies to determine if a rule will have a significant affect on States, on their relationship with the Federal Government, and on the distribution of power and responsibility among the various levels of Government.
Executive Order 12866 requires that all regulations reflect consideration of alternatives, costs, benefits, incentives, equity and available information. Regulations must meet certain standards, such as avoiding unnecessary burden. We believe that this proposed rule would have no significant economic impact. The proposed revisions set forth in this rulemaking are either technical in nature or are designed to further clarify OIG statutory requirements.
Specifically, these provisions are designed to clarify the scope of the OIG's existing authorities to exclude individuals and entities from Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal health care programs, and to strengthen current legal authorities pertaining to the imposition of CMPs against individuals and entities engaged in prohibited actions and activities. We believe that any aggregate economic effect of these revised regulatory provisions would be minimal and would impact only those limited few who engage in prohibited behavior in violation of the statute. As such, we believe that the aggregate economic impact of these proposed regulations is minimal and would have no appreciable effect on the economy or on Federal or State expenditures.
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996, which amended the RFA, we are required to determine if this rule will have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
We have also reviewed this rule under the threshold criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and we have determined that this rulemaking would not have significantly affect the rights, roles and responsibilities of States. In summary, we have concluded, and the Secretary certifies, that since this rule would have no significant economic impact on Federal, State or local economies, nor have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The provisions of these proposed regulations impose no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements necessitating clearance by OMB.
Comments will be available for public inspection beginning on November 3, 2000 in Room 5518 of the Office of Inspector General at 330 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC, on Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., (202) 619-0089. Because of the large number of comments we normally receive on regulations, we cannot acknowledge or respond to them individually. However, we will consider all timely and appropriate comments when developing the final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicaid, Medicare.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Grant programs—health, Health facilities, Health professions, Maternal and child health, Medicaid, Medicare, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Penalties.
Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Grant programs—health, Health facilities, Health professions, Medicaid, Medicare, Penalties.
Accordingly, 42 CFR chapter V would be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 1001 would continue to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1302, 1320a-7, 1320a-7b, 1395u(h), 1395u(j), 1395u(k), 1395y(d), 1395y(e), 1395cc(b)(2)(D), (E) and (F), and 1395hh; and sec. 2455, Pub.L. 103-355, 108 Stat. 3327 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note).
2. Section 1001.1 would be amended by redesignating existing paragraph (b) to read as paragraph (c) and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) A program exclusion is deemed to be remedial in nature and designed to protect Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal health care programs and their beneficiaries from fraudulent individuals and entities. Accordingly, an exclusion is neither time-barred nor subject to any limitations period, even when the exclusion is based on violations of another statute which may have a specified limitations period.
(c) * * *
3. Section 1001.101 would be amended by republishing the introductory text and by revising introductory paragraph (c) to read as follows:
The OIG will exclude any individual or entity that—
(c) Has been convicted, under Federal or State law, of a felony that occurred after August 21, 1996, relating to fraud, theft, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary responsibility, or other financial misconduct—
4. Section 1001.102 would be amended by republishing the introductory text for paragraph (b) and revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(9), and by republishing the introductory text for paragraph (c) and revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
(b) Any of the following factors may be considered to be aggravating and a basis for lengthening the period of exclusion—
(1) The acts resulting in the conviction, or similar acts, resulted in financial loss (both actual loss and intended loss) to a Government program or to one or more entities of $5,000 or more. (The entire amount of financial loss to such programs or entities, including any amounts resulting from similar acts not adjudicated, will be considered regardless of whether full or partial restitution has been made);
(9) Whether the individual or entity was convicted of other offenses besides those which formed the basis for the exclusion, or has been the subject of any other adverse action by any Federal, State or local government agency or board, even if the adverse action is based on the same set of circumstances that serves as the basis for the imposition of the exclusion.
(c) Only if any of the aggravating factors set forth in paragraph (b) of this section justifies an exclusion longer than 5 years, may mitigating factors be considered as a basis for reducing the period of exclusion to no less than 5 years. Only the following factors may be considered mitigating—
(1) The individual or entity was convicted of 3 or fewer misdemeanor offenses, and the entire amount of financial loss (both actual loss and intended loss) to Medicare or any other Federal, State or local governmental health care program due to the acts that resulted in the conviction, and similar acts, is less than $1,500;
5. Section 1001.201 would be amended by republishing the introductory text for paragraph (b)(2) and revising paragraph (b)(2)(i), and by republishing the introductory text for paragraph (b)(3) and revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) Any of the following factors may be considered to be aggravating and a basis for lengthening the period of exclusion—
(i) The acts resulting in the conviction, or similar acts, resulted in financial loss (both actual loss and intended loss) of $5,000 or more to a Government program or to one or more other entities, or had a significant financial impact on program beneficiaries or other individuals. (The total amount of financial loss will be
(3) Only the following factors may be considered as mitigating and a basis for reducing the period of exclusion—
(i) The individual or entity was convicted of 3 or fewer offenses, and the entire amount of financial loss (both actual loss and intended loss) to a Government program or to other individuals or entities due to the acts that resulted in the conviction and similar acts is less than $1,500;
6. Section 1001.951 would be amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The nature and extent of any adverse physical, mental, financial or other impact the conduct had on program beneficiaries or other individuals or the Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal health care programs;
7. Section 1001.952 would be amended as follows:
a. By republishing the introductory text;
b. Republishing the introductory text to paragraph (b), revising paragraph (b)(5), removing the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (b)(5), and adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(6);
c. Republishing the introductory text to paragraph (c), revising paragraph (c)(5), removing the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (c)(5), and adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (c)(6);
d. Republishing the introductory text to paragraph (d) and revising paragraph (d)(5);
e. Republishing introductory text to paragraph (e)(1) and revising paragraph (e)(1)(ii);
f. Republishing introductory text to paragraph (e)(2) revising paragraph (e)(2)(ii);
g. Republishing introductory paragraph (f) and revising paragraph (f)(2) ;
h. Revising introductory paragraph (h); introductory paragraph (h)(1), introductory paragraph (h)(1)(ii) and introductory paragraph (h)(1)(iii); introductory paragraph (h)(2) and paragraph (h)(2)(ii)(A); introductory paragraph (h)(3) and introductory paragraph (h)(3)(iii); paragraph (h)(4); and paragraphs (h)(5)(ii) and (h)(5)(iii);
i. Revising paragraph (i);
j. Republishing the introductory paragraph (j), adding a sentence at the end of paragraph (j)(2), and removing the undesignated paragraph following paragraph (j)(2);
k. Republishing introductory paragraph (n) and revising paragraph (n)(6);
l. Republishing introductory paragraph (o) and revising paragraph (o)(5);
m. Revising introductory paragraph (r) and paragraph (r)(2)(ii); and
n. Revising the introductory text for paragraph (s).
The revisions to § 1001.952 would read as follows:
The following payment practices shall not be treated as a criminal offense under section 1128B of the Act and shall not serve as the basis for an exclusion:
(b)
(5) The aggregate rental charge is set in advance, is consistent with fair market value in arms-length transactions and is not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of any referrals or business otherwise generated between the parties for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care program.
(6) * * * Note that for purposes of paragraph (b) of this section, the term
(c)
(5) The aggregate rental charge is set in advance, is consistent with fair market value in arms-length transactions and is not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of any referrals or business otherwise generated between the parties for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or all other Federal health care programs.
(6) * * * Note that for purposes of paragraph (c) of this section, the term
(d)
(5) The aggregate compensation paid to the agent over the term of the agreement is set in advance, is consistent with fair market value in arms-length transactions and is not determined in a manner that takes into account the volume or value of any referrals or business otherwise generated between the parties for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs.
(e)
(ii) The practitioner who is selling his or her practice will not be in a professional position to make referrals to, or otherwise generate business for, the purchasing practitioner for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs after one
(2) As used in section 1128B of the Act, “remuneration” does not include any payment made to a practitioner by a hospital or other entity where the practitioner is selling his or her practice to the hospital or other entity, so long as the following four standards are met:
(ii) The practitioner who is selling his or her practice will not be in a professional position after completion of the sale to make or influence referrals to, or otherwise generate business for, the purchasing hospital or entity for which payment may be made under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs.
(f)
(2) Any payment the participant makes to the referral service is assessed equally against and collected equally from all participants, and is only based on the cost of operating the referral service, and not on the volume or value of any referrals to or business otherwise generated by the either party for the referral service for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs.
(h)
(1) With respect to the following three categories of buyers, the buyer must comply with all of the applicable standards within one of the three following categories—
(ii) If the buyer is an entity which reports its costs on a cost report required by the Department or a health agency, it must comply with all of the following four standards—
(iii) If the buyer is an individual or entity in whose name a claim or request for payment is submitted for the discounted item or service and payment may be made, in whole in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs (not including individuals or entities defined as buyers in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this section), the buyer must comply with both of the following standards—
(2) The seller is an individual or entity that supplies an item or service for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs to the buyer and who permits a discount to be taken off the buyer's purchase price. The seller must comply with all of the applicable standards within one of the following three categories—
(ii) * * *
(A) Where the value of the discount is known at the time of sale, the seller must fully and accurately report such discount on the invoice, coupon or statement submitted to the buyer; inform the buyer in a manner that is reasonably calculated to give notice to the buyer of its obligations to report such discount and to provide information upon request under paragraph (h)(1) of this section; and refrain from doing anything that would impede the buyer from meeting its obligations under this paragraph; or
(3) The offeror of a discount is an individual or entity who is not a seller under paragraph (h)(2) of this section, but promotes the purchase of an item or service by a buyer under paragraph (h)(1) of this section at a reduced price for which payment may be made, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs. The offeror must comply with all of the applicable standards within the following three categories—
(iii) If the buyer is an individual or entity in whose name a request for payment is submitted for the discounted item or service and payment may be made, in whole or in part, under Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs (not including individual or entities defined as buyers in paragraph (h)(1)(i) or (h)(1)(ii) of this section), the offeror must comply with the following two standards—
(4) For purposes of this paragraph, a
(5) * * *
(ii) Supplying one good or service without charge or at a reduced charge to induce the purchase of a different good or service, unless the goods and services are reimbursed by the same Federal health care program using the same methodology (
(iii) A reduction in price applicable to one payer but not to Medicare, Medicaid or other Federal health care programs;
(i)
(j)
(2) * * * Note that for purposes of paragraph (j) of this section, the term
(n)
(6) The amount or value of the benefits provided by the entity may not vary (or be adjusted or renegotiated) in any manner based on the volume or value of any expected referrals to or business otherwise generated for the entity by the practitioner for which payment may be made in whole in part under Medicare, Medicaid or any other Federal health care programs.
(o)
(5) The amount of payment may not vary based on the volume or value of any previous or expected referrals to or business otherwise generated for the entity by the practitioner for which payment may be made in whole or in part under Medicare, Medicaid or any other Federal health care programs.
(r)
(2) * * *
(ii) At least one-third of each physician investor's medical practice income from all sources for the previous fiscal year or previous 12-month period must be derived from the physician's performance of procedures (as defined in this paragraph).
(s)
8. Section 1001.1501 would be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b)
(a) The OIG has authority to grant or deny a request from a Federal health care program that an exclusion from that program be waived with respect to an individual or entity, except that no waiver may be granted with respect to an exclusion under § 1001.101(b). The waiver request must be in writing and from an individual directly responsible for administering the Federal health care program.
(b) With respect to exclusions under § 1001.101(a), a request from a Federal health care program for a waiver of the exclusion will only be considered if the individual is the sole community physician or if the individual or entity is the sole source of essential specialized items or services.
(e) In the event a waiver is granted, the OIG may determine the scope of the waiver to apply to particular items, services, locations or programs.
(f) The decision to grant or deny a request for a waiver, to limit the scope of a waiver, or to rescind a waiver is not subject to administrative or judicial review.
10. Section 1001.2007 would be amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) When the exclusion is based on the existence of a criminal conviction or a civil judgment imposing liability by Federal, State or local court, a determination by another Government agency, or any other prior determination where the facts were adjudicated and a final decision was made, the basis for the underlying conviction, civil judgment or determination is not reviewable and the individual or entity may not collaterally attack it either on substantive or procedural grounds in this appeal.
11. Section 1001.3005 would be amended by revising paragraph (a) and by adding a new paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(a) An individual or entity will be reinstated into Medicare, Medicaid and other Federal health care programs retroactive to the effective date of the exclusion when such exclusion is based on—
(1) A conviction that is reversed or vacated on appeal;
(2) An action by another agency, such as a State agency or licensing board, that is reversed or vacated on appeal; or
(3) An OIG exclusion action that is reversed or vacated at any stage of an individual's or entity's administrative appeal process.
(e) If an action which results in the retroactive reinstatement of an individual or entity is subsequently overturned, the OIG may reimpose the exclusion for the initial period of time, less the period of time that was served prior to the reinstatement of the individual or entity.
1. The authority citation for part 1003 would continue to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1302, 1320a-7, 1320a-7a, 1320a-7e, 1320b-10, 1395u(j), 1395u(k), 1395cc(g), 1395dd(d)(1), 1395mm,
2. Section 1003.100 would be amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iv), (b)(1)(xii) and (b)(1)(xiii); and by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(xiv) and (b)(1)(xv) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv)(A) Fail to report information concerning medical malpractice payments or who improperly disclose, use or permit access to information reported under part B of title IV of Public Law 99-660, and regulations specified in 45 CFR part 60, or
(B) Are health plans and fail to report information concerning sanctions or other adverse actions imposed on providers as required to be reported to the Healthcare Integrity and protection Data Bank (HIPDB) in accordance with section 1128E of the Act;
(xii) Offer inducements that they know or should know are likely to influence Medicare or State health care program beneficiaries to order or receive particular items or services;
(xiii) Are physicians who knowingly misrepresent that a Medicare beneficiary requires home health services;
(xiv) Have submitted, or caused to be submitted, certain prohibited claims, including claims for services rendered by excluded individuals employed by or otherwise under contract with such person, under one or more Federal health care programs; or
(xv) Violate the Federal health care programs' anti-kickback statute as set forth in section 1128B of the Act.
3. Section 1003.101 would be amended by republishing the introductory text and by revising the definition for the term
For purposes of this part:
(1) Any item, device, medical supply or service provided to a patient—
(i) Which is listed in an itemized claim for program payment or a request for payment, or
(ii) For which payment is included in other Federal or State health care reimbursement methods, such as a prospective payment system; and
(2) In the case of a claim based on costs, any entry or omission in a cost report, books of account or other documents supporting the claim.
4. Section 1003.106 would be amended by republishing the introductory text for paragraph (a)(4) and by revising paragraph (a)(4)(iii) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) In determining the amount of any penalty in accordance with § 1003.102(c), the OIG takes into account—
(iii) Any other instances where the respondent failed to provide appropriate emergency medical screening, stabilization and treatment of individuals coming to a hospital's emergency department or to effect an appropriate transfer;
1. The authority citation for part 1005 would continue to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 405(a), 405(b), 1302, 1320a-7, 1320a-7a and 1320c-5.
2. Section 1005.7 would by amended by revising paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
(e)(1) When a request for production of documents has been received, within 30 days the party receiving that request will either fully respond to the request, or state that the request is being objected to and the reasons for that objection. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part will be specified. Upon receiving any objections, the party seeking production may then, within 30 days or any other time frame set by the ALJ, file a motion for an order compelling discovery. (The party receiving a request for production may also file a motion for protective order any time prior to the date the production is due.)
3. Section 1005.16 would be amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
(b) At the discretion of the ALJ, testimony (other than expert testimony) may be admitted in the form of a written statement. The ALJ may admit prior sworn testimony of experts which has been subject to adverse examination, such as a deposition or trial testimony. Any such written statement must be provided to all other parties along with the last known address of such witnesses, in a manner that allows sufficient time for other parties to subpoena such witness for cross-examination at the hearing. Prior written statements of witnesses proposed to testify at the hearing will be exchanged as provided in § 1005.8.
4. Section 1005.17 would be amended by redesignating existing paragraphs (g) through (j) respectively as new paragraphs (h) through (k); and by adding a new paragraph (g) to read as follows:
(g) Evidence related to the character and conduct of witnesses may be introduced only as permitted under Rule 608 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
1. The authority citation for part 1008 would continue to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1320a-7d(b).
2. Section 1008.37 would be revised to read as follows:
Each individual or entity requesting an advisory opinion must supply full and complete information as to the identity of each entity owned or controlled by the individual or entity, and of each person with an ownership or control interest in the entity, as defined in section 1124(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-3(a)(1)) and part 420 of this chapter.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Midwest Broadcasting Company, permittee of Station KAUN(TV), NTSC Channel 36, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, requesting the substitution of DTV Channel 51 for Station KAUN(TV)'s assigned DTV Channel 40. DTV Channel 51 can be allotted to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (43-30-19 N. and 96-34-19 W.). As requested, we propose to allot DTV Channel 51 to Sioux Falls with a power of 93 and a height above average terrain (HAAT) of 230 meters.
Comments must be filed on or before December 8, 2000, and reply comments on or before December 26, 2000.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: David M Silver, Cole, Raywid & Braverman, L.L.P., 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006 (Counsel for Midwest Broadcasting Company).
Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-200, adopted October 16, 2000, and released October 17, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Viacom Broadcasting of Seattle, Inc., licensee of station WGNT-TV, NTSC channel 27, Portsmouth, Virginia, requesting the substitution of DTV channel 50 for station WGNT-TV's assigned DTV channel 19. DTV Channel 50 can be allotted to Portsmouth, Virginia, in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (36-48-43 N. and 76-27-49 W.). As requested, we propose to allot DTV Channel 50 to Portsmouth with a power of 800 and a height above average terrain (HAAT) of 296 meters.
Comments must be filed on or before December 8, 2000, and reply comments on or before December 26, 2000.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Raymond A. White, Viacom Broadcasting of Seattle, Inc., c/o Paramount Stations Group, Inc., 5202 River Road, Bethesda, Maryland 20816 (Counsel for Viacom Broadcasting of Seattle, Inc.).
Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-201, adopted October 16, 2000, and released October 17, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of candidate taxa reclassification.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), provide explanation for a change in the status of one animal and eight plant taxa that were under review for possible addition to the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are removing these nine species from candidate status at this time. Based on information gathered on all of these
We will accept comments on this notice at any time.
Comments and questions concerning this notice should be submitted to the Chief, Office of Conservation and Classification, Division of Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Mail Stop 420 ARLSQ, Washington, DC 20240.
Nancy Gloman, Chief, Office of Conservation and Classification, Division of Endangered Species, 703/358-2171.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the species' habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization of the species for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation affecting the species;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to protect the species; and
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting the species' continued existence.
After review of these factors we are required to make a determination “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available” and “taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to protect such species, whether by predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other conservation practices, within any area under its jurisdiction, or on the high seas.” Sections 4(a)(1) and 4(b)(1)(A) and our regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(f) require us to consider any State or local laws, regulations, ordinances, programs, or other specific conservation measures that either positively or negatively affect a species' status (
On October 25, 1999, we published our most recent annual review of all candidate taxa (64 FR 57534). As a result of our review, we determined that the following species should be removed from candidate status based on our evaluation of the five factors listed above. This notice provides specific explanations for the reclassification of one animal and eight plant taxa.
It is important to note that candidate assessment is an ongoing function and changes in status should be expected. If we remove taxa from the candidate list, they may be restored to candidate status if additional information supporting such a change becomes available to us. We issue requests for such information in a Candidate Notice of Review published in the
The McCloud River redband trout (
We have removed the taxa listed below from the candidate list. However, we did not provide an explanation for their change in status in this notice, since we published this information previously in the
This notice was compiled from materials supplied by staff biologists located in the Service's regional and field offices. The materials were compiled by Susan Jacobsen, Division of
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, notice of availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability of the draft Economic Analysis and draft Environmental Assessment for the proposal to designate critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (
The comment period for this proposal, which originally closed on September 19, 2000, is reopened and now closes on November 20, 2000. Comments on the draft Economic Analysis, draft Environmental Assessment, and any other aspect of the proposed designation must be received by the closing date.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87113. Copies of the draft Economic Analysis and draft Environmental Assessment are available from the aforementioned address, or over the internet at http://ifw2es.fws.gov/library/. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above Fish and Wildlife Service address.
Joy Nicholopoulos, Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address; telephone 505/346-2525, facsimile 505/346-2542.
On July 21, 2000, we published in the
Approximately 5.5 million hectares (13.5 million acres) of land fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah. Proposed critical habitat is primarily composed of Federal lands. If this proposal is made final, section 7 of the Act would prohibit destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat by any activity funded, authorized, or carried out by any Federal agency.
We solicit comments on the draft Economic Analysis described in this notice, the draft Environmental Assessment, and any other aspect of the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. The comment period is extended to November 20, 2000. Written comments may be submitted to the Field Supervisor at the above address. Our final determination on the proposed critical habitat will take into consideration comments and any additional information received by the date specified above. All previous comments and information submitted during the comment period need not be resubmitted.
The primary authors of this notice are the New Mexico Field Office staff (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement portions of Amendment 14 to the Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California (Salmon FMP).
Amendment 14, which was submitted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) on June 12, 2000, to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review and approval, brings the Salmon FMP into compliance with the Sustainable Fisheries Act’s (SFA) 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). Amendment 14 includes designation of essential fish habitat (EFH) and new requirements to reduce bycatch, prevent overfishing, and rebuild overfished stocks. This proposed rule to implement Amendment 14 would make minor changes to language regarding escapement and management goals; implement a new recreational allocation to the Port of La Push and adjust the Neah Bay allocation accordingly; add preseason flexibility for recreational port allocations north of Cape Falcon; and implement preseason flexibility in
Comments must be submitted in writing by December 4, 2000.
Send comments to Donna Darm, Acting Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115-0070, fax: 206-526-6376; or to Rebecca Lent, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213, fax: 562-980-4018. Send comments regarding any ambiguity or unnecessary complexity arising from the language used in this rule to Donna Darm or Rebecca Lent. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via email or Internet.
Copies of Amendments 14 and the final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS)/regulatory impact review (RIR)/initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), along with the appendices and the Review of 1999 Ocean Salmon Fisheries are available from Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director, Pacific Fishery Management Council, 2130 SW Fifth Ave., Suite 224, Portland, OR 97201.
Christopher L. Wright at 206- 526-6140, Svein Fougner at 562-980-4040, or Dr. Donald O. McIsaac at 503-326-6352.
The Secretary approved the Salmon FMP under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., in 1978. The Council has amended the Salmon FMP 13 times since 1978. The regulations are codified at 50 CFR part 660, subpart H. The Salmon FMP was amended annually from 1979 to 1983; however, in 1984, a framework amendment was implemented that provided the mechanism for making preseason and inseason adjustments in the regulations without annual amendments.
The Council prepared Amendment 14 to the Salmon FMP and submitted it on June 12, 2000, for Secretarial review. NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 14 in the Federal Register on June 27, 2000 (65 FR 39584), announcing a 60-day public comment period, which ended on August 28, 2000. NMFS approved Amendment 14 on September 27, 2000.
Amendment 14 has multiple parts. The major parts of the amendment revise the Salmon FMP to bring it into compliance with the 1996 SFA amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act; establish a new recreational allocation for the Port of La Push, WA, and add flexibility to deviate from specified recreational Port allocations with the agreement of representatives from the affected Ports; and establish preseason flexibility to deviate from commercial and recreational gear allocations and recreational port allocations North of Cape Falcon, OR in order to access marked hatchery salmon in selective fisheries.
With the approval by the Secretary, Amendment 14 revises the Salmon FMP to bring it into compliance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The most significant changes include a new definition of optimum yield (OY); a bycatch definition and new requirements to reduce bycatch; new requirements designed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks; and the designation of EFH, with a discussion of threats to EFH and recommended measures to conserve and enhance EFH. A new section in chapter 1 entitled “What this Plan Covers” was added to the Salmon FMP to provide a clear description of management actions included in the document. In addition, the amendment provides information on fishery-specific stock impacts and updates the fishery description to reference new appendices.
Only some of the changes made by Amendment 14 are intended to be codified in the regulations. Specifically, this proposed rule would make minor changes to language regarding escapement and management goals; implement a new recreational allocation to the Port of La Push and adjust the Neah Bay allocation accordingly; add preseason flexibility for recreational port allocations North of Cape Falcon; and implement preseason flexibility in setting recreational port allocation or recreational and commercial allocations North of Cape Falcon to take advantage of selective fishing opportunities.
The former Escapement and Management goals section, § 660.410(a), was changed to a new Conservation Objectives section. The SFA amendments require the Council to manage each year to achieve the maximum sustained yield (MSY) or maximum sustainable production (MSP), MSY proxy, or rebuilding schedule. The control rule triggers an overfishing concern when individual stocks fail to meet conservation objectives for three consecutive years (§ 660.410(b)(1)). Conservation objectives are summarized in Table 3-1 of the Salmon FMP.
Amendment 14 establishes a recreational allocation for the La Push Port area separate from the Neah Bay port area, and the Annual Actions section (660.408(c)(v)) would be modified accordingly. The La Push subarea allocation would be set at 5.2 percent, which is approximately 20 percent of the former combined Neah Bay/La Push allocation. This portion is equal to the level provided to La Push during the annual preseason process beginning in 1990. In addition, during years when there is an Area 4B add-on fishery inside Washington internal waters (which benefits only Neah Bay). Twenty-five percent of the numerical value of that fishery shall be added to the recreational allowable ocean harvest north of Leadbetter Point prior to applying the sharing percentages for Westport and La Push. The increase to Westport and La Push will be subtracted from the Neah Bay ocean share to maintain the same total harvest allocation north of Leadbetter Point. Therefore, La Push would receive 2.6 percent of the basic coho allocation plus 1.2 percent of the Area 4B add-on.
Section 660.408(c)(v)(A) would be modified to allow flexibility to deviate from Salmon FMP subarea quotas in order to meet recreational fishery objectives, if those measures are agreed to by representatives of the affected ports. In addition, the regulation would establish a Council process to deviate from the non-Indian recreational and/or commercial allocations north of Cape Falcon to selectively harvest hatchery-produced coho salmon, while not increasing impacts to natural stocks.
Minor changes to the regulatory language in 50 CFR part 660 necessary to implement Amendment 14 would also be made.
NMFS has determined that Amendment 14 is consistent with the national standards and other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.
The Council prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) describing the economic impacts to small entities of all the alternatives considered in the this proposed rule. A copy of the analysis is available from the Council (see ADDRESSES). A summary of the analysis follows:
The proposed rule would make five changes to the existing regulations. Only items 2-5 have regulatory effects that are subject to analysis under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The regulatory changes include:
1. Minor changes to the description of escapement and management goals.
2. Providing a specific recreational allocation to the Port of La Push.
3. Adjusting the recreational port allocations when there is an Area 4B add-on fishery to account for the specific allocation to the Port of La Push.
4. Providing preseason flexibility for recreational port allocations to allow for deviation from subarea allocations to meet recreational objectives, if agreed to by representatives of affected ports.
5. Adding preseason flexibility for setting recreational port allocations, or recreational and commercial allocations North of Cape Falcon, to selectively target hatchery-origin stocks.
All of these changes address management of coho and chinook fisheries that operate in ocean waters north of Cape Falcon, OR to the U.S.-Canada Border (Cape Falcon is south of the Columbia River mouth, between the Ports of Garibaldi and Astoria, OR). Therefore, this proposed rule directly affects the non-tribal commercial troll fisheries and recreational fisheries in these waters. These fisheries are a component of the North of Cape Falcon Forum, in which Federal, state, and Tribal co-managers work directly with commercial and recreational harvesting groups to resolve management and allocation issues involving both ocean and inside salmon fisheries in the region. Inside fisheries occur in Puget Sound, Washington coastal rivers and estuaries, and the Columbia River. Therefore, the Council’s decisions concerning these non-tribal fisheries indirectly affect Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor gillnet fisheries; Puget Sound, Washington coastal and Columbia River tribal fisheries; and Puget sound non-tribal commercial and recreational fisheries. In addition to coho and chinook, these inside fisheries also harvest chum, sockeye, and pink salmon. Management of West Coast ocean salmon fisheries is also subject to international catch sharing agreements because West Coast salmon stocks are among those harvested in Alaska and Canadian salmon fisheries. Salmon harvest allocations and regulations also affect salmon processors and wholesalers, as well as associated support industries including tourism, hotels, bait and tackle shops, and marinas.
The economic effects that these proposed regulations would have are described in the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s “Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (May 2000)” and supporting documents including “Appendix B - Description of the Ocean Salmon Fishery and Its Social and Economic Characteristics (August 1999),” “Review of 1999 Ocean Salmon Fisheries (February 2000) and “Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (1997) [Errata].” A summary of the economic impacts of this proposed rule follows:
A fish harvesting or hatchery business is considered a small business if it is independently owned and operated, it does not dominate its field of operations, and if it has annual receipts that are not in excess of $3 million. For charter/party boats, a small business is one with annual receipts that are not in excess of $5 million. The proposed changes to existing salmon regulations directly affect the operations of non-tribal commercial ocean troll and charter boat vessels. Although total salmon and non-salmon fishery revenue is not discussed, for commercial ocean troll and charter boat sectors the economics of this industry suggest that they are considered small entities under the RFA thresholds for a single firm.
During 1997, the north of Cape Falcon ocean recreational salmon harvest was 31,200 coho and the non-tribal commercial harvest was 0 coho and 6,400 chinook. Ocean recreational private and charter boat trips numbered approximately 102,000 in 1997, and the 57 vessels that participated in the ocean commercial troll fishery landed $1.2 million of salmon. Approximately 82 charter boats operated out of the major ports, including Neah Bay, La Push, Westport, Ilwaco, and Astoria, associated with north of Cape Falcon ocean fisheries. These charter vessels undertook a total of approximately 14,000 angler trips in 1997, and fished for salmon, tuna, bottomfish, sturgeon. About 70 of these vessels are considered salmon charter boats. The combined regional income produced by the north of Cape Falcon salmon fisheries was approximately $2.1 million in 1997. Approximately $200,000 of that amount was generated by commercial trolling, and recreational charter and private boat trips generated the remainder.
The economic effects of the proposed regulations are expected to be generally positive. The proposed regulatory changes are intended to reallocate fish among small entities with the intent of increasing overall harvest. The Port of La Push regulations formalize practices that have been employed for a number of years; La Push would receive 2.6 percent of the basic coho allocation plus 1.2 percent of the Area 4B add-on. Flexibility to deviate from subarea allocations in order to meet recreational objectives is expected to result in only positive economic effects because such management decisions require approval by representatives of affected ports. Flexibility in setting preseason recreational port allocations or recreational and commercial allocations north of Cape Falcon for selective fishing on hatchery stock coho would likely lead to positive economic effects on ocean fisheries because such measures result in increased fishing opportunities when such fish are available. These selective fisheries are open primarily in August and September, although the Council may consider opening selective fisheries at other times. Compared to the original allocation scheme the selective fishery regime does not increase the mortality of natural stocks. Other allocation objectives (
The general effects of the proposed regulatory changes are to provide flexibility to the Council’s decision making processes and allow increased fish harvest levels, when possible, through pre-season allocation setting procedures. User groups (non-tribal ocean troll and ocean recreational fisheries) participate directly in the consultative processes, so it is unlikely that any single group will suffer economically while some or all user groups may benefit. The consultation process is designed to provide the maximum economic benefits to all user groups.
The intended effect of this proposed rule is to employ management measures that minimize impacts to species, stocks, or size/age classes of concern, while maximizing access to harvestable fish. This is accomplished through management measures including gear restrictions, time/area closures, and catch or retention restrictions that allow fishermen to harvest marked hatchery salmon and release natural-origin fish.
Analysis of 1996 fishery information shows that selective ocean coho harvest could be increased by over 300 percent without impacting natural stocks. Without such selective fisheries, total salmon harvest would have to be sharply reduced to protect depressed natural stocks. These procedures also allow managers to make in-season trades between ocean fisheries and other fisheries, and between user groups in order to increase harvest opportunities for all user groups.
Insufficient data preclude a quantitative analysis; however, the Council’s qualitative cost-benefit summary in support of Executive Order 12866 assesses the direct and indirect economic effects of the proposed
In developing these regulations the Council tried to minimize impacts on small entities. For example, the Council was aware of the allocative effects of selective fisheries on small entities participating in ocean fisheries, and developed regulations to enhance selective fishing options in August and September. This limits the amount of reallocation between inside and outside fisheries and therefore reduces impacts on such small entities. The public is invited to comment on the IRFA and the economic analysis, whether there are additional economic impacts that should be considered, and whether there are ways to reduce any adverse effects on small entities.
The proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The NMFS Northwest Region has completed a Section 7 informal consultation under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects of Amendment 14 on listed salmon stocks. Amendment 14 does not by itself authorize any fishing or other activity that would result in the take of listed fish. It modifies certain aspects of the current Salmon FMP but in no way affects the existing Salmon FMP requirements that management measures comply with NMFS ESA consultation standards for listed species. Three of the Amendment 14 components (overfishing, EFH, and bycatch) will result in neutral effects or in more conservative management of non-listed salmon stocks, and should therefore provide greater protection to natural stocks of listed and non-listed species. While there are some uncertainties regarding the effects of selective fisheries on naturally spawning stocks, NMFS retains the authority and responsibility for ensuring that annual management measures developed under the Salmon FMP comply with ESA consultation standards, and that analysis of these measures is based on the best available science. The remaining elements of the amendment, including recreational allocation, definition of OY, and various editorial changes will have no effect on management of listed stocks.
Based on these considerations, NMFS concluded that Amendment 14 and its implementing regulations are not likely to adversely affect any of the salmon stocks presently listed under ESA or their critical habitat.
The Council prepared an FSEIS for Amendment 14. The FSEIS has been incorporated in the Amendment 14 document and may be obtained from the Council (see
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 rule (see
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Fisheries, Fishing, Guam, Hawaiian Natives, Indians, Northern Mariana Islands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(v)
(A)
* * * * *
(vi)
* * * * *
(viii)
* * * * *
(a) The conservation objectives are summarized in Table 3-1 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan.
(b) * * *
(1) A comprehensive technical review of the best scientific information available provides conclusive evidence that, in the view of the Council, the Scientific and Statistical Committee, and the Salmon Technical Team, justifies modification of a conservation objective; except that the 35,000 natural spawner floor for Klamath River fall chinook may only be changed by FMP amendment.
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is making efforts to reduce the paperwork burden. USAID invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act for 1995.
Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed or continuing collections 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 burden estimates; (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.
Submit comments on or before December 19, 2000.
Beverly Johnson, Bureau for Management, Office of Administrative Services, Information and Records Division, U.S. Agency for International Development, Room 2.07-106, RRB, Washington, DC 20523, (202) 712-1365 or via e-mail bjohnson@usaid. gov.
Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Notice of opportunity to submit application.
Up to six pilot projects, no more than one of which may be in any State, may be authorized for the harvest of biomass from land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to be used for energy production. Applications for conducting pilot projects of the harvest of biomass from land enrolled in the CRP for energy production may be submitted to the Commodity Credit Corporation.
Applications must be postmarked on or before December 19, 2000.
Applications will be accepted by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) State Executive Director in the respective State in which the pilot project is proposed to be conducted. State FSA office addresses are provided in Exhibit 1.
Beverly Preston, Agricultural Program Specialist, Conservation Programs Branch, Conservation and Environmental Programs Division, FSA, at (202) 720-9563.
Section 769 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Act, 2000 (Pub. L. 106-78), amended Section 1232(a)(7) of the Food Security Act of 1985 to provide new authority to use Conservation Reserve Program land for pilot biomass projects. Specifically, Section 769 provided that the Secretary shall approve not more than six projects, no more than one of which may be in any State, under which land subject to the contracts may be harvested for recovery for biomass used in energy production if: (i) No acreage subject to the contract is harvested more than once every other year and (ii) not more than 25 percent of the total acreage enrolled in the program in any crop reporting district (as designated by the Secretary) is harvested in any 1 year. The statute specified that no portion of the crop on the pilot land could be used for any commercial purpose other than energy production from biomass, and instructed the Secretary that this allowance would not include the harvesting of any wetland, or any acreage of any type enrolled in a partial field conservation practice (including riparian forest buffers, filter strips, and buffer strips). It was also specified in the statute that the owner or operator must agree to a CRP payment reduction in an amount determined by the Secretary, and that the total acres for all of the projects could not exceed 250,000 acres.
This notice sets out the terms under which pilot projects will be considered and the questions that must be answered on the application so that a considered choice may be made in choosing which projects to approve. The conditions set on the application process, as set forth in this notice, generally follow the terms of the statute.
No portion of the harvested crop may be used for any purpose other than energy production from biomass. Participants are responsible for the restoration, at their own expense, of any cover damaged by harvesting, including reseeding if necessary.
The following definitions are applicable to applications to conduct a pilot project for the harvest of biomass from land enrolled in the CRP to be used for energy production:
Biomass means any eligible vegetative cover that is an approved cover for use in the Conservation Reserve Program.
Applications for pilot projects must be submitted to the State Executive Director of the State FSA office where the proposed pilot project is to be conducted and must provide, at a minimum, all of the following information:
1. Name.
2. Location (State and county or counties).
3. Size (total acres) and extent including map.
4. Physical features including soil, geology, plant, and animal resources.
5. Distance to biomass facility.
6. Name.
7. Location.
8. Logistical issues (roads, bridges, etc.).
9. The specific type(s) and variety of cover proposed to be harvested.
10. Assurances to ensure that all harvesting limitations will not be exceeded.
11. Assurances that the cover will be reseeded, if applicable, after harvest.
12. How the harvested material will be transported to the energy production facility.
13. An estimate of the time needed from planting of biomass cover to first harvest to the use of harvested material as energy production.
14. A detailed statement of all budgetary outlays for each proposed project.
15. A detailed statement of the expected results of the project.
16. An environmental, social, economic, and environmental justice analysis of the impact of the planting and harvesting and proposed use of the biomass material on erosion control, wildlife and wildlife habitat, water quality, and air quality.
17. How the applicant will provide for protection of cultural resources present on the acreage in the project area.
18. A list of all environmental permits needed to conduct the proposed project and how and when the permits will be obtained.
19. A detailed statement of the goals, including expected completion dates, of the project.
20. A detailed statement outlining the monitoring process of the project, including who will conduct the monitoring process.
21. An analysis of the impact the project may have on regional and local economies, including if the producer participating in the project will receive any compensation, monetary or otherwise, from the harvested biomass.
22. A description of what, if any, public input or comments were elicited or obtained regarding the proposed project.
23. The type of energy proposed to be produced from the biomass.
24. How the biomass will be used for energy production, including a comparative analysis of the current energy source and proposed biomass energy source.
25. How and when (time of year) the biomass is proposed to harvested.
26. An estimate of the amount of material that must be harvested to meet the pilot project(s) goals.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service announces its intention to reinstate a previously approved information collection. The collected information will help the Forest Service project and meet demands for renewable resources as a source for fuelwood and fence posts. Information will be collected from a selected number of residential households and logging contractors in selected States.
Comments must be received in writing on or before December 19, 2000.
All comments should be addressed to Ronald Piva, Forest Inventory and Analysis, North Central Research Station, Forest Service, USDA, 1992 Folwell Ave., St. Paul, MN 55108.
Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to (651) 649-5140 or by email to rpiva@fs.fed.us
The public may inspect comments received at the Forest Service, USDA, North Central Research Station, Room 507, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Ronald Piva, North Central Research Station, at (651) 649-5150.
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Research Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 1600), (as amended by the Energy Security Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 8701)), requires the Secretary of Agriculture to make and keep current a comprehensive survey and analysis of the present and prospective conditions of and requirements for renewable resources from forests and range lands of the United States and of the supplies of such resources, including determination of facts necessary in determination of means to balance demand for and supply of these resources.
Wood was the major source of energy for households in the United States until the 1880s when use of wood for heating fuel began to decline. In 1970, less than 2 percent of households were using wood as a primary source of heating fuel. In order to monitor availability of renewable resources for fuel and energy, the Forest Service monitored production of wood for
In 1973, fossil fuel prices began to increase and, as a result, in the 1970s and 1980s, more households began to use wood as a source for primary or secondary heating. In 1986, an estimated 5 million households (6 percent) had a working wood stove and 19 million (21 percent) had a working fireplace. Overall, the use of wood as a residential and industrial energy source in the United States tripled in the last 25 years. The frequency of the surveys and the survey data did not reflect the actual use of wood for heating and energy purposes.
Similarly, production of round and split wood posts for farm fencing and other purposes declined from an estimated 900 million posts in 1920 to less than 60 million today. Even though use of round and split wood posts has declined, it is important to continue to monitor the demand for these products and to assess the impact the demand for the products has on the renewable forest resources.
The following describes the information collection to be reinstated:
This survey also will enable Forest Service personnel to determine the types of facilities households use to heat their homes with wood, such as wood burning stoves or fireplaces; the types of land from which the wood will be cut (forestland, such as private forests, State forests, National Forests, or non-forestland, such as wooded strips, narrow windbreaks, urban areas, or yard trees); the condition of the wood that will be cut, that is whether the trees will be dead or alive.
The Forest Inventory and Analysis Work Units at the Northeastern and North Central Research Stations of the Forest Service will collect the information about the quantities and types of trees cut for fuelwood and fence posts in a given year from a sampling of residential and logging contractors located within the geographical area of the Stations. The agency will conduct the survey through telephone interviews.
Respondents will be asked questions that include an estimate of the annual fuelwood consumption in a specific State; the types of burning facilities in the State, such as wood burning stoves or fireplaces; the annual fuelwood and post production in the State; the annual fuelwood and post production from growing stock (forestland trees of commercial value) and non-growing stock sources (cull trees on forest land or trees from non forestland); the annual fuelwood and post production by tree species; the county from which the fuelwood or posts come; and the landowner class from which the fuelwood or posts come, such as public, private, or forest industry lands.
Data gathered in this information collection are not available from other sources.
The agency invites comments on the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the stated purposes and the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical or scientific utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will become a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Southwest Oregon PIEC Advisory Committee will meet on October 31, 2000 in North Bend, Oregon, at the Coos Bay Bureau of Land Management Office at 1300 Airport Lane. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Province Implementation Monitoring 2000; (2) Public Comment; (3) Province Large Wood Implementation; (4) Rogue Basin Technical Team Update; (5) BLM Third-Year Monitoring Evaluation; and (6) Current issues as perceived by Advisory Committee members.
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Roger Evenson, Province Advisory Committee Coordinator, USDA, Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest, 2900 NW Stewart Parkway, Roseburg, Oregon 97470, phone (541) 957-3344.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Notice of Finding of No Significant Impact.
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR Part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for Perry Ridge West (CS-30), Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 3737 Government Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71302, telephone (318) 473-7751.
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Donald W. Gohmert, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project.
The purpose of the project is to ensure the stability of the 1,132 acres of interior marsh by providing bank protection of the critical area located along the north GIWW bankline and preventing additional breaching. Another purpose of the project is to create emergent marsh and increase the occurrence of submerged aquatic vegetation in the existing open water areas. The planned works of improvement include the placement of 9,500 linear feet along the north bank of the GIWW from Perry Ridge to the intersection of the Sabine River. An additional 2,200 feet of rock riprap will be installed from the Sabine/GIWW intersection north along the Sabine River. Additionally 17,000 linear feet of terraces will be constructed in the shallow open water areas north of the GIWW.
The notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various federal, state, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Bruce Lehto, Assistant State Conservationist/Water Resources/Rural Development, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 3737 Government Street, Alexandria, Louisiana 71302, telephone (318) 473-7756.
No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
November 20, 2000.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Louis R. Bartalot (703) 603-7740.
On September 1, 2000 the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (65 FR 53267) of proposed additions to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the services.
3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are hereby added to the Procurement List:
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective date of this addition or options that may be exercised under those contracts.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from Procurement List.
The Committee has received proposals to add to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete commodities previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: November 20, 2000.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely
Louis R. Bartalot (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.
The following services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following commodities have been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of opportunity to request administrative review of antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspension of investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, may request, in accordance with section 351.213(1999) of the Department of Commerce (the Department) Regulations, that the Department conduct an administrative review of that antidumping or countervailing duty order, finding, or suspended investigation.
In accordance with section 351.213(b) of the regulations, an interested party as defined by section 771(9) of the Act may request in writing that the Secretary conduct an administrative review. For both antidumping and countervailing duty reviews, the interested party must specify the individual producers or exporters covered by an antidumping finding or an antidumping or countervailing duty order or suspension agreement for which it is requesting a review, and the requesting party must state why it desires the Secretary to review those particular producers or exporters. If the interested party intends for the Secretary to review sales of merchandise by an exporter (or a producer if that producer also exports merchandise from other suppliers) which were produced in more than one country of origin and each country of origin is subject to a separate order, then the interested party must state specifically, on an order-by-order basis, which exporter(s) the request is intended to cover.
Six copies of the request should be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Room 1870, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. The Department also asks parties to serve a copy of their requests to the Office of Antidumping/Countervailing Enforcement, Attention: Sheila Forbes, in room 3065 of the main Commerce Building. Further, in accordance with section 351.303(f)(l)(i) of the regulations, a copy of each request must be served on every party on the Department's service list.
The Department will publish in the
This notice is not required by statute but is published as a service to the international trading community.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of rescission of antidumping duty administrative review.
On March 30, 2000, in response to a request by the Paint Applicator Division of the American Brush Manufacturers Association, petitioner, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle paint brushes and brush heads from the People's Republic of China (PRC). This review covers two exporters of the subject merchandise, Hebei Animal By-Products Import/Export Corp. (a.k.a Hebei Founder Import & Export Company (Founder)) and Hunan Provincial Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. (Hunan). The period of review is February 1, 1999 through January 31, 2000. We are now rescinding this review as a result of the absence of shipments and entries from these two companies of subject merchandise during the period of review (POR).
October 20, 2000.
Christian Hughes or Maureen Flannery, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4106 and (202) 482-3020, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act by
Imports covered by this review are shipments of natural bristle paint brushes and brush heads from the PRC. Excluded from the review are paint brushes and brush heads with a blend of 40% natural bristles and 60% synthetic filaments. The merchandise under review is currently classifiable under item 9603.40.40.40 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise is dispositive.
On February 14, 2000, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on natural bristle brushes and brush heads from the PRC (65 FR 7348). On February 29, 2000, petitioners in this proceeding requested a review of sales made by Founder and by Hunan during the period February 1, 1999 to January 31, 2000.
On March 30, 2000, the Department initiated an administrative review (65 FR 16875). On April 12, 2000, Founder, and on May 22, 2000, Hunan submitted a certification to the Department that they did not, directly or indirectly, enter for consumption, or sell, export, or ship for entry for consumption in the United States subject merchandise during the period of review. The Department performed a customs query for entries from the PRC classified under HTS number 9603.40.40.40 during the period of review and found no entries of subject merchandise from these parties during that time period. In response to a telephone inquiry, counsel for petitioners stated that they had no information to the contrary. See Memorandum to the File from Christian Hughes: Natural Bristle Paint Brushes and Brush Heads from the People's Republic of China; Hebei Animal By-Products Import/Export Corp. (a.k.a. Hebei Founder Import & Export Company (Founder)) and Hunan Provincial Native Produce & Animal By-Products Import & Export Corp. (Hunan), dated October 6, 2000. Therefore, we have determined that there were no entries into the customs territory of the United States of the subject merchandise during the POR exported by Founder or Hunan.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department may rescind an administrative review, in whole or only with respect to a particular exporter or producer, if the Secretary concludes that, during the period covered by the review, there were no entries, exports, or sales of the subject merchandise. In light of our determination that neither Founder nor Hunan exported or entered the subject merchandise into the territory of the United States during the POR, we are rescinding this review.
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and (4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of closed meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award will meet Monday, November 13, 2000, 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Tuesday, November 14, 2000, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, November 15, 2000, 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Thursday, November 16, 2000, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. The Judges Panel is composed of nine members prominent in the field of quality management and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting is to review the site visit process, review the final judging process and meeting procedures, and final judging of the 2000 applicants. The review process involves examination of records and discussions of applicant data, and will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code.
The meeting will convene November 13, 2000 at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:00 p.m. on November 16, 2000. The entire meeting will be closed.
The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building 222, Red Training Room, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.
Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on March 31, 2000, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by Section 5(c) of the Government in the Sunshine Act, P.L. 94-409. The meeting, which involves examination of records and discussion of Award applicant data, may be closed to the public in accordance with Section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, since the meeting is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of receipt of application and proposed authorization for a small take exemption; request for comments.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Air Force to take, by harassment, bottlenose dolphins, and spotted dolphins incidental to explosive testing of obstacle and mine clearance systems at Eglin Air Force Base, FL (Eglin). Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to authorize these takings for a period not to exceed 1 year.
Comments and information must be received no later than November 20, 2000. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet.
Comments on this application should be addressed to Donna Wieting, Chief, Marine Mammal Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. A copy of the application, the Environmental Assessment (EA), and/or a list of references used in this document, may be obtained by writing to this address or by telephoning one of the contacts listed here.
Kenneth Hollingshead 301-713-2055 ext. 128, or Kathy Wang, 727-570-5312.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) directs the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.
Permission may be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock(s) of marine mammals, will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses, and if permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “...an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. The MMPA defines “harassment” as:
...any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (a) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (b) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Subsection 101(a)(5)(D) establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny issuance of the authorization.
On August 6, 2000, NMFS received an application from the U.S. Air Force at Eglin. The Air Force, in cooperation with the Naval Surface Warfare Center-Coastal Systems Station (NSWC-CSS), U.S. Navy, is requesting an authorization to take, by harassment and non-serious injury, bottlenose dolphins (
The Navy’s current capability to clear obstacles and mines in the surf zone is limited to the hand placement of explosive charges by Navy combat swimmers. The effectiveness of this capability is limited by the ability of swimmers to locate submerged targets and to carry sufficient explosives to destroy the targets. Such operations are considered highly hazardous, and the reliability of obstacle removal is considered to be poor. During the Gulf War, U.S. forces were prevented from landing on the beaches of Kuwait because of the nature and density of the mines and obstacles present on the beaches and in the shallow surf zone. To facilitate future amphibious assaults, the U.S. Navy is committed to developing and testing methods to safely and effectively clear a path through such obstacles, allowing U.S. Marines to conduct an amphibious assault.
NWSC-CSS has requested permission from Eglin to test the Mk-82 general purpose bomb (GPB) in the shallow surf zone along U.S. Air Force-controlled lands of SRI. The taking of bottlenose and spotted dolphins incidental to testing the Shallow Water Assault Breaching system, the Distributed Explosive Technology system, the MK-82 GPBs, and the MK-5 Mine Clearance System (MCS) was authorized by NMFS in December, 1998 (see 63 FR 67669, December 8, 1998). That authorization expired on March 31, 1999. However, testing of the Mk-82 GPB was not conducted during that authorization period.
The proposed action by the NSWC-CSS is an evaluation of the Mk-82 GPBs to clear anti-invasion beach obstacles and mines in the surf zone. The objectives of the test are to: (1) determine the performance of the Mk-82 GPBs against threat obstacles and mines in the surf zone, and (2) provide data and verify empirical models used to assess surf zone obstacle and mine clearance.
The MK-82 GPBs to be tested consist of seven GPBs, each containing 192 lbs (87.1 kg) of explosive for a total weight of 1,344 lbs (610 kg). Three configurations for testing will be used for the proposed test: (1) A linear arrangement of seven GPBs spaced 24 ft (7.3 m) apart, located parallel to the shoreline, (2) a linear arrangement of 7 GPBs spaced 24 ft (7.3 m) apart located perpendicular to the shore, and (3) a matrix (2-3-2) arrangement.
Two separate deployments and firings are required to test each configuration. All MK-82s will be buried vertically to approximately one-half length (about 3 ft (0.9 m)) by jetting. The MK-82s will be detonated using approximately 1/4 block of C-4 explosive paced into the aft fuse well. The MK-82s will be detonated simultaneously in 6 ft (1.8 m) of water using remote detonators to detonate the C-4. All Mk-82 GPBs will be placed in shallow water in the surf zone between the shore and the sand bar.
Each test event will require several days to set up. Beach obstacles (log posts, concrete cubes, and steel hedgehogs) and inert mines will be placed around the bombs to serve as targets for bomb fragments and blast. The Mk-82 GPBs will be detonated and the obstacles and mine field scored and cleaned up to the extent feasible.
In order to avoid impacting the endangered West Indian manatee (
More detailed descriptions of the activity and the expected impact on marine mammals can be found in the Air Force Incidental Harassment (IHA) application. Additional information can be found in the EA prepared in 1998 by the Air Force under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These documents are available upon request (see
A description of the eastern Gulf of Mexico (GOM) ecosystems can be found in general biological oceanographic
Although approximately 27 species of marine mammals (whales, dolphins and porpoises) reside in or pass through the northeastern GOM, the only species of marine mammals that are likely to be impacted by the activities proposed for the shallow coastal waters off SRI are the bottlenose dolphin (
Potential impacts to those marine mammal species known to occur in the SRI area from explosives include both lethal and non-lethal injury, as well as incidental harassment. The pressure wave from the explosive can impact air cavities, such as lungs and intestines. Extensive hemorrhaging into the lungs due to underwater shock waves may cause death to a marine mammal through suffocation (Hill, 1978). Other common injuries which may result in mortality include circulatory failure, broncho-pneumonia in damaged lungs, or peritonitis resulting from perforations of the intestinal wall (Hill, 1978). Because impulse levels sufficient to cause lethal injury increase with increased mammal mass (Yelverton
Non-lethal injuries involve slight lung hemorrhage and tympanic membrane (TM) rupture from which the mammal is expected to recover (Yelverton
Because TM rupture, rather than slight lung hemorrhage, usually occurs at lower impulse levels, TM rupture is used by NMFS and others to conservatively define the non-lethal injury zone. A maximum impulse of 10 psi-msec is often considered to define the non-lethal injury zone, where a very low incidence of blast injuries are likely to occur (Yelverton
In addition to lethal, serious, and non-serious injury, harassment of marine mammals may occur as a result of non-injurious physiological responses to an explosion-generated shockwave and its acoustic signature. Based upon information provided in the SEAWOLF shock trial final environmental impact statement (U.S. Navy, 1998), a dual criterion for marine mammal acoustic harassment has been developed for explosive-generated signals: (1) an energy-based temporary threshold shift (TTS) injury criterion of 182 dB re 1 uPa
The potential impact to Atlantic bottlenose dolphins and the Atlantic spotted dolphins, the two species that may potentially be affected, was evaluated using modeling on the effects of underwater explosions resulting from each of the test systems described previously (see application). Based upon data provided in the application, the maximum number of Atlantic bottlenose dolphins potentially within the injury exposure zone from all tests during the 4-month test period is estimated to be 27-28. The maximum number of Atlantic spotted dolphins potentially injured from all tests combined is less than 1. These are the maximum potential injury levels without implementation of mitigation.
The estimated total numbers of bottlenose dolphins and spotted dolphins potentially exposed to takes by harassment (because they may be within the area between 5 psi-msec and 180 dB re 1 uPa
There are two forms of mitigation proposed for implementation by the Air Force: (1) Natural, as provided by the environment and (2) human, designed to protect marine mammals to the greatest extent practicable.
Eglin has proposed that base personnel conduct a 30-minute pre-detonation aerial monitoring survey immediately prior to each test to ensure no marine mammals are within the test area’s designated safety zone. With water depths less than 18 m (59 ft), low turbidity, and white sand bottom, exceptional marine mammal visibility is ensured. Aerial surveys will be conducted at approximately 100 ft (30.5 m) elevation.
In order to ensure adequate visibility for locating marine mammals (and sea turtles), no detonations will take place if sea state conditions are greater than category 3 and water clarity is not adequate for conducting surveys. No tests will take place if marine mammals or sea turtles are sighted within the safety zone.
In addition to pre-detonation monitoring mentioned previously, Eglin will conduct aerial surveys immediately following each detonation event. The post-test monitoring will be conducted in a similar manner to the pre-test monitoring, except that observation personnel will be focused on locating any injured marine mammals. If any injured marine mammals are observed during post-test monitoring, subsequent detonations will be postponed, and the local stranding network notified. The project will be required to be reviewed by Air Force and NMFS personnel prior to conducting any additional tests.
Any takes of marine mammals other than authorized by the IHA will be reported to the Regional Administrator, NMFS, by the next working day. A draft final report of the entire test results and marine mammal observations for pre- and post-detonation monitoring will be submitted to NMFS within 90 days after completion of the last test. Unless notified by NMFS to the contrary, that draft final report will be considered the final report under the IHA.
Previously, the U.S. Air Force prepared an EA on the Mk-82 GPB and Mk-5 MCS systems. This EA, which supplements information contained in the Air Force application provides additional information for determining whether the activity proposed for obtaining a small take authorization will have no more than a negligible impact on affected marine mammal stocks. NMFS reviewed the EA in December, 1998, and concurred with the findings in the EA (see 63 FR 67669, December 8, 1998). As a result, NMFS found that it is unnecessary to prepare its own NEPA documentation and adopted the Air Force EA as its own, as provided by 40 CFR 1506.3. At that time, NMFS found that the issuance of an IHA to the Air Force would not result in a significant environmental impact on the human environment and that it is unnecessary to either prepare its own NEPA documentation or to recirculate the Air Force EA for additional comments. NMFS believes that the findings made in December 1998, remain appropriate.
On October 15, 1998, NMFS completed consultation with the Air Force under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The finding of that consultation was that the proposed testing activity is not likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species of whales or sea turtles, if the conservation and mitigation measures specified in the Biological Assessment prepared by the Air Force are undertaken. NMFS concludes, therefore, that the issuance of an IHA to the Air Force to take small numbers of bottlenose dolphins, spotted dolphins and possibly other cetacean species by harassment incidental to explosive testing at Eglin is not likely to adversely affect endangered or threatened species of whales or sea turtles.
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to the U.S. Air Force for the harassment of a small number of bottlenose dolphins and spotted dolphins incidental to testing the Mk-82 GPBs off SRI, Eglin. NMFS has preliminarily determined that, provided the proposed mitigation and monitoring measures are enacted, the short-term impact of testing Mk-82 GPBs for obstacle and mine clearance systems at Eglin has the potential to result in only small numbers of marine mammals being affected, and have no more than a negligible impact on affected marine mammal stocks.
NMFS requests interested persons to submit ments, information, and suggestions concerning this request (see
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs directing Customs to deny entry to shipments manufactured in a certain company in Indonesia.
November 19, 2000.
Janet Heinzen, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3400.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 12475 of May 9, 1984, as amended.
The U.S. Customs Service has conducted on-site verification of textile and textile product production in a number of foreign countries. Based on information obtained through on-site verifications and from other sources, U.S. Customs has informed CITA that certain companies were illegally transshipping, were closed, or were unable to produce records to verify production. The Chairman of CITA has directed the U.S. Customs Service to issue regulations regarding the denial of entry of shipments from such companies (see
Should CITA determine that this decision should be amended, such amendment will be published in the Federal Register.
Dear Commissioner: The U.S. Customs Service has conducted on- site verification of textile and textile product production in a number of foreign countries. Based on information obtained through on-site verifications and from other sources, U.S. Customs has informed CITA that certain companies were illegally transshipping, were closed, or were unable to produce records to verify production. The Chairman of CITA has directed the U.S. Customs Service to issue regulations regarding the denial of entry of shipments from such companies (see directive dated July 27, 1999 (64 FR 41395), published on July 30, 1999).In order to secure compliance with U.S. law, including Section 204 and U.S. customs law, to carry out textile and textile product agreements, and to avoid circumvention of textile agreements, the Chairman of CITA directs the U.S. Customs Service, effective for goods exported on and after November 19, 2000 and extending through November 18, 2002, to deny entry to textiles and textile products manufactured by the Indonesian company, Pt. Pollux Indonesia Textile Industry. Customs has informed CITA that this company was found to have been illegally transshipping, closed, or unable to produce records to verify production.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
The Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on High Energy Laser Weapon Systems Applications will meet in closed session on November 14-15, 2000; December 14-15, 2000; January 23-24, 2001; February 21-22, 2001; March 13-14, 2001; April 17-18, 2001; and May 15-16, 2001, at Strategic Analysis Inc., 3601 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22201.
The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Task Force will review on-going or proposed programs in high energy laser (HEL) applications; examine recent supporting technology advancements and their applications with respect to supporting military HEL weapon system developments; develop potential military and strategic HEL system applications and identify processes required to implement these potentials; determine what needs to be done to weaponize these systems; and assess HEL operational concepts, impacts and limitations, considering legal, treaty and policy issues concerning HEL employment.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, P.L. No. 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II, (1994)), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board meetings, concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) (1994), and that accordingly these meetings will be closed to the public.
Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DAPE-ZXI-RM), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Army announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by December 19, 2000.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers IRWR, Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, P.O. Box 61280, New Orleans, Louisiana 70161-1280, ATTN: CEWRC-NDC-CQ, (Jay A. Wieriman). Consideration will be given to all comments received within 60 days of the date of publication of this notice.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address, or call Department of the Army Reports clearance officer at (703) 614-0454.
The data is also used by the U.S. Coast Guard and other Federal and State agencies involved in transportation. If this data
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—New York District Department of the Army, Department of Defense.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, the New York District Office of the Corps of Engineers proposes to provide flood protection for the town of Whitestown through modification of the Sauquoit Creek. The Corps has identified a history of frequent and serious flooding along the Sauquoit Creek in the town of Whitestown. The flooding is caused by both fluvial and ice-jam related events. The project extends from the entrance ramp of Route 5A to 1,000 feet above the confluence of Sauquoit Creek with the Mohawk River. The total length of the channel modification is approximately 1 mile ending with a 2,000 foot long V notch pilot channel. The channel modifications include widening, realigning and deepening along with construction of a low flow channel within the main channel. Bioengineering techniques will be utilized to stabilize the channel. The V notch pilot channel will serve to provide a smooth transition between the channel modifications and the natural streambed. The plan prevents damages from fluvial events up to the 25-year level.
Written comments received within 45 days of the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability will be considered by the Corps in preparing the Final EIS.
Address: New York District Corps of Engineers, CENAN-PL-ES, 26 Federal Plaza, New York NY 10278-0090.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was filed in the
Various structural and nonstructural alternatives to minimize flooding and ice jams were originally considered. Three plans were studied in detail (40, 50, 60 foot Channel Plan). The 60 Foot Channel Plan (Plan D3a) was designated the preferred plan by the New York District for its high benefits compared with its costs. The Plan consisted of channel modifications such as realignment, widening, deepening and a riprap armored trapezoidal channel along with constructing a high flow diversion channel connecting Sauquoit Creek to the Mohawk River.
Funding constraints and changes in administration policy delayed proposed implementation of the recommended plan and the FEIS was not filed in the
Several scoping meetings were held at the time of the original environmental assessment for this project and significant issues related to the project were identified. The changes in the project design have decreased the environmental impacts; therefore an additional scoping meeting was not considered necessary.
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, DoD.
Notice of availability.
The Department of the Army announces the general availability of exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses relative to a novel quantum-well technology as described in the U.S. Patent #5,579,331; “Delta-strained quantum-well semiconductor lasers and optical amplifiers”; Shen,
Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Technology Applications, ATTN: AMSRL-CS-TT/Bldg 459, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005-5425, Telephone: (410) 278-5028.
None.
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, DoD.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with 37 CFR 404
Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Technology Applications, ATTN: AMSRL-CS-TT/Bldg 459, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21005-5425, Telephone: (410) 278-5028.
None.
Department of Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy (Navy) has prepared and filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a Replacement Pier and Dredging at Naval Station (NAVSTA) San Diego, San Diego, California. A public hearing will be held to receive oral and written comments on the DEIS. Federal, state and local agencies, and interested individuals are invited to be present or represented at the hearing.
The public hearing will be held on November 16, 2000 from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.
The hearing will be held at the Holiday Inn, Terrace Ballroom, 700 National City Boulevard (at 8th Street), National City, California.
Grace S. Peñafuerte, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division, telephone (619) 556-7773, facsimile (619) 556-8929, or e-mail:
Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the Navy has prepared and filed with the EPA a DEIS for a replacement pier and dredging at NAVSTA San Diego, California, to support ships currently homeported in the San Diego Naval Complex.
A Notice of Intent for this DEIS was published in the
The proposed action includes demolition of two inadequate piers, construction of a new pier, provision for requisite utilities, dredging, and dredged material disposal. The replacement pier would be 120 feet wide and 1,500 feet long with a power intensive electrical supply (19,800 amps at 450 volts). Dredging to 37 feet (11.3 meters) below mean lower low water would be necessary to accommodate modern Navy ships. A total volume of approximately 763,545 cubic yards of sediment would be dredged, of which an estimated 47,966 cubic yards is unsuitable for ocean disposal.
The purpose of the proposed action is to develop a replacement pier to provide berthing, logistics support, and maintenance and utility requirements for ships currently homeported in the San Diego Region. The need for the proposed action is to address the current shortfall in pier infrastructure and capacity in the San Diego Naval Complex.
Two alternatives for pier replacement are considered in the DEIS: (1) Replacement of existing Piers 10 and 11 with a new pier, or (2) replacement of existing Piers 11 and 12 with a new pier. Two alternative pier construction techniques are considered: a pile-supported pier and a mole pier. Dredged material suitable for ocean disposal is proposed to be disposed at the LA-5 Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site. Sediments unsuitable for ocean disposal are proposed to be dewatered and disposed at an approved upland disposal site. Two dewatering options for unsuitable sediments are evaluated: confined disposal facilities and barge dewatering. Various disposal options for unsuitable dredged sediment are also evaluated, including confined nearshore disposal sites, upland landfill and reclamation sites, and upland reuse areas. The DEIS also considers the No-Action Alternative which is no demolition, no pier construction, and no dredging and disposal.
The DEIS evaluates the environmental effects associated with each of the alternatives and options. Issues addressed in the DEIS include: Water resources, biological resources, topography/geology, air quality, health and safety, land use, noise, transportation, aesthetics, cultural resources, utilities, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. Impact analyses include an evaluation of the direct, indirect, short-term, and cumulative impacts.
No decision on the proposed action will be made until the NEPA process is complete. The decision will be announced when the Secretary of the Navy releases the Record of Decision.
The DEIS has been distributed to various federal, state and local agencies, elected officials, and special interest groups. The DEIS is available for public review at the following public libraries:
The Navy will conduct one public hearing to receive oral and written comments concerning the DEIS. A Spanish-language interpreter will be available at the hearing. The public hearing will begin with a brief presentation followed by a request for comments on the DEIS. Federal, state and local agencies, and interested parties are invited to be present or represented at the hearing. Those who intend to speak will be asked to submit a speaker card (available at the door.) Oral comments will be transcribed by a stenographer. To assure accuracy of the record, all statements should be submitted in writing. All statements, both oral and written, will become part of the public record in the study. Equal weight will be given to both oral and written comments. In the interest of available time, each speaker will be asked to limit oral comments to three minutes. Longer comments should be summarized at the public hearing and submitted in writing either at the hearing or mailed to Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Division, 2585 Callagan Highway, Building 99, San Diego, California 92136-5198 (Attn: Ms. Grace S. Peñafuerte, Code 5SPR.GP.) Written comments are requested not later than December 4, 2000.
Department of Education
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 19, 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,
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: 2,788
Burden Hours: 8,592.
In addition, the study will: (1) Collect and analyze demographic and descriptive information on REA states, districts and schools in order to provide a contextual backdrop and sampling for two national evaluations—the School and Classroom Implementation and Impact (SCII) study and the Children's Reading Gains (Gains) study; (2) compare eligible but not funded with funded districts and schools; (3) augment the agency's REA monitoring within each State Education Agency (SEA), Local Education Agency (LEA), and school; (4) track performance over time; (5) inform the states' development of indicators of program quality; and (6) provide data for the National Institute for Literacy's effort to disseminate information on effective subgrantee projects.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Kathy Axt at her internet address Kathy_Axt@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2001.
The amount of funds, if any, available under this competition is conditioned upon FY 2001 funds being appropriated for these purposes.
These estimates are projections for the guidance of potential applicants. The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
The maximum points for each criterion is as follows:
(a) Significance—15 points.
(b) Quality of Project Design—35 points.
(c) Quality of Project Personnel—10 points.
(d) Adequacy of Resources—5 points.
(e) Quality of Management Plan—15 points.
(f) Quality of Project Evaluation—20 points.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (
Individuals with disabilities may also obtain a copy of the application package in an alternate format on request to the contact person listed above. However, the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternate format the standard forms included in the application package.
You may view this document, as well as other Department of Education documents published in the
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 USC 7907.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB) Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, November 8, 2000 6:00 p.m.—9:30 p.m.
Garden Plaza Hotel 215 South Illinois Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN.
Dave Adler, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 576-4094; Fax (865) 576-9121 or e-mail:
Badger Generating Company, LLC (Badger) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which Badger will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-basked rates. Badger also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Badger requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Badger.
On October 10, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Badger 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).
Absent a request for hearing within this period, Badger is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 9, 2000.
Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at
Coyote Springs 2, LLC (Coyote) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which Coyote will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. Coyote also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Coyote requested that the Commission grant blanket approval of 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Coyote.
On October 12, 2000, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under part 34, subject to the following:
Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Coyote 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).
Absent a request for hearing within this period, Coyote is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, endorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Coyote's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 13, 2000.
Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Ameren Services Company (Ameren), on behalf of the Ameren Operating Companies, AmerenUE and Ameren CIPS, tendered for filing a copy of Schedule 4A to the Open Access Transmission Tariff of the Ameren Operating Companies as that Schedule was accepted by letter order of September 18, 2000 in Docket No. ER00-612-000. Schedule 4A has been reformatted to conform with Order No. 614 but with no changes to the text accepted by the Commission.
Ameren seeks an effective date of November 22, 1999 for this reformatted Schedule 4A. Accordingly, Ameren seeks waiver of the Commission's notice requirements.
Copies of the filing have been served on all parties to Docket Nos. ER00-612-000 and ER00-3623-000 and on the Missouri Public Service Commission and the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Southern Company Energy Marketing, L.P., tendered for filing an updated market power study in compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order in Southern Company Energy Marketing L.P., 81 FERC ¶ 61,009 (1997).
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, American Electric Power Service Corporation, tendered for filing on behalf of the operating companies of the American Electric Power System (AEP), proposed amendments to the Open Access Transmission Tariff accepted for filing by the Commission in Docket No. ER98-2786-000.
AEP requests waiver of notice to permit an effective date of December 1, 2000, for such amendments.
Copies of the filing have been served upon AEP's transmission customers and the state utility regulatory commissions of Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company tendered for filing notice that effective December 6, 2000, the Service Agreement between GPU Energy, on behalf of Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (jointly referred to as the GPU Operating Companies) and Horizon Energy Company (now PECO Energy Company d/b/a Exelon Energy), dated October 21, 1997 and filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as Service Agreement No. 87 under FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1 is to be canceled.
Notice of the proposed cancellation has been served upon PECO Energy Company d/b/a Exelon Energy.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (individually doing business as GPU Energy), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of the Service Agreement between GPU Energy and DTE Energy Trading, Inc., FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Service Agreement No. 93.
GPU Energy requests that cancellation be effective December 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (individually doing business as GPU Energy), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of the Service Agreement between GPU Service Corporation and The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, PSI Energy, Inc. and Cinergy Services, Inc. (referred to as the Cinergy Operating Companies), FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Service Agreement No. 42.
GPU Energy requests that cancellation be effective December 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (individually doing business as GPU Energy), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of the Service Agreement between GPU Service Corporation and Noram Energy Services, Inc. (now Reliant Energy Services, Inc.), FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Service Agreement No. 37.
GPU Energy requests that cancellation be effective December 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (individually doing business as GPU Energy), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of the Service Agreement between GPU Service Corporation and New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Service Agreement No. 20. GPU Energy requests that cancellation be effective December 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (individually doing business as GPU Energy), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of the Service Agreement between GPU Service Corporation and Vastar Power Marketing, Inc. (now Southern Company Energy Marketing L.P.), FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Service Agreement No. 50.
GPU Energy requests that cancellation be effective December 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) tendered for filing a Non-Firm Point-To-Point Service Agreement under Cinergy's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) entered into between Cinergy and MidAmerican Energy Company—Retail (MECR).
Cinergy and MECR are requesting an effective date of September 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) tendered for filing a Firm Point-To-Point Service Agreement under Cinergy's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) entered into between Cinergy and Alliance Energy Services (“Alliance”).
Cinergy and Alliance are requesting an effective date of September 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) tendered for filing a Non-Firm Point-To-Point Service Agreement under Cinergy's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) entered into between Cinergy and Alliance Energy Services (Alliance).
Cinergy and Alliance are requesting an effective date of September 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) tendered for filing a Non-Firm Point-To-Point Service Agreement under Cinergy's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) entered into between Cinergy and MidAmerican Energy Company (MECB).
Cinergy and MECB are requesting an effective date of September 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) tendered for filing a Firm Point-To-Point Service Agreement under Cinergy's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) entered into between Cinergy and MidAmerican Energy Company—Retail (MECR).
Cinergy and MECR are requesting an effective date of September 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy)
Cinergy and MECB are requesting an effective date of September 6, 2000.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, the California Power Exchange Corporation (CalPX), on behalf of its CalPX Trading Services Division (CTS), filed Amendment No. 5 to the CalPX Trading Services Second Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 1. The primary purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to streamline Appendix 4 of the Rate Schedule, which contains the Participation Agreement between CTS and its participants. CTS requests an effective date of December 10, 2000, sixty days after the date of this filing. CTS also proposes to clarify that default chargebacks will be billed as administrative fees and proposes a few non-substantive editorial changes.
CTS has served copies of the filing on its participants and on the California Public Utilities Commission and has posted a copy of the filing on its website.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, the California Power Exchange Corporation (CalPX), tendered for filing its Tariff Amendment No. 20. The purpose of Tariff Amendment No. 20 is to clarify that any default charge backs paid on a pro-rata basis by participants will be included on the invoice as an administrative charge.
CalPX requests an effective date of December 10, 2000.
CalPX states that it has served this filing on its participants and on the California Public Utilities Commission and has posted a copy of the filing on its website.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), tendered for filing a Notice of Termination of the Settlement Agreement concerning FERC Docket No. ER89-4-000, between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Northern California Power Agency, on file with the Commission as PG&E Rate Schedule FERC No. 128.
PG&E has requested certain waivers.
Copies of this filing have been served upon the Northern California Power Agency and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Allegheny Power Service Corporation on behalf of Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company (Allegheny Power), tendered for filing Service Agreement No. 327 to add Dominion Retail, Inc., to Allegheny Power's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff.
The proposed effective date under the agreement is October 9, 2000.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the West Virginia Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Indianapolis Power & Light Company (IPL), tendered for filing an executed service agreement for Non-Firm Point-to-Point transmission service with Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C., under IPL's Open Access Transmission Tariff. IPL also submits an index of customers.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), tendered for filing a Service Agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service between The City of Sunnyvale California (Sunnyvale), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Service Agreement) pursuant to the PG&E Wholesale Distribution Tariff (WDT).
The Service Agreement facilitates payment of PG&E's costs of designing, constructing, procuring, testing, placing in operation, owning, operating and maintaining the customer-specific facilities requested by Sunnyvale required for service over PG&E's distribution facilities.
PG&E has requested certain waivers.
Copies of this filing have been served upon Sunnyvale and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Green Mountain Power Corporation (GMP), tendered a for filing a notice of cancellation and a service agreement for Vermont Electric Cooperative, Inc., to take service under its Network Integration Transmission Service tariff.
Copies of this filing have been served on each of the affected parties, the Vermont Public Service Board and the Vermont Department of Public Service.
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Arizona Public Service Company (the Company), tendered for filing an informational report on refunds of overbilled amounts to certain wholesale customers through the Company's FERC Fuel Adjustment Clause.
Copies of this filing have been served upon the affected parties as follows:
Take notice that on October 10, 2000, Madison Gas and Electric Company (MGE), tendered for filing a service agreement under MGE's Market-Based Power Sales Tariff with Tenaska Power Services Company.
MGE requests the agreement be effective on the date it was filed with the FERC.
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, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests 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.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA is seeking public comment and information on the following Information Collection Request (ICR): Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools Rule and Revised Asbestos Model Accreditation Plan Rule (EPA ICR No. 1365.05, OMB No. 2070-0091). This ICR involves a collection activity that is currently approved and scheduled to expire on May 31, 2001. The information collected under this ICR relates to the detection and management of asbestos in school buildings, thereby protecting the environment and public health. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection activity and its expected burden and costs. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval under the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the collection.
Written comments, identified by the docket control number OPPTS-00298 and administrative record number AR-227, must be received on or before December 19, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit III. of the
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a local education agency (LEA), e.g., an elementary or secondary school district); an asbestos training provider to schools and educational systems; a state education department or commission; or administer public health programs. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This table 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 this table could also be affected. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the EPA Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/. On the Home Page select “Laws and Regulations,” “Regulations and Proposed Rules,” and then look up the entry for this document under the “
Using a faxphone call (202) 401-0527 and select item 4083 for a copy of the ICR.
The Agency has established an official record for this action under docket control number OPPTS-00298 and administrative record number AR-227. The official record consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received during an applicable comment period, and other information related to this action, including any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). This official record includes the documents that are physically located in the docket, as well as the documents that are referenced in those documents. The public version of the official record does not include any information claimed as CBI. The public version of the official record, which includes printed, paper versions of any electronic comments submitted during an applicable comment period, is available for inspection in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information Center, North East Mall Rm. B-607, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC. The Center is open from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Center is (202) 260-7099.
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 OPPTS-00298 and administrative record number AR-227 on 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 technical person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number and administrative record number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are 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 estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
EPA is seeking comments on the following ICR:
Under the PRA, “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. For this collection it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized in this notice. The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average in range between 5.5 hours per respondent and 140 hours per respondent, depending upon the category of respondent. The following is a summary of the estimates taken from the ICR:
There is a net decrease of 155,142 hours (from 2,367,293 hours to 2,212,151 hours) in the total estimated respondent burden compared with that identified in the information collection request most recently approved by OMB. This change reflects changes in the numbers of school buildings containing friable asbestos (adjustment), offset slightly by an increase in the burden that applies to training providers (adjustment).
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before December 19, 2000.
To obtain a copy of the ICR without charge, contact: Mr. John Guevin, Indoor Environments Division,
Mr. John Guevin by phone at (202) 564-9055 or by e-mail at
The IAQ Practices in Schools Survey will allow EPA to gain information regarding the number of schools that have implemented sound IAQ-management practices, such as those activities recommended in its guidance. These data are essential for measuring the effectiveness of EPA's outreach efforts against the Agency's established GPRA goal. EPA is working towards achieving the implementation of sound IAQ practices in 15 percent, or 16,650, of the nation's public and private schools by 2005. The IAQ Practices in Schools Survey is voluntary.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
The EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This survey effort is expected to cost approximately $27.60 per mail response and $16.95 per telephone response. Respondents will incur no capital or start-up costs, and the only operation and maintenance component of the survey will be the cost to photocopy the survey once completed (if desired).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of adequacy determination.
In this notice, the EPA is announcing that the motor vehicle emissions budgets contained in the submitted DFW and BPA Attainment Demonstration State Implementation Plans (SIP) for ozone are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. As a result of this determination, the budgets from the submitted attainment SIPs must be used for transportation conformity determinations in the DFW and BPA areas. The EPA received no public comments.
These budgets are effective November 6, 2000.
Mr. J. Behnam, P.E., The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202; telephone (214) 665-7247.
Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act. The EPA's conformity rule, 40 CFR part 93, requires that transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to SIPs and establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not they do. Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of the national ambient air quality standards. The criteria by which EPA determines whether a SIP's motor vehicle emission budgets are adequate for conformity purposes are outlined in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4). An adequacy review is separate from EPA's completeness review, and it should not be used to prejudge EPA's ultimate approval of the SIP. Even if we find a budget adequate, the SIP could later be disapproved.
On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in
By this notice, we are simply announcing the DFW and BPA adequacy determinations that we have already made. The Governor of Texas
Therefore, the budgets contained in the submitted DFW and BPA Attainment SIPs as cited in this notice must be used for transportation conformity by the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the DFW and BPA areas.
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 260-5076.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA will hold a public meeting to present the revised risk assessment for the organophosphate pesticide malathion to interested stakeholders. This public meeting, called a “Technical Briefing,” will provide an opportunity for stakeholders to learn about the data, information, and methodologies that the Agency used in revising its risk assessment for malathion. In addition, representatives of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) will also be present to discuss malathion risks.
The technical briefing will be held on, November 9, 2000, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The technical briefing will be held at the Radisson Hotel, Old Town Alexandria, 901 N. Fairfax St., Alexandria, VA 22314, telephone number: (703) 683-6000.
By mail: Patricia Moe, Special Review and Registration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8011; e-mail address: moe.patricia@epa.gov.
This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to specifically describe all the entities potentially affected by this action. The Agency believes that a wide range of stakeholders will be interested in technical briefings on organophosphate pesticides, including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates, the chemical industry, pesticide users, and members of the public interested in the use of pesticides on food. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
To access information about organophosphate pesticides, you can also go directly to the Home Page for the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/. In addition, a brief summary of the malathion revised risk assessment is now available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/status.htm/, as well as in paper as part of the public version of the official record as described in Unit I.B.2.
2.
This document announces the Agency's intention to hold a technical briefing for the organophosphate pesticide, malathion. The Agency is presenting the revised risk assessments for malathion to interested stakeholders. This technical briefing is designed to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to become even more informed about an organophosphate's risk assessment. EPA will describe in detail the revised risk assessment: Including the major points (e.g., contributors to risk estimates); how public comment on the preliminary risk assessment affected the revised risk assessment; and the pesticide use information/data that was used in developing the revised risk assessment. Stakeholders will have an opportunity to ask clarifying questions. In addition, representatives of the USDA will be present to discuss malathion risks.
The technical briefing is part of the pilot public participation process that EPA and USDA are now using for involving the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), and the reregistration of individual organophosphate pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The pilot public participation process was developed as part of the EPA-USDA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC), which was established in April 1998 as a subcommittee under the auspices of EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology. A goal of the pilot public participation process is to find a more effective way for the public to participate at critical junctures in the Agency's development of organophosphate pesticide risk assessment and risk management decisions. EPA and USDA began implementing this pilot process in August 1998 in response to Vice President Gore's directive to increase transparency and opportunities for stakeholder consultation.
On the day of the technical briefing, in addition to making copies available at the meeting site, the Agency will also release for public viewing the malathion revised risk assessments and related documents to the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch and the OPP Internet web site that are described in Unit I.B.1. In addition, the Agency will issue a
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pesticides and pests.
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.
Persons wishing to comment on this information collection should submit comments on or before December 19, 2000.
Direct all comments to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commissions, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to lesmith@fcc.gov.
For additional information or copies of the information collections contact Les Smith at 202-418-0217 or via the Internet at lesmith@fcc.gov.
The Federal Communications Commissions, 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, 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 November 20, 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 Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collections contact Les Smith at (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at lesmith@fcc.gov.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:20 a.m. on Tuesday, October 17, 2000, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters relating to the Corporation's supervisory and corporate activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Vice Chairman Andrew C. Hove, Jr., seconded by Director Ellen S. Seidman (Director, Office of thrift Supervision), concurred in by Director John D. Hawke, Jr. (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Donna Tanoue, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no notice earlier than October 12, 2000, of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii) and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550-17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Federal Election Commission.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
10 a.m., Wednesday, October 25, 2000.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is providing an opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer at 404-639-7090.
Comments are invited on: (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the CDC, including whether the information shall have a practical utility; (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (iii) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments to Seleda Perryman, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Information Collection to Establish Community Assistance Panels (CAPs) OMB No.0923-0007—Extension—The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is mandated pursuant to the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and its 1986 Amendments, The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), to prevent or mitigate adverse human health effects and diminished quality of life resulting from the exposure to hazardous substances into
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7090. Send written comments to CDC, Desk Officer; Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235; Washington, DC 20503. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
Youth Environmental Risk Perception Survey—New—Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). In 1996, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) launched a child health initiative to investigate knowledge and awareness of environmental hazards among children and youth. ATSDR is designing a new study, Risk Perceptions Among Youth of Environmental Hazards, to evaluate whether an educational intervention influences risk perceptions and knowledge of environmental toxins among middle school-aged students in a large metropolitan area. The results of this study will shed light on the ways young people learn about and use new information on environmental hazards. The results of this study will also be used to develop targeted environmental health education campaigns and improve communication strategies aimed at young people, and inform and guide ATSDR partners who may be planning similar educational interventions.
An educational intervention will be designed and implemented in a school-based setting to see if and how three communication variables influence young people's knowledge and behavior of environmental hazards. The key variables in this study are the source of the message, the contaminant, and the individual's perception of risk. A study population of 360 male and female students will be randomly selected from 7th and 8th grade science classes in a large metropolitan school district. Each study participant will complete two written surveys (
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following proposal for the collection of information. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of
To obtain copies of the supporting statement for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site Address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address and phone number, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB Desk Officer designated at the following address: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following proposal for the collection of information. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
(1)
(2)
To obtain copies of the supporting statement for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site Address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address and phone number, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB Desk Officer designated at the following address: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NHLBI.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hearby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the re view and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Office of Chief Information Officer.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency review and approval, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments must be received within seven (7) days from the date of this Notice. Comments should refer to the proposal by name/or OMB approval number and should be sent to: Joseph F. Lackey, Jr., HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, Q, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail Wayne_Eddins@HUD.gov; telephone (202) 708-2374. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Eddins.
This Notice informs the public that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has submitted to OMB, for emergency processing, an information collection package with respect to a survey of HUD's business partners and current grantees on their use of HUD's current grant management systems and the time and effort involved in their processing of grant information. The Department is developing a web-based, departmental grants management system that will cover the lifecycle of a grant from application through to closeout and audit and feels input from our business partners will help minimize the associated information collection burden.
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting 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 to be collected; and (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through 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 Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of funding awards.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in a competition for funding under the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) Program. This announcement contains the names and addresses of the awardees and the amount of the awards made available by HUD to provide assistance to the HBCUs.
Delores Pruden, Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs, Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th St., S.W., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1590 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339. Information may also be obtained from a HUD field office, see Appendix A for names, addresses and telephone numbers, or for general information, applicants can call Community Connections at 1-800-998-9999.
This program is authorized under section 107(b)(3) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the 1974 Act) (42 U.S.C. 5307(b)(3)), which was added by section 105 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-235). The program is governed by regulations contained in 24 CFR 570.400 and 570.404, and in 24 CFR part 570, subparts A, C, J, K, and O.
This notice announces FY 2000 funding of $10,365,897 to HBCUs to be used to stimulate economic and community development activities in the HBCUs' locality. The FY 2000 grantees announced in this Notice were selected for funding consistent with the provisions in the NOFA published in the
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for this program is 14.237.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the grantees and amounts of the awards in Appendix B.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
October 20, 2000.
Clifford Taffet, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Department of the Interior.
Extension of time.
This notice is for the sole purpose of granting the public an extension of time to review our August 28, 2000, publication of the above named procedures. The publication appears at 65 FR 52211-52241. The Department of the Interior will now accept comments from the public through close of business on November 13, 2000.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
This notice advises the public that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) intends to gather information necessary to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and environmental documents pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations. One CCP will be prepared for Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, located in Franklin County, Vermont. A Wilderness Review of Missisquoi NWR will also be completed concurrently in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended and Refuge Planning Policy 602 FW Chapters 1, 2, and 3. The Service is furnishing this notice in compliance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd
(1) to advise other agencies and the public of our intentions, and (2) to
Inquire at the address below for dates of planning activity and due dates for comments. Further notice announcing times and locations of public meetings and open houses will be published in local news media prior to the hearing date.
Address comments, questions and requests for more information to the following: Refuge Manager, Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge 371 North River St., Swanton, VT 05488-8148, (802) 868-4781.
By Federal law, all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are to be managed in accordance with an approved CCP. The CCP guides management decisions and identifies refuge goals, long-range objectives, and strategies for achieving refuge purposes. The planning process will consider many elements including habitat and wildlife management, habitat protection and acquisition, public use, and cultural resources. Public input into this planning process is essential. The CCP will provide other agencies and the public with a clear understanding of the desired conditions for the Refuges and how the Service will implement management strategies.
The Service will solicit public input via open houses, public meetings, workshops, and written comments. Special mailings, newspaper articles, and announcements will inform people of the time and place of such opportunities for public input to the CCP.
Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) includes 6,592 acres of the Missisquoi River delta's marshes, open water, old fields and wooded swamps. Comments on the protection of threatened and endangered species and migratory birds and the protection and management of their habitats will be solicited as part of the planning process. A draft CCP is planned for public review in the fall of 2001.
Review of these projects will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Notice of availability of Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration.
This notice announces the availability of a joint final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Hoopa Valley Tribe, and Trinity County prepared a FEIS/EIR to assist the Secretary of the Interior in developing recommendations for permanent instream fishery flow requirements, habitat restoration projects, and operating criteria and procedures for the Trinity River Division of the Central Valley Project, California, necessary for the restoration and maintenance of natural production of anadromous fish in the Trinity River. Such recommendations are required by: the January 14, 1981, Secretarial Decision that initiated the Trinity River Flow Evaluation; the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act (Public Law 98-541); and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (Public Law 102-575).
A Record of Decision will occur no sooner than November 20, 2000.
Copies of the FEIS/EIR will be available on compact disc which, along with a summary, can be obtained by contacting the Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, California 95521, (707) 822-7201. The documents are also available for review at the following government offices and libraries:
Alameda Free Library, 2264 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California 94501-4506, (510) 748-4669; Beale Memorial Library, 701 Truxtun Ave, Bakersfield, California, 93301, (661) 868-0700; Cesar Chaves Central Library, 605 N. El Dorado St, Stockton, California, (209) 937-8415; California State Library, Information and Reference Center, 914 Capitol Mall, Room 301, Sacramento, California 95814, (916) 654-0261; Colusa County Free Library, 738 Market Street, Colusa, California 95932-2398, (530) 458-7671; Contra Costa County Library, 1750 Oak Park Boulevard, Pleasant Hill, California 94523-4497, (510) 646-6423; Coos Bay Public Library, 525 W. Anderson Ave., Coos Bay, Oregon, 97420, (541) 269-1101; Del Norte County Library District, 190 Price Mall, Crescent City, California 95531-4395, (707) 464-9793; Fresno County Library, Central Branch, 2420 Mariposa St. Fresno, California, (559) 488-3195; Humboldt County Library, 1313 Third Street, Eureka, California 95501-1088, (707) 269-1900; Humboldt State University Library, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521, (707) 826-4939; Lake County Library, 1425 N. High Street, Lakeport, California 95453-3800, (707) 263-8816; Los Angeles Public Library, 630 W. Fifth Street, Los Angeles, California, 90071-2097, (213) 228-7515; Marin County Free Library, 3501 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, California 94903-4188, (415) 499-6051; Mendocino County Library-Ft. Bragg, 499 E Laurel St. Fort Bragg, California, 95437, (707) 964-2020; Mendocino County Library-Ukiah, 105 N. Main Street, Ukiah, California 95482-4482, (707) 463-4491; Menlo Park Public Library, 800 Alma Street, Menlo Park, California 94025-3460, (650) 858-3460; Merced County Library, 2222 M St., Merced, California, 95340, (209) 385-7434; Modesto Jr. College Library, 425 College Ave, Modesto, California, 95350, (209) 575-6498; Monterey Public Library, 625 Pacific Street, Monterey, California, 93940, (831) 646-3932; Sacramento Public Library, 828 I Street, Sacramento, California 95814-2589, (916) 264-2770; San Francisco Public Library, 100 Larkin Street, San Francisco, California
The FEIS/EIR will be available at the Fish and Wildlife Service website at http://www.ccfwo.r1.fws.gov.
Dr. MaryEllen Mueller, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2606, Sacramento, CA 95825 (916) 414-6464 or Jay Glase, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-7201.
Construction of the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the Central Valley Project (CVP) was completed in 1963. The primary function of the TRD is to store Trinity River water for regulated diversion to the Central Valley of California for agricultural, municipal, and industrial uses. Construction and operation of the TRD resulted in the diversion of up to 90 percent of the average annual discharge in the Trinity River at Lewiston, and blocked access to 109 miles of salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. Reduced river flows, combined with excessive watershed erosion and encroachment of the river channel by riparian vegetation, caused major changes in the channel morphology resulting in the simplification and degradation of the remaining salmon and steelhead habitat of the Trinity River below the Lewiston Dam. This, in turn, resulted in rapid declines of salmon and steelhead populations following completion of the TRD.
In response to declining fisheries and degraded habitat conditions, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) decided in 1981 to increase flows in the Trinity River ranging from 140,000 acre-feet to 340,000 acre-feet annually, with reductions in dry and critically dry years. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife Service was directed to undertake a Flow Evaluation Study to assess fish habitat at various flows, summarize the effectiveness of other instream and watershed restoration activities, and recommend appropriate flows and other measures necessary to better maintain favorable habitat conditions. The Flow Evaluation Study began in October 1984 and was completed in June 1999. In October 1984, the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act (Management Act) (Public Law 98-541) was enacted by Congress with the goal of restoring fish and wildlife populations to pre-TRD levels. The Act provided funding for construction, operation, and maintenance of the 11-item action plan developed by the Trinity River Task Force in 1982.
In 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) (Public Law 102-575) was passed. Section 3406(b)(23) of the CVPIA provides, through the TRD, an instream release of not less than 340,000 acre-feet of water into the Trinity River to meet Federal trust responsibilities to protect fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and to meet the fishery restoration goals of the Management Act. The recommendations for mainstem Trinity River fishery restoration will be developed after appropriate consultations with Federal, State, Tribal, local agencies, and affected interests, and after completion the Flow Evaluation Study.
To restore the natural production of anadromous fish in the Trinity River in accordance with the 1981 Secretarial Decision, the Management Act, and the CVPIA, the FEIS/EIR analyzes the impacts of:
(1) Increased instream releases into the Trinity River to provide anadromous fish habitat and restore fluvial processes,
(2) Implementation of a channel rehabilitation program,
(3) Implementation of a spawning gravel supplementation program,
(4) Implementation of a watershed rehabilitation program, and
(5) Implementation of an Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management Program.
On October 19, 1999, the Service published a notice in the
The FEIS/EIR is intended to accomplish the following:
(1) Inform the public of the proposed action and alternatives;
(2) Address public comments received during the scoping and comment periods;
(3) Disclose the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed action and each of the alternatives; and
(4) Indicate any irreversible commitment of resources that would result from implementation of the proposed action.
This notice is provided pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 15001508), and the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended.
The Technical Appendixes (TA) for this FEIS/EIR will be made available upon request from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA 95521; (707) 822-7201. Documents cited in the FEIS/EIR and its supporting TAs will be available for viewing in Sacramento (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, 946-414-6464), Arcata (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1655 Heindon Road; 707-822-7201), and Weaverville (Trinity County Library, 211 N. Main Street, Weaverville, California 96093, 530-623-1373).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Intent to extend the public comment period on scoping issues for preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) related to the SDCP.
On September 7, 2000, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the public was advised that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) intends to prepare an EIS to evaluate the impacts of and alternatives for the possible issuing of an incidental take permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), to Pima County. At public scoping meetings held on October 4, 2000 in Tucson, Arizona, the public requested additional time in which to respond. This notice provides an extension of 30 days to the public comment period.
Written comments on conservation alternatives and issues to be addressed in the EIS are now requested by Friday, November 24, 2000, and should be sent to Mr. David Harlow, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ, 85021 at 602/640-2720. For the information of the general public, names and addresses of anyone who comments may and can be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act.
Ms. Sherry Barrett, Assistant Field Supervisor, Tucson Suboffice, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 West Congress, Room 6J, Tucson, AZ, 85701, at 520/670-4617, or Mr. David Harlow, Field Supervisor, Arizona State Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ, 85021 at 602/640-2720. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE SDCP, CONTACT: Mr. Paul Fromer, RECON, 1927 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200, San Diego, California 92101-2358 at 619/308-9333. Information on the purpose, membership, meeting schedules, and documents associated with the SDCP may be obtained on the Internet at
This notice advises the public that the Service intends to extend the public scoping period through November 24, 2000, for gathering of information necessary to determine impacts and formulate alternatives for an EIS related to the potential issuance of an incidental take permit to Pima County, Arizona, and the development and implementation of the SDCP, which will provide measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of the incidental take of federally listed species.
Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties to ensure that a range of issues and alternatives related to the proposed action are identified. The review of this project will be conducted according to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Related Project Documentation—It is anticipated that the EIS process will make full use (including incorporation by reference, as appropriate, pursuant to NEPA) of documents prepared by Pima County and other entities regarding the environmental and socioeconomic issues in the project area, copies of which will be available for public inspection at the Pima County Administrator's Office, 130 West Congress, 10th floor, Tucson AZ 85701.
After the environmental review is completed, the Service will publish a notice of availability and a request for comment on the draft EIS and Pima County's permit application, which will include the SDCP.
The draft EIS is expected to be completed by December, 2002.
The proposal for the collection of information described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of the proposed collection of information and related forms may be obtained by contacting the Bureau's clearance officer at the phone number listed below. Comments and suggestions on the proposal should be made within 60 days directly to the Bureau clearance officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia, 20192, telephone (703) 648-7313.
Specific public comments are requested as to:
1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions on the bureaus, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. The accuracy of the bureau's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used:
3. The quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior, made a final agency determination on August 21, 2000, that the United States will accept the South
Larry Scrivner, Deputy Director, Office of Trust Responsibilities, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240; 202-208-5831.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of off-road vehicle closure.
This notice is to inform the public that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) intends to close certain lands near Prescott, Arizona in Yavapai County to any and all types of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. This closure will be year-round and will remain in effect until rescinded or modified by the Phoenix Field Office Manager. The public land affected by this closure is specifically identified as follows:
Containing approximately 40 acres
This OHV closure will protect public lands from environmental damage and to aid in the protection of adjoining state and private lands. The closure will eliminate excessive vehicle noise in residential neighborhoods, reduce the incidence of fugitive dust impacting homeowners, and curtail unattended campfires and fireworks use. Trespass across state and private land to reach this parcel of BLM-administered lands will be curbed by this closure. Dumping of construction debris and litter on the BLM lands will also be halted by this action.
BLM is coordinating this action with adjoining land owners, including the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona Public Service utility company, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, private residents, and the City of Prescott Police Department. The designated closed area will be posted with signs and have barriers and fences installed where needed. This closure will be monitored and enforced by the BLM, the City of Prescott Police Department, and other law enforcement agencies.
The following persons, operating within the scope of their official duties, are exempt from the provisions of the closure: Employees of the BLM, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Arizona State Land Department, and local or federal law enforcement and fire protection personnel. This closure is in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC 1701) and 43 CFR, Subpart 8364.1. Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this closure may be subject to penalties outlined in 43 CFR Subpart 8360.0-7.
This order will be effective upon publication of this notice in the
Michael A. Taylor, Field Manager, Phoenix Field Office, 2015 West Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, Arizona 85027; 623-580-5500.
The 40 acres of public land affected by this off-highway vehicle closure order are adjacent to expanding urban and residential development. Unregulated and unauthorized off-highway and cross-country vehicle travel is not consistent with the orderly growth of the community, public health and safety, and the use of adjoining private land for residences.
Loud noise and fugitive dust from off-highway vehicle operation is a growing and continuing problem. OHV users have been operating their vehicles from early morning till late at night, disturbing nearby property owners. Unattended campfires and use of fireworks create extreme fire hazards for the community. Target shooting and gunfire have disturbed neighborhoods to the north, east and south of this public land parcel. Trespass by off-highway vehicle users from public land onto adjoining private lands has been documented. Increasing levels of local law enforcement personnel and time have been allocated to answering disturbance calls from residents due to noise, dust, late night activity, unattended campfires, firework use,
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Road closure.
Temporary Closure of Road to ensure public safety and continued reliability of the First Los Angeles Aqueduct until the required emergency maintenance and rehabilitation of the Aqueduct is completed.
October 20, 2000.
Peter Graves, Ridgecrest Field Office, BLM, 300 South Richmond Road, Ridgecrest, CA 93555, (760) 384-5429.
The Bureau of Land Management, Ridgecrest Field Office hereby announces that the road between Grapevine Canyon and Sand Canyon will be temporarily closed effective October 9, 2000 to July 31, 2001. This action is taken pursuant to Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations part 8364. The reason for the closure is to ensure public safety and the continued reliability of the First Los Angeles Aqueduct until the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP) completes emergency repairs and rehabilitation to the Aqueduct. Access on the subject road is prohibited without the express written consent of LADWP. Access across the road may be arranged by calling Robert Chaney of LADWP at (661)-824-7901. For more information, contact Peter G. Graves, Resource Management Specialist, at (760) 384-5429.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice of availability of final environmental impact statement (EIS) on Surface Management Regulations for Locatable Minerals Management.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act and 40 CFR 1500-1508 Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, notice is given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Final EIS on the Surface Management Regulations for Locatable Mineral Operations (43 CFR 3809), and has made it available to the public.
The Bureau of Land Management will make this FEIS available to the public for at least 30 days following publication in the
Paul McNutt, BLM Nevada State Office, (775) 861-6604, or via email: pmcnutt@blm.gov; or Andrew Strasfogel, BLM Washington Office, (202) 452-7723, or via email: astrasfo@blm.gov.
Copies may be requested from Paul McNutt, BLM Nevada State Office, 1340 Financial Blvd., Reno, NV 89502, (775) 861-6604, or via email: pmcnutt@blm.gov.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of meeting of the Utah Resource Advisory Council.
The Bureau of Land Management's Utah Statewide Resource Advisory Council (RAC) meeting will be held on November 8-9, 2000 in Bluff, Utah.
On November 8, from 1-4:30, the RAC will meet at Desert Rose Hotel, 701 West Main, Bluff, Utah. The Council will be given an overview of the Resource Advisory Council (RAC) in Utah, its past accomplishments and activities, some Utah specifics, and an overview of the BLM programs in general. A public comment period is scheduled on November 8 from 4-4:30 where members of the public may address the Council.
On November 9, from 8 a.m.-1 p.m., the RAC will be taking a field tour of Sand Island and the Butler Wash where they will be looking at cultural, recreation, wilderness, and visitation issues. The afternoon session (1-3:30 p.m.), at the Desert Rose Hotel, will include reports on Fire and Fire Rehabilitation and Off-Highway Vehicle issues, followed by an open discussion period. The meeting will conclude at 3:30.
All meetings of the BLM's Resource Advisory Council are open to the public; however, transportation, meals, and overnight accommodations are the responsibility of the participating public.
Sherry Foot, Special Programs Coordinator, Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84111; phone (801) 539-4195.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice; Southwest Resource Advisory Council meeting.
Notice is hereby given that the Southwest Resource Advisory Council (Southwest RAC) will meet in November 2000 in Montrose, Colorado.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 9, 2000.
For additional information, contact Roger Alexander, Bureau of Land Management, 2465 South Townsend Avenue, Montrose, Colorado 81401; phone 970-240-5335; TDD 970-240-5366; e-mail roger_alexander@co.blm.gov.
The November 9, 2000 meeting will be held at the Bureau of Land Management—North Building Conference Room, 2465 South Townsend, Montrose, Colorado. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and end at approximately 4:30 p.m. The agenda will include presentations on BLM's fire management program and the Uncompahgre Plateau Habitat Project, and BLM business updates (recreation guidelines, BLM organizational changes in western Colorado, etc.). General public comment is scheduled for 9:15 a.m.
Summary minutes for Council meetings are maintained in BLM's North Building in Montrose and on the World Wide Web at www.co.blm.gov/swrac/swrac.htm and are available for public inspection and reproduction within thirty (30) days following each meeting.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Supplementary rules.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is establishing recreation use fees for campgrounds that did not have existing supplementary rules related to recreation use fees. BLM is also reaffirming existing supplementary rules for BLM-administered campgrounds throughout Colorado. We are taking this action to authorize the collection of fees from those who use the campgrounds. This action has the effect of requiring campground users to pay fees for the use of certain designated campgrounds.
October 20, 2000.
Tina McDonald, BLM Colorado State Office (CO-930), 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215, (303) 239-3716.
The authority for these Supplementary Rules is contained in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, § 8365.1-6, Supplementary Rules. Violation of any supplementary rule by a member of the public, except for the provisions of § 8365.1-7, are punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months. (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, § 8360.0-7.)
Violations of supplementary rules authorized by Sec. 8365.1-7 are punishable in the same manner.
This supplementary rule authorizes the establishment and re-affirmation of recreation fees at all existing fee campgrounds on BLM administered lands in Colorado. The following campgrounds are subject to recreation fees:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The plats of survey described below are scheduled to be officially filed in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico, (30) thirty calendar days from the date of this publication.
Filed on the date of this letter are the following surveys:
If a protest against a survey, as shown on any of the above plats is received prior to the date of official filing, the filing will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat will not be officially filed until the day after all protests have been dismissed and become final or appeals from the dismissal affirmed.
A person or party who wishes to protest against any of these surveys must file a written protest with the NM State Director, Bureau of Land Management, stating that they wish to protest.
A statement of reasons for a protest may be filed with the notice of protest to the State Director, or the statement of reasons must be filed with the State Director within thirty (30) days after the protest is filed. The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, surveys, and subdivisions.
These plats will be available for inspection in the New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87502-0115. Copies may be obtained from this office upon payment of $1.10 per sheet.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of Antidumping Investigation and Scheduling of a Preliminary Phase Investigation.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of an investigation and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping investigation No. 731-TA-894 (Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from Ukraine of certain ammonium nitrate,
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
October 13, 2000.
Diane Mazur (202-205-3184), 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).
This investigation is being instituted in response to a petition filed on October 13, 2000, by the Committee For Fair Ammonium Nitrate Trade (“COFANT”) whose members include Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA; Mississippi Chemical Corp., Yazoo City, MS; El Dorado Chemical Co., Oklahoma City, OK; La Roche Industries, Inc., Atlanta, GA; and Nitram, Inc., Tampa, FL.
Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigation under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the
The Commission's Director of Operations has scheduled a conference in connection with this investigation for 9:30 a.m. on November 3, 2000, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to participate in the conference should contact Diane Mazur (202-205-3184) not later than November 1, 2000, to arrange for their appearance. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in this investigation and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.
As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before November 8, 2000, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigation. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference no later than three days before the conference. If briefs or written testimony contain BPI, they must conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This investigation is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has issued a general exclusion order and a cease and desist order in the above-captioned investigation.
Shara L. Aranoff, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436; telephone (202) 205-3090, e-mail
The Commission instituted this investigation on September 16, 1999, based on a complaint and supplement to the complaint filed by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation (“complainant” or “Brown & Williamson”). Complainant alleged unfair acts in violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation, sale for importation, and/or sale within the United States after importation of certain cigarettes and packaging thereof, by reason of: (a) Infringement of 11 federally registered U.S. trademarks (U.S. Reg. Nos. 118,372; 311,961; 335,113; 366,744; 404,302; 508,538; 747,482; 747,490; 2,055,297; 2,174,493; and 2,218,589) (“the Brown & Williamson trademarks”); (b) trademark dilution; (c) false representation of source; and (d) false advertising. The Commission's notice of investigation named Allstate Cigarette Distributors, Inc. (“Allstate”), Dood Enterprises, Inc. (“Dood”), Prestige Storage and Distribution, Inc. (“Prestige”), and R.E. Tobacco Sales, Inc. (“R.E. Tobacco”) as respondents.
On December 15, 1999, the Commission determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 15) granting the motion of PTI, Inc., doing business as Ampac Trading (“PTI” or “intervenor”), to intervene in this investigation. On February 22, 2000, the Commission determined to review and affirm an ID (Order No. 30) granting the motion of respondent Allstate to terminate the investigation as to it based on a consent order. On March 24, 2000, the Commission determined not to review two IDs (Orders Nos. 60 and 61) granting the motions of respondents Prestige and R.E. Tobacco to terminate the investigation as to them based on consent orders. On April 27, 2000, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 68) granting the motion of respondent Dood to terminate the investigation as to it based on a consent order.
On March 24, 2000, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 59) granting complainant's motion for partial summary determination that a domestic industry exists with respect to complainant's trademarks.
The presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) held an evidentiary hearing on violation beginning on March 20, 2000. On March 24, 2000, the last day of the hearing, PTI filed a motion for dismissal of Brown & Williamson's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(a), alleging that Brown & Williamson failed to set forth facts showing entitlement to relief for trademark infringement. The ALJ permitted complainant and the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) to respond to PTI's motion in their posthearing briefs.
On June 22, 2000, the ALJ issued her final ID finding a violation of section 337 and denying PTI's motion to dismiss. She found that there had been imports of the accused products by intervenor PTI; that PTI's importation and sale of certain “KOOL” and “LUCKY STRIKE” cigarettes infringed the Brown & Williamson trademarks; that PTI's importation and sale of accused cigarettes diluted the Brown & Williamson trademarks; that PTI's importation and sale of accused cigarettes constituted a false designation of origin; that complainant had failed to demonstrate that PTI engaged in false advertising with respect to the accused cigarettes; that PTI's trademark dilution and false designation had the threat or effect of substantially injuring the domestic industry; and that PTI was not denied due process in proceedings before the ALJ in this investigation.
On June 27, 2000, the Commission determined to extend the date by which it was required determine whether to review the instant ID to August 28, 2000, and to extend the target date in this investigation to October 16, 2000.
On July 12, 2000, intervenor PTI filed a petition for review of the final ID. On July 17, 2000, complainant and the IA filed responses to the petition. On August 28, 2000, the Commission determined not to review the ID and requested written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 65 FR 53334 (Sept. 1, 2000).
Submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding were received from complainant, intervenor PTI, and the IA. Reply submissions were received from complainant and the IA. Comments on the public interest were received from one U.S. Senator, nineteen Members of Congress, the National Association of Attorneys General, the Attorney General of Florida, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, the National Association of Convenience Stores, and the National Grocers Association.
Having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the written submissions of the parties and the public comments, the Commission has determined that the appropriate form of relief is a general exclusion order prohibiting the unlicenced entry for consumption of KOOL and LUCKY STRIKE cigarettes manufactured by Brown & Williamson that infringe the eleven federally-registered Brown & Williamson trademarks (U.S. Reg. Nos. 118,372; 311,961; 335,113; 366,744; 404,302; 508,538; 747,482; 747,490; 2,055,297; 2,174,493; and 2,218,589), dilute the identified trademarks, or bear the identified trademarks and falsely represent that the trademark owner is the source of such product, and a cease and desist order directed to intervenor PTI, prohibiting the importation, sale for importation, or sale in the United States after importation of KOOL and LUCKY STRIKE cigarettes that infringe the Brown & Williamson trademarks.
The Commission has also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in subsections 1337(d) and (f) do not preclude the issuance of the general exclusion order and the cease and desist order, and that the bond during the Presidential review period shall be in the amount of seven dollars ($7.00) per carton of cigarettes.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and section 210.50 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.50).
Copies of the Commission's orders, the public version of the Commission's opinion in support thereof, and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired persons are advised that information can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and has issued a limited exclusion order in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission has also determined to deny a motion for dismissal of Atmel's complaint for unclean hands and motions for sanctions and attorney's fees.
Timothy P. Monaghan, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3152.
The Commission instituted this investigation on March 18, 1997, based upon a complaint filed by Atmel Corporation alleging that Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd. (“Sanyo”), Winbond Electronics Corporation of Taiwan and Winbond Electronics North America Corporation of California (collectively “Winbond”), and Macronix International Co., Ltd. and Macronix America, Inc. (collectively “Macronix”) had violated section 337 in the sale for importation, the importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain erasable programmable read only memory (“EPROM”), electrically erasable programmable read only memory (“EEPROM”), flash memory, and flash microcontroller semiconductor devices, by reason of infringement of one or more claims of U.S. Letters Patent 4,511,811 (“the '811 patent”), U.S. Letters Patent 4,673,829 (“the '829 patent”), and U.S. Letters Patent 4,451,903 (“the '903 patent”) assigned to Atmel. 62 FR 13706 (March 21, 1997). Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (“SST”) was permitted to intervene in the investigation.
On March 19, 1998, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued his final initial determination (“ID”) finding that respondents had not violated section 337, based on his finding that neither the '811 patent, the '829 patent, nor the '903 patent was infringed by any product imported and sold by respondents or intervenor. He also found, that the '903 patent is unenforceable because of waiver and implied license by legal estoppel, that claims 2-8 of that patent are invalid for indefiniteness, but that the '903 patent is not unenforceable for failure to name a co-inventor. Complainant Atmel petitioned for review of the ALJ's final ID, and on May 6, 1998 the Commission determined to review most of the ALJ's findings and requested written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 63 FR 25867 (May 11, 1998).
On review, the Commission determined that the '811 patent and the '829 patent were invalid on the basis of collateral estoppel in light of a U.S. district court decision (
On August 11, 1998, after issuance of the Commission opinion, Atmel filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to correct the inventorship of the '903 patent. The PTO granted Atmel's petition on August 18, 1998, and issued a certificate of correction on October 6, 1998.
On September 8, 1998, Atmel filed with the Commission a “Petition For Relief From Final Determination Finding U.S. Patent No. 4,451,903 Unenforceable.” Respondents and the Commission's Office of Unfair Import Investigations (“OUII”) filed responses to the petition. The Commission ruled on Atmel's petition on January 25, 1999. It determined to treat Atmel's petition as a petition for reconsideration, granted the petition, and reopened the record of the investigation for the limited purpose of resolving the issues arising from the PTO's issuance of the certificate of correction for the '903 patent. The investigation was remanded to the ALJ who issued an ID on May 17, 2000, finding that complainant Atmel had committed inequitable conduct at the PTO in the procurement of the certificate of correction for the '903 patent; that the inventors listed on the PTO certificate of correction are not the correct inventors; and that no inequitable conduct was shown to have taken place at the PTO in the prosecution of the original patent application that matured into the '903 patent.
On May 30, 2000, Atmel petitioned for review of the ID of May 17, 2000, and certain orders issued by the ALJ. Respondents, intervenor, and the Commission investigative attorney (“IA”) filed responses to Atmel's petition. On July 17, 2000, the Commission determined to review the ALJ's determination that the PTO certificate of correction for the '903 patent was procured inequitably; the ALJ's determination that the inventors named on the PTO certificate of correction are incorrect; the ALJ's ruling in Order No. 50 that Atmel had waived the attorney-client and attorney work product privileges; and the ALJ's ruling in Order No. 69 that Atmel bore the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence that the inventors shown on the PTO certificate of correction are the correct inventors. The Commission requested briefs on the issues under review, and posed briefing questions for the parties to answer. The Commission also requested written submissions on remedy, the public interest, and bonding. 65 FR 45406 (July 21, 2000).
On August 28, 1998, Atmel appealed the Commission's “no violation” determination of July 2, 1998, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Sanyo, Winbond, Macronix, and SST intervened in support of the Commission. On November 6, 1998, Sanyo and Winbond moved to dismiss the portion of the appeal concerning the '903 patent. On December 8, 1998, the Federal Circuit stayed the appeal pending a ruling from the Commission on Atmel's then pending motion for the Commission to reconsider its prior determination on inventorship.
On February 10, 1999, Winbond filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit. Winbond asked the Federal Circuit to direct the Commission to vacate its January 25, 1999, order remanding the inventorship issue to the ALJ. Winbond argued that the Commission was without authority to grant relief from its final determination of “no violation” because
The Federal Circuit denied Winbond's petition for a writ of mandamus on April 16, 1999, and remanded Atmel's appeal to the Commission, stating that “[a]fter its proceedings are complete, the ITC shall issue a final determination encompassing Atmel's complaint regarding all three patents so that the parties may seek [judicial] review at that time.” In Re Winbond Electronics Corporation and Winbond Electronics North America Corporation, Appeal No. 98-1580, Miscellaneous Docket No. 579 (Fed. Cir. April 16, 1999) (Mandate issued on June 7, 1999) at p. 4. As a result of this ruling, and the Federal Circuit's subsequent reversal of the U.S. district court decision in
The U.S. district court decision (
On April 3, 2000, the Commission issued an order allowing the parties to file main briefs and reply briefs setting forth their views on intervening developments in the law as they relate to the remaining issues in investigation concerning the '811 patent, the '829 patent, and the '903 patent (all issues other than inventorship).
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the briefs and the responses thereto, the Commission determined, as noted, that there is a violation of section 337. More specifically, the Commission found that the claims in issue of the ’903 patent are valid, enforceable (no incorrect inventorship), and infringed by the imports from intervenor SST and respondents Sanyo and Winbond (but not respondent Macronix), and found a violation of section 337 with regard to the ’903 patent as to SST, Sanyo, and Winbond. As to the ’811 and ’829 patents, the Commission found that the claims in issue of those patents are valid and enforceable, but not infringed by the imports of intervenor SST or respondents Sanyo and Winbond (Atmel did not allege that Macronix infringed the claims in issue of the ’811 or ’829 patents), and thus found no violation of section 337 with regard to the ’811 and ’829 patents. The Commission also determined to affirm the result of ALJ Order No. 50, which ordered the production of certain Atmel documents. The Commission also reversed Order No. 69 to the extent that it placed the burden of proving that the certificate of correction of the ’903 patent listed the correct inventors on Atmel and vacated the ALJ's determination in Order No. 69 that PTO rule 324 does not comport with its enabling statute.
The Commission also made determinations on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. The Commission determined that the appropriate form of relief is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of EPROMs, EEPROMs, flash memories, and flash microcontroller semiconductor devices, and circuit boards containing such devices, that infringe claims 1 or 9 of the ’903 patent manufactured by or on behalf of Sanyo and Winbond.
The Commission also determined that the public interest factors enumerated in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d) do not preclude the issuance of the limited exclusion and that the bond during the Presidential review period should be set at $0.78 per device.
The authority for the Commission’s determinations is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in sections 210.45-210.51 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.45-210.51).
Copies of the Commission order, the Commission opinion in support thereof, and all other nonconfidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to extend by forty (40) days, or until December 6, 2000, the deadline for determining whether to review an initial determination (ID) (Order No. 16) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (ALJ) in the above-captioned investigation.
Jean Jackson, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3104. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server
The Commission instituted this investigation on May 26, 2000, based on a complaint filed by Medrad, Inc. of Indianola, Pennsylvania. The complaint alleged a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 337 U.S.C. 1337, based on infringement of U.S. Letters Patent Re. 36,648, (the ’648 patent) owned by complainant. The respondents named in the investigation are Nemoto Kyorindo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan; Liebel-Flarshiem Co. of Cincinnati Ohio; and Mallinckrodt Inc., a New York corporation based in Hazelwood, Mo. 65
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and section 210.42(h)(3) of the Commission of Practice and Procedure, 19 C.F.R. 210.42(h)(3).
Copies of the nonconfidential version of the ID and all other nonconfidential
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that on September 22, 2000, the United States lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk, Ste. 3300, Houston, Texas 77002, and the Region VI Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas, 75202. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check for reproduction costs (at 25 cents per page) in the amount of $10.25, payable to the Consent Decree Library.
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, 38 FR 19029, and 42 U.S.C. 9622(d)(2), notice is hereby given that on September 28, 2000, a proposed Consent Decree in
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at EPA Region II, Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. A copy of the consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, with the attachment, please enclose a check in the amount of $11.75 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that two Consent Decrees in
The complaint in this action seeks to recover, pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9601,
One of the proposed Consent Decrees embodies an agreement with 76 potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) at the Site pursuant to section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, to pay $2.75 million in settlement of claims for EPA's past and future response costs at the Site.
The other proposed Consent Decree embodies an agreement with eight PRPs at the Site pursuant to Section 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607, to pay, in aggregate, $1.65 million in settlement of claims for EPA's past and future response costs at the Site.
The monies paid by the settling defendants under both decrees will be used to reimburse past costs incurred at the Site. Both Consent Decrees provide the settling defendants with releases for civil liability for EPA's past and future CERCLA response costs at the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the two proposed Consent Decrees.
Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044-
The proposed consent decrees may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 970 Broad Street, Rm. 502, Newark, NJ 07102; the Region II Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, and at the Region II Records Center, 290 Broadway, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866. Copies of the proposed consent decrees may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting copies, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $26.00 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 970 Broad Street, Room 502, Newark, New Jersey, 07102 (contact Assistant United States Attorney Susan Cassell); and the Region II Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866 (contact Assistant Regional Counsel, Deborah Schwenk). A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $8.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) for the Consent Decree without Appendices, or in the amount of $11.50 for the Consent Decree with all Appendices, payable to the Consent Decree Library.
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in
The consent decree settles claims for civil penalties and injunctive relief against Gallatin Steel Company for violations of the Clean Air Act and Kentucky's State Implementation Plan (“SIP”). The United States alleges that Gallatin Steel Company violated the Clean Air Act and the Kentucky SIP because: (1) It exceeded the limits in a permit issued by the Kentucky Division of Air Quality (“KDAQ”) in 1993 for NO
The proposed consent decree provides that Gallatin Steel Company will pay a civil penalty of $925,000 and install a new dust evacuation system in the melt shop and a new dust suppression system to minimize fugitive dust emissions in the scrap yard. In addition, Gallatin has agreed to supplement its PSD and Title V permit applications to include emissions from the sources that were not included in prior applications. Finally, Gallatin has agreed not to challenge a determination by the KDAQ that emissions from an onsite slag processing plant owned by Harsco, an independent company, will be treated as emissions from the steel mill for PSD and Title V purposes.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney, for the Eastern District of Kentucky, 110 West Vine Street, Lexington, Kentucky 40596-3077; and the Region 4 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $9.00 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Consistent with Department policy, 28 CFR 50.7, and under section 122(d) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(d), notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 970 Broad Street, Newark, New Jersey 01102 (contact Assistant United States Attorney Susan C. Cassell); and the Region II Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York, 10007-1866 (contact Assistant Regional Counsel Muthu S. Sundram). A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $14.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs) for the Consent Decree without Appendices, or in the amount of $45.75 for the Consent Decree with all Appendices, payable to the Consent Decree Library.
In accordance with Departmental policy and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on October 4, 2000, a consent decree was lodged in
This consent decree resolves alleged violations of Clean Water Act section 309, 33 U.S.C. 1319, against the Maryland Aviation Administration, a Unit of the Maryland Department of Transportation, which is an Agency of the State of Maryland, for discharges in excess of permitted effluent limits and failure to meet requirements set forth in MAA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for its facility at the Baltimore Washington International Airport in Glen Burnie, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Components of the settlement agreement include: (1) Injunctive provisions designed to reduce the amount of deicing fluid discharged; (2) a penalty payment of $50,000; (3) a Supplemental Environmental Project to perform a fish study valued at $90,000; and (4) a payment of $50,000 to the citizen plaintiffs for their attorneys fees and costs associated with the related civil action: WMN-98-784.
The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the proposed consent decree for a period of thirty days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to
Consistent with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044, and refer to
The proposed settlement agreement may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Federal Building, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90012 and at the Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $13.25 (Consent Decree only) or $43.75 (Consent Decree with Appendices) (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedes decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of decisions listed in the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under The Davis-Bacon and Related Acts.” This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
The general wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically by subscription to the FedWorld Bulletin Board System of the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) of the U.S. Department of Commerce at 1-800-363-2068
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from:
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the seven separate volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates are distributed to subscribers.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Prospective Patent License.
NASA hereby gives notice that Cyrospace Technologies, of Houston, Texas has applied for an exclusive license to practice the inventions disclosed in U.S. Patent Nos. 5,651,079 and 5,963,683 both entitled “Photonic Switching Devices Using Light Bullets” which are assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Ames Research Center.
Response to this notice must be received on or before December 19, 2000.
Rob Padilla, Patent Counsel, NASA Ames Research Center, Mail Stop 202A-3, Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000, telephone (650) 604-5104.
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act at Title 45 Part 670 of the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by November 17, 2000. Permit applications may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Room 755, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22230.
Nadene G. Kennedy at the above address or (703) 292-7405.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541), has developed regulations that implement the “Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora” for all United States citizens. The Agreed Measures, developed by the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties, recommended establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Specially Protected Areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest.
The applications received are as follows:
Colin M. Harris, Director, Environmental Research And Assessment, British Antarctic Survey, Madingley Road, High Cross, Cambridge CB3 OET, United Kingdom
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced Networking and Infrastructure (1207):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 380, Arlington, VA.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems (1205):
Closed.
To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Computing-Communications Research (1192):
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meetings of the Advisory Panel for Methods, Cross-Directorate and Science and Society (1760):
Closed.
To provide advice and recommendations concerning support for research proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support.
The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Northeast Dairy Compact Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Compact Commission will hold its regular monthly meeting to consider matters relating to administration and enforcement of the price regulation, including the reports and recommendations of the Commission's standing Committees.
The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, November 1, 2000.
The meeting will be held at the Centennial Inn, Armenia White Room, 96 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire.
Daniel Smith, Executive Director, Northeast Dairy Compact Commission, 34 Barre Street, Suite 2, Montpelier, VT 05602. Telephone (802) 229-1941.
7 U.S.C. 7256.
In accordance with the purposes of sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards will hold a meeting on November 2-4, 2000, in Conference Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements, and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Mr. James E. Lyons (telephone 301-415-7371), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:l5 p.m., EDT.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available for downloading or viewing on the internet at http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW.
Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., EDT, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment facilities that they use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability of videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Safety Research Program will hold a meeting on November 1, 2000, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss the 2001 draft ACRS report to the Commission regarding the NRC Safety Research Program and related matters. In addition, it will meet with representatives of the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to discuss the ongoing and proposed research activities, as needed. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance of the meeting.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Dr. Medhat El-Zeftawy (telephone 301/415-6889) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the proposed agenda, etc., that may have occurred.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting on November 13-14, 2000, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Most of the November 13, 2000 meeting session will be closed to public attendance to discuss proprietary information per 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) pertinent to General Electric (GE) Nuclear Energy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will (1) begin review of the GE Nuclear Energy TRACG thermal-hydraulic code, and (2) continue review of the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research thermal-hydraulic research program pursuant to development of the ACRS annual report to the Commission on NRC safety research. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman. Written statements will be accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance of the meeting.
The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of General Electric Nuclear Energy, the NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this review.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, and the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr. Paul A. Boehnert (telephone 301-415-8065) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda, etc., that may have occurred.
The ACRS Subcommittee on Severe Accident Management will hold a meeting on November 15, 2000, in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
Wednesday, November 15, 2000—8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business
The Subcommittee will: (1) Continue its review of the NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research severe accident management research program in accordance with the development of the ACRS annual report to the Commission on NRC safety research, and (2) continue review of the activities of the NRC staff and the nuclear industry under the auspices of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) pursuant to revision of the NEI guideline document NEI, 99-03, “Control Room Habitability Assessment Guidance.” The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman. Written statements will be accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff engineer named below five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along with any of its consultants who may be present, may exchange preliminary views regarding matters to be considered during the balance of the meeting.
The Subcommittee will then hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry, the NRC staff, and other interested persons regarding this review.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the scheduling of sessions which are open to the public, and the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor, can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS staff engineer, Mr. Paul A. Boehnert (telephone 301-415-8065) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda, etc., that may have occurred.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, Joe Lackey (202-395-7316), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated undera the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by November 7, 2000, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant application(s) and/or at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After November 7, 2000, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
GPU, Inc., 300 Madison Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey 07960 (“GPU”), a registered holding company, has filed with the Commission a post-effective amendment to its declaration under sections 6(a) and 7 and rules 53 and 54 of the Act.
By prior Commission order in this proceeding dated December 8, 1995 (HCAR No. 26426) (“1995 Order”), GPU, formerly General Public Utilities Corporation, was authorized to issue and sell from time to time through December 31, 2000 up to 250,000 authorized by unissued or previously reacquired shares of GPU common stock, $2.50 par value (“Common Stock”), to certain GPU system employees (“Participants”) under the GPU, Inc. and Secondary System Companies Employee Savings Plan for Nonbargaining Employees and the Employee Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees for each of GPU's electric utility subsidiaries, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (collectively, “Savings Plans”).
To date, GPU has not issued any shares of Common Stock under the 1995 Order in connection with the Savings Plans. GPU requests an extension to December 31, 2005 of the time during which it may issue and sell the 250,000 authorized by unissued or previously reacquired shares of Common Stock under the Savings Plans, in order to maintain the flexibility the 1995 order affords.
GPU currently has 350 million authorized shares of Common Stock of which 121,332,510 shares were outstanding at September 30, 2000. At October 11, 2000, the reported closing price of GPU Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange was $32.38. GPU will use the net proceeds from the sale of additional stock to the Savings Plans to make cash capital contributions to its subsidiaries, for working capital, to repay outstanding indebtedness and for other corporate purposes.
GPU states the Savings Plans are designed to encourage and assist savings and investment by eligible employees through voluntary contributions by employees of a portion of their compensation and by the matching of certain of these contributions by the Participant's employer.
Amounts contributed to the Savings Plans by or on behalf of each Participant are held by a trustee. Separate plan accounts and, as necessary, sub-accounts are maintained for each Participant. The trustee invests the amounts held in plan accounts and sub-accounts in the investment fund or funds selected by the Participant. The investment funds from which Participants may choose currently consist of eleven funds including the “GPU Stock Fund” which is designed to provide employees with a convenient way to invest in GPU common stock by providing participants the opportunity to direct that all or a portion of their plan accounts be invested in the GPU Stock Fund.
The Savings Plans currently provide that GPU Common Stock acquired for the GPU Stock Fund by the trustee be purchased in open market transactions through brokers. In order to provide additional equity capital, GPU proposes that shares of its Common Stock acquired by Participants through the GPU Stock Fund may be either purchased by the trustee, directly from GPU or in open market transactions, as is now the case.
The purchase price per share paid by Participants would be the New York Stock Exchange closing price for GPU Common Stock for the date on which the purchase of the share is executed.
The Southern Company (“Southern”), 270 Peachtree Street, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, a registered holding company, and its subsidiaries, Southern Energy, Inc. (“Southern Energy,” formerly SEI Holdings, Inc.) and Southern Energy Resources, Inc. (“SERI,” formerly Southern Electric International, Inc.), both of 900 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 500, Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (collectively, “Applicants”), have filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 12, 13, 32 and 33 and rules 43, 44, 45, 53, 54, 90 and 91 of the Act.
Applicants request authority in order: (1) To extend and renew the organizational and operational authority previously conferred by the Commission, (described below as “Existing Organizational and
Through its 1996 Order, the Commission authorized the Applicants to carry out the restructuring and consolidation of Southern's interests in exempt wholesale generator (“EWGs”), foreign utility companies (“FUCOs”) and Qualifying Facilities (“QFs”) (collectively, “Exempt Projects”) and certain other non-utility activities under Southern Energy.
The 1996 Order also authorized Applicants “to organize one or more intermediate subsidiaries to make investments in Exempt Projects, other power projects, and Energy-Related Companies,
The 1996 Order also authorized Southern Energy to acquire directly or indirectly, Energy Related Companies engaged in energy marketing (“Marketing Subsidiaries”).
The 1996 Order also authorized Special Purpose Subsidiaries to provide services or sell goods to any associate engaged in the development or operation of EWGs, FUCOs or QFs, either directly or indirectly through its related Intermediate Subsidiary, at fair market prices. The 1996 Order, under section 13(b) of the Act, exempted certain transactions from the requirements of rules 90 and 91 in which any of the following circumstances apply:
1. The Exempt Project derives no part of its income, directly or indirectly, from the generation, transmission or distribution of electric energy for sale within the United States;
2. The Exempt Project company is an EWG that sells electricity at market-based rates which have been approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), provided that the purchaser is not an associate public utility company of the Special Purpose Subsidiary within the Southern system;
3. The Exempt Project company is a QF that sells electricity exclusively: (a) At rates negotiated at arms'-length to one or more industrial or commercial customers purchasing the electricity for their own use and not for resale; and/or (b) to an electric utility company of the Special Purpose Subsidiary within the Southern system, at the purchaser's “avoided cost” as determined in accordance with the regulations under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978; or
4. The Exempt Project company is an EWG or QF that sells electricity at rates based upon its cost of service, as approved by FERC or any state public utility commission having jurisdiction, provided that the purchaser thereof is not an associate public utility company of such Special Purpose Subsidiary within the Southern system.
By order dated December 30, 1994,
Southern requests that Southern Energy retain the Existing Organizational and Operational Authority through completion of the Distribution which is expected to occur in calendar year 2001.
Southern requests that Southern Energy retain the Existing Organizational and Operational Authority through completion of the Distribution in calendar year 2001 and that Southern be authorized to exercise the Existing Organizational and Operational Authority after the Distribution, through June 30, 2005, through one or more subsidiaries subject to the conditions and reporting requirements set forth in this file. In addition, Applicants request authority to expend $300 million on Development Activities, through June 30, 2005.
Until the Distribution, Southern will own at least 80 percent of the common stock of Southern Energy. Southern intends to distribute all of its voting securities of Southern Energy to Southern's stockholders within twelve months of the initial offering of Southern Energy common stock.
Pending the Distribution, Southern and Southern Energy intend to reorganize Southern and Southern Energy's activities so that, after the Distribution, Southern will retain certain components of the lines of business it now owns through Southern Energy.
SE Finance includes an Energy-Related Company component and a FUCO subsidiary component. The Energy-Related Company component includes three Energy-Related subsidiaries, Southern Energy Carbontronics, L.L.C. and two held by Southern Energy Clairton, L.L.C.
Southern Energy intends to distribute its securities of Holdco to Southern in redemption of a Special Class of Southern Energy Preferred Stock that was issued by Southern Energy to Southern. The Holdco group to be retained by Southern includes Engery-Related activities that the Commission has previously determined to be reasonably incidental and economically necessary to the operation of an integrated electric utility system and FUCO operations predominantly consisting of traditional public utility assets.
Southern anticipates that its wholesale power requirements will be satisfied in the future by a sixth operating company authorized by the FERC. An application to form this company is pending before this Commission.
Southern Energy and Southern have entered into a Master Separation and Distribution Agreement (“Master Agreement”)
The Ancillary Agreements appended to the Master Agreement include an Employee Matters Agreement,
The Transitional Services Agreement provides for the continuation on an incidental basis of certain services currently provided to Southern Energy, including financial, human resources administration and payroll, accounting and treasury, engineering and technical consulting, information technology, procurement, government relations and legal services, for a term not to exceed two years from September 1, 2000. As a result of the incidental nature of the services, neither Southern nor its subsidiaries will incur unreimbursed costs. After the Separation Date, the subsidiaries of Southern intend to restrict the services rendered to the Southern Energy group to the services enumerated in the Transitional Services Agreement, which are a subset of the currently authorized services.
Southern further requests that the Commission take action, if deemed appropriate and consistent with the Act under section 12(f) of the Act
The Applicants propose that a single consolidated quarterly report be filed by Southern and in accordance with rule 24 with respect to all activities of Southern and its subsidiaries authorized in this file. This report would replace the combined report currently being filed pursuant to the 1996 Order.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Department of State.
30-Day Notice of Information Collection; Overseas Schools—Grant Status Reports.
The Department of State has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments should be submitted to OMB within 30 days of the publication of this notice.
The following summarizes the information collection proposal submitted to OMB:
Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to:
• 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 collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Copies of the proposed information collection and supporting documents may be obtained from Office of Overseas Schools, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520 (202) 261-8200. Public comments and questions should be directed to the State Department Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20530, (202) 395-5871.
This public meeting will provide an overview of ongoing efforts to implement a binding agreement on the application of a prior informed consent (PIC) procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides. A total of 73 countries have signed the binding PIC agreement, with 11 countries completing ratification. The purpose of the public meeting is to discuss preparations for the seventh session of the PIC intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC-7) which will take place from October 30 to November 3, 2000. The INC-7 meeting will address a number of timely issues
Please contact Dr. Marie Ricciardone, U.S. Department of State, OES/ENV, Room 4325, 2201 C Street NW, Washington D.C. 20520. Phone 202-736-4660, fax 202-647-5947.
The United States, through an interagency working group chaired by the State Department, has been involved in preparations for implementation of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade. The text of the PIC Convention was adopted by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries in September 1998. The Convention will make binding the current interim voluntary scheme contained in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) London Guidelines for the Exchange of Information on Chemicals in International Trade. The PIC procedure was developed in recognition of the fact that many countries in the developing world have inadequate capacity to generate information necessary to make decisions regarding how to effectively manage risks of hazardous chemicals, and in certain cases to ensure adequate compliance with risk management decisions. The procedure assists countries in learning more about the characteristics of certain hazardous chemicals that may be shipped to them, initiates a decision-making process on the future import of these chemicals, and facilitates the dissemination of this decision to other countries.
Chemicals eligible for the PIC procedure include those which have been banned or severely restricted by participating countries, as well as certain acutely hazardous pesticides. Under the procedure, countries notify the PIC secretariat of their decision on importation for each of the PIC chemicals. In their decision, countries indicate whether they will permit use and importation, prohibit use and importation, or permit importation only under specified conditions. Importing countries are expected to ensure that their decisions are applied to all sources of import and to domestic production for domestic use; exporting countries are expected to ensure that exports do not occur contrary to the decisions of importing countries. So far, 27 chemicals have been included in the procedure, and it is likely that more will be covered in the future. Additional information on the voluntary procedure, PIC text, PIC chemicals, and the agenda for INC-7 is located on the internet on the PIC Home Page (http://www.pic.int).
The Department of State is issuing this notice to help ensure that potentially affected parties are aware of and knowledgeable about the parameters of these negotiations. In the future, we will be contacting interested organizations about planned briefings by mail or fax. Those organizations which cannot attend the meeting, but wish to remain informed, should provide Dr. Marie Ricciardone of the Department of State with their address, telephone and fax numbers.
The Advisory Committee on Labor Diplomacy (ACLD) will hold a meeting from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on November 8, 2000, in room 1107, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20520. Committee Chairman Thomas Donahue, former President of the AFL-CIO, will chair the meeting.
The ACLD is comprised of prominent persons with expertise in the area of international labor policy and labor diplomacy. The ACLD advises the Secretary of State and the President on the resources and policies necessary to implement labor diplomacy programs efficiently, effectively and in a manner that ensures U.S. leadership before the international community in promoting the objectives and ideals of U.S. labor policies in the 21st century. The ACLD will make recommendations on how to strengthen the Department of State's ability to respond to the many challenges facing the United States and the federal government in international labor matters. These challenges include the protection of worker rights, the elimination of exploitative child labor, and the prevention of abusive working conditions.
The agenda for the November 8 meeting includes discussion of the interagency process on international labor policy formulation.
Members of the public are welcome to attend the meeting as seating capacity allows. As access to the Department of State is controlled, persons wishing to attend the meeting must be pre-cleared by calling or faxing the following information, by close of business November 6, to Eric Barboriak at (202) 647-4327 or fax (202) 647-0431 or email barboriakem@state.gov: name; company or organization affiliation (if any); date of birth; and social security number. Pre-cleared persons should use the 23rd Street entrance to the State Department and have a driver's license with photo, a passport, a U.S. Government ID or other valid photo identification.
Members of the public may, if they wish, submit a brief statement to the Committee in writing. Those wishing further information should contact Mr. Barboriak at the phone and fax numbers provided above.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2000.
Delores King, Air Carrier Fitness Division, X-56, Office of Aviation Analysis; Office of the Secretary; US Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0002. Telephone (202) 366-2343.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (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 respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of meeting.
The Navigation Safety Advisory Council (NAVSAC) will meet to discuss various issues relating to the safety of navigation. The meeting is open to the public.
NAVSAC will meet on Monday, November 13, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Tuesday, November 14, 2000, from 2:30 to 6 p.m., and on Wednesday, November 15, 2000, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The meeting may close early if all business is finished. Written material should reach the Coast Guard on or before November 3, 2000. Requests to make oral presentations should reach the Coast Guard on or before November 8, 2000. Requests to have a copy of your material distributed to each member of the Council should reach the Coast Guard on or before November 3, 2000.
NAVSAC will meet at The Admiral Fell Inn; 888 South Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21231. Send written material and requests to make oral presentations to Ms. Margie G. Hegy, Commandant (G-MW), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001.
Ms. Margie G. Hegy, Executive Director of NAVSAC, telephone 202-267-0415, fax 202-267-4700.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
The meeting topics include the following:
(1) High speed craft.
(2) Aids to navigation.
(3) Crew alertness campaign.
(4) Electronic navigational aids.
You may request a copy of the agenda from Ms. Hegy at the number listed in
The meeting is open to the public. Please note that the meeting may close early if all business is finished. At the Chair's discretion, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meetings. If you would like to make an oral presentation, please notify the Executive Director no later than November 8, 2000. Written material for distribution at a meeting should reach the Coast Guard no later than November 8, 2000. If you would like a copy of your material distributed to each member of the Council in advance of the meeting, please submit 25 copies to the Executive Director no later than November 3, 2000.
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Executive Director as soon as possible.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before November 20, 2000. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication.
Judy Street on (202) 267-9895.
Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention FAA Desk Officer.
Comments are invited on whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, in including the use of automated collection techniques of other forms of information technology.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption Part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR, dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before November 13, 2000.
Send comments on any petition to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2000-XXXX at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing the petition, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527) is on the plaza level of the NASSIF Building at the Department of Transportation at the above address. Also, you may review public dockets on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Forest Rawls (202) 267-8033, or Vanessa Wilkins (202) 267-8029, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91 of part 11.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received and of dispositions of prior petitions.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption Part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR, dispositions of certain petitions previously received, and corrections. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments or petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before November 13, 2000.
Send comments on any petition to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2000-XXXX at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to http://dms.dot.gov. You may review the public docket containing the petition, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Dockets Office (telephone
Forest Rawls (202) 267-8033, or Vanessa Wilkins (202) 267-8029, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91 of Part 11.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use revenue from a PFC at Nashville 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 November 20, 2000.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports District Office, 3385 Airways Boulevard, Suite 302, Memphis, TN 38116-3841.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to General William G. Moore, Jr., President of the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority at the following address: One Terminal Drive, Suite 501, Nashville, TN 37214.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Cynthia K. Wills, Program Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, 3385 Airways Boulevard, Suite 302, Memphis, TN 38116-3841, (901) 544-3495 extension 16. 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 Nashville 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 October 13, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Metropolitan Nashville 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 January 31, 2001.
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 Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. We published a
Please submit comments by November 20, 2000.
You may send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed collection is necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected
Carmen Sevier, (202) 366-1595, Civil Rights Service Business Unit, Federal Highway Administration, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Surface Transportation Board, Transportation.
Notice tentatively approving finance transaction.
Stagecoach Holdings PLC (Stagecoach) and its subsidiary, Coach USA, Inc. (Coach), noncarriers, and various subsidiaries of each (collectively, applicants), filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 14303 to acquire control of Royal West Tours & Cruises, Inc. (Royal), a motor passenger carrier. Persons wishing to oppose this application must follow the rules under 49 CFR part 1182.5 and 1182.8. The Board has tentatively approved the transaction, and, if no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action.
Comments must be filed by December 4, 2000. Applicants may file a reply by December 19, 2000. If no comments are filed by December 4, 2000, this notice is effective on that date.
Send an original and 10 copies of any comments referring to STB Docket No. MC-F-20974 to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of any comments to applicants' representatives: Betty Jo Christian and David H. Coburn, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-1795.
Joseph H. Dettmar (202) 565-1600. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
Stagecoach is a public limited corporation organized under the laws of Scotland. With operations in several countries, Stagecoach is one of the world's largest providers of passenger transportation services. Stagecoach had annual revenues of $3.29 billion for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2000. Coach is a Delaware corporation that currently controls over 80 motor passenger carriers.
Stagecoach and its subsidiaries currently control Coach,
Applicants state that, on July 25, 2000, Coach purchased all of the stock of Royal, a motor passenger carrier holding federally authorized operating authority. Simultaneously with that acquisition, Coach placed the stock of Royal into an independent voting trust. The control transaction that is the subject of this application will not involve any further transfer of the federal operating authority held by Royal and will not entail any change in its operations.
Applicants have submitted information, as required by 49 CFR 1182.2(a)(7), to demonstrate that the proposed acquisition of control is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b). Applicants state that the proposed transaction will not reduce competitive options, adversely impact fixed charges, or adversely impact the interests of the employees of Royal. Applicants assert that granting the application will allow Royal to take advantage of economies of scale and substantial benefits offered by applicants, including interest cost savings and reduced operating costs. In addition, applicants have submitted all of the other statements and certifications required by 49 CFR 1182.2. Additional information, including a copy of the application, may be obtained from the applicants' representatives.
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), we must approve and authorize a transaction we
On the basis of the application, we find that the proposed acquisition of control is consistent with the public interest and should be authorized. If any opposing comments are timely filed, this finding will be deemed vacated and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
1. The proposed acquisition of control is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. If timely opposing comments are filed, the findings made in this decision will be deemed as having been vacated.
3. This decision will be effective on December 4, 2000, unless timely opposing comments are filed.
4. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration—MC-RI, 400 Virginia Avenue, S.W., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Burkes, and Commissioner Clyburn.
Iowa Interstate Railroad, Ltd. (IAIS) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR Part 1152 Subpart F—
IAIS has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic on the line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment shall be protected under
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicant's representative: T. Scott Bannister, 1300 Des Moines Building, 405—Sixth Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50309.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
IAIS has filed an environmental report which addresses the abandonment's effects, if any, on the environment and historic resources. The Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by October 25, 2000. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1545. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), IAIS shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned the line. If consummation has not been effected by IAIS's filing of a notice of consummation by October 20, 2001, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
On October 2, 2000, Wisconsin Central Ltd. (WCL) filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903-05
The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in WC's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by January 19, 2001.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than November 9, 2000. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-303 (Sub-No. 22X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Michael J. Barron, Jr., P.O. Box 5062, Rosemont, IL 60017-5062. Replies to the WCL petition are due on or before November 9, 2000.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1545. [TDD for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-877-8339.]
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics, DOT.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 72-363; 5 U.S.C. App. 2) notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) Advisory Council on Transportation Statistics (ACTS) to be held Tuesday, October 31, 2000, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, in conference room 10234-10238 of the Nassif Building.
The Advisory Council, called for under section 6007 of Public Law 102-240, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, December 18, 1991, and chartered on June 19, 1995, was created to advise the Director of BTS on transportation statistics and analyses, including whether or not the statistics and analysis disseminated by the Bureau are of high quality and are based upon the best available objective information.
The agenda for this meeting will include, Director's programs update, Advisory Council report to the Director, data gaps, identification of substantive issues, review of plans and schedule, other items of interest, discussion and agreement of date(s) for subsequent meetings, and comments from the floor.
Since access to the DOT building is controlled, all persons who plan to attend the meeting must notify Ms. Lillian “Pidge” Chapman, Council Liaison, on (202) 366-1270 prior to October 27, 2000. Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space available. With the approval of the Chair, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Noncommittee members wishing to present oral statements, obtain information, or who plan to access the building to attend the meeting should also contact Ms. Chapman.
Members of the public may present a written statement to the Council at any time.
Persons with a disability requiring special services, such as an interpreter for the hearing impaired, should contact Ms. Chapman (202) 366-1270 at least seven days prior to the meeting.
In rule document 00-25631 beginning on page 59752, in the issue of Friday, October 6, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 59757, above and below the heading, “
In notice document 00-26057 beginning on page 60415 in the issue of Wednesday, October 11, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 60415, in the third column, in the first paragraph, in the first line “RM9-1-014, RP00-23-” should read “RM96-1-014, RP01-23-”
In the issue of Tuesday, September 26, 2000, on page 57861, in the second column, in the correction of rule document 00-22832, entry 4. should read “4. On the same page, in the second column, §245.18(18)(h)(1), in the fourth line after “period”, “of” should read “or”.”
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC); Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board); Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC); and Office of Thrift Supervision, Treasury (OTS).
Joint notice of proposed rulemaking.
The OCC, Board, FDIC, and OTS (Agencies) are publishing for comment proposed regulations implementing the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) that permit institutions to communicate consumer information to their affiliates (affiliate information sharing) without incurring the obligations of consumer reporting agencies. These provisions authorize institutions to communicate among their affiliates: Information as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the communication (transaction or experience information); and “other” information (that is, information covered by the FCRA but not transaction or experience information), provided that the institution has given notice to the consumer that the other information may be communicated, the institution has provided the consumer an opportunity to “opt out” (
Comments must be received by December 4, 2000.
Comments should be directed to:
Comments may be submitted to the FDIC electronically over the Internet at www.fdic.gov. Further information concerning this option may be found below at “FDIC's Electronic Public Comment Site.” Comments also may be mailed electronically to comments@fdic.gov.
The FCRA, enacted in 1970, sets standards for the collection, communication, and use of information bearing on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living. 15 U.S.C. 1681-1681u. In 1996, the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act amended the FCRA extensively (1996 Amendments). Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009.
For many years, to avoid the obligations of consumer reporting agencies imposed by the FCRA, many institutions avoided making any communications to affiliated companies of consumer information that could constitute consumer reports.
The 1996 Amendments prohibited the Agencies from issuing implementing regulations. 15 U.S.C. 1681s(a)(4) (repealed). The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) repealed this prohibition and directed the Agencies to prescribe jointly such regulations as necessary to carry out the purposes of the FCRA. Pub. L. Sec. 506, 106-102, 15 U.S.C. 1681s(e).
The GLBA sets standards for financial institutions' disclosure of nonpublic personal information to nonaffiliated third parties (privacy provisions; Pub. L. 106-102, 15 U.S.C. 6802;
The privacy regulations do not “modify, limit, or supersede the operation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” 15 U.S.C. 6806. Thus, both the privacy regulations and the FCRA may apply to an institution's disclosure of consumer information. Moreover, if a financial institution provides an opt out notice under the FCRA, that notice must be included in certain notices mandated by the privacy regulations, including annual notices to customers. 15 U.S.C. 6803. Therefore, the Agencies anticipate that financial institutions will design their information-sharing policies and practices taking into account both the privacy regulations and the regulations implementing the FCRA.
To ease compliance and promote consistency, the Agencies are conforming the two regulations where appropriate. For example, the Agencies are proposing requirements regarding the content and delivery of the FCRA opt out notice that are generally consistent with the corresponding provisions of the privacy regulations.
The FCRA raises many significant issues in addition to affiliate information sharing. The Agencies are analyzing these issues and expect to address them in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Additionally, the Agencies will review a series of questions and answers regarding the FCRA (Qs & As) that the Agencies (including the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, predecessor of the OTS) issued in 1971. These were designed to help financial institutions develop a working knowledge of the statute. The Agencies will modify or withdraw any Qs & As that are inconsistent with the FCRA or obsolete.
Proposed paragraph __.1(a) briefly describes the purpose of the regulations. Proposed paragraph __.1(b) briefly describes the scope of the regulations, including the information and institutions subject to them. (These institutions are identified in more detail in proposed section __.3(m) of the Board, FDIC, and OTS regulations.)
Paragraph __.1(b) also provides that nothing in this part modifies, limits, or supersedes the standards governing the privacy of individually identifiable health information promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to sections 262 and 264 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-1320d-8). Certain institutions that possess medical information about consumers may be covered by these regulations, the GLBA privacy regulations, and rules promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the authority of sections 262 and 264 of HIPAA once those regulations are finalized. Based on the proposed HIPAA rules, it appears likely that there will be areas of overlap between the HIPAA and the FCRA affiliate information-sharing rules. For instance under the HIPAA proposal, consumers must provide affirmative authorization before a “covered institution” or its “business partner” may disclose medical information in certain instances, whereas under these proposed FCRA affiliate information sharing rules, institutions need only provide consumers with the opportunity to opt out of disclosures. In cases where the HIPAA requires consumers to opt in before certain information may be shared, but this rule allows consumers to opt out of the same sharing, opt in would be necessary before the information may be shared. The Agencies will consult with HHS to avoid the imposition of duplicative or inconsistent requirements.
Proposed section _.2 clarifies that the examples used in the regulations and in the sample notice are not exclusive means of compliance; rather, they are
The Agencies solicit comment on whether to include additional or different examples, and, more fundamentally, on whether including examples in the regulations is appropriate and useful. Instead of addressing specific fact situations through such examples, the Agencies could periodically issue interagency staff commentaries or questions and answers.
The Agencies note that an example that mentions a particular activity does not, by itself, authorize an institution to engage in that activity. Any such authority must have an independent source.
Discussed below are a few key definitions, including: “affiliate” (as well as the related terms “company” and “control”); “clear and conspicuous”; “opt out”; “opt out information”; and “consumer report.” The proposal tracks the statutory language referring to “transaction or experience information,” but does not define that term.
Several FCRA provisions apply to information sharing with persons “related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control,” “related by common ownership or affiliated by common corporate control,” or “affiliated by common ownership or common corporate control.”
Consistent with the definitions in the privacy regulations, the proposal uses a definition of “control” that applies exclusively to the control of a “company,” and defines “company” to include any corporation, limited liability company, business trust, general or limited partnership, association, or similar organization.
Proposed paragraph (c) defines “clear and conspicuous” to mean that a notice must be reasonably understandable and designed to call attention to the nature and significance of the information it contains. The proposed regulations do not mandate the use of any particular technique for making a notice clear and conspicuous; instead, they give institutions flexibility in determining how to comply. An institution may make its notice reasonably understandable by, for example, using short explanatory sentences or bullet lists and avoiding legal or highly technical business terminology whenever possible. An institution may design its notice to call attention to the nature and significance of the information in the notice by, for example, using a plain-language heading and a typeface and size that are easy to read.
Paragraph (c) is consistent with the “clear and conspicuous” standard in the privacy regulations. As such, it offers a more detailed exposition of the standard (particularly with respect to what makes a notice “conspicuous”) than some other regulations, such as the Board's Regulation Z. However, laws other than FCRA—for example, the Truth in Lending Act—that require clear and conspicuous disclosures, are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. Accordingly, the standard proposed here does not affect disclosures required by those laws.
The Agencies request comment on whether institutions have any particular concerns about compliance with FCRA's clear and conspicuous standard when FCRA opt out notices are included with the GLBA privacy provision notices.
Proposed paragraph (g) parallels the definition in section 603(d) of the FCRA. Paragraph (g)(2)(ii) excludes from the definition of “consumer report” communication among affiliates of a report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report.
Paragraph (g)(2)(iii) excludes any communication of “opt out information” if the conditions set out in sections _.4-_.9 are satisfied. The FCRA, as explained above, uses the term “other information” to refer to information that it covers but that is not transaction or experience information. This proposal refers to “other information” using the more descriptive term “opt out information.”
Proposed paragraph (j) defines this term to mean a direction by a consumer that an institution not communicate opt out information about the consumer to one or more of the institution's affiliates.
As described above, the 1996 Amendments to FCRA excluded from the definition of “consumer report” the sharing of “other information” among affiliates, so long as the consumer, having been given notice and an opportunity to opt out, did not opt out. “Other information” refers to information that is covered by the FCRA and that is not a report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report. The proposed regulation uses the term “opt out information” to describe this category of information.
Proposed paragraph (k) defines opt out information as information that (i) bears on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living, (ii) is used or expected to be used or collected for one of the permissible purposes listed in FCRA (
Proposed section _.4 describes the conditions that an institution must meet to ensure that its communication of opt out information to its affiliates do not constitute consumer reports including
Section 603(d)(2)(A)(iii) of the FCRA excludes from the definition of “consumer report” the sharing of opt out information among affiliates if:
Proposed section __.4 accordingly provides that opt out information may be communicated among affiliates without the communication being a consumer report if: (i) The institution has provided an opt out notice; (ii) the institution has given the consumer a reasonable opportunity and means, before the time that it communicates the information, to opt out; and (iii) the consumer has not opted out.
In a merger or acquisition situation, the need to provide new opt out notices to the customers of the entity that ceases to exist will depend on whether the notices previously given to those customers accurately reflect the policies and practices of the surviving entity. If they do, the surviving entity will not be required under the rule to provide new notices.
Proposed paragraph (a) provides that an opt out notice must be clear and conspicuous, and must accurately explain: (i) The categories of opt out information about the consumer that the institution communicates; (ii) the categories of affiliates to which the institution communicates the information; (iii) the consumer's ability to opt out; and (iv) the means to do so. The Agencies invite comment on whether financial institutions should also have to disclose in their FCRA notices how long a consumer has to respond to the opt out notice before the institution may begin disclosing information about that consumer to its affiliates, as well as the fact that a consumer can opt out at any time. These disclosures are not required in the privacy regulations. The Agencies seek comment on whether the benefits of the additional disclosures would outweigh the burdens, and, if so, whether the regulation should require the disclosures to state that a financial institution will wait 30 days in every instance before sharing consumer information with affiliates (
Proposed paragraph (b) clarifies that an institution's notice may describe not only the communications of opt out information that the institution currently plans to make to its affiliates, but also the communications that it reserves the right to make in the future. Proposed paragraph (c) explains that an institution may, but need not, provide the consumer with the option of an opt out that covers only part of the information or certain affiliates. This would enable an institution to give consumers a menu of opt out choices if it desires to do so.
Paragraph (d) explains how an institution can satisfy the requirement that it categorize the opt out information that it communicates. Paragraph (d)(2) gives examples of categories of opt out information, such as information from a consumer's application, information from a consumer report, information obtained by verifying representations made by a consumer, and information provided by another person regarding that person's relationship with a consumer. The first two categories reflect the legislative history of the 1996 Amendments, which states in part that the opt out provision “will clarify that affiliates within a Holding Company structure can share any application information * * * and consumer reports, consistent with the FCRA.” S. Rep. No. 185, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 18-19 (1995). The other two categories represent information that the Agencies believe does not constitute transaction or experience information when communicated by the institution that has received it. Paragraph (d)(3) gives a non-exclusive list of examples of specific items of opt out information within each category, including a consumer's income, credit score or credit history, open lines of credit, employment history, marital status and medical history.
Medical data are especially sensitive for many consumers; if such data are among the opt out information that an institution communicates to its affiliates, the institution satisfies the requirement to categorize that information only if it includes examples of medical data that it intends to share. The Agencies note that the items listed in paragraph (d)(3) as examples of information that would be included within the categories of opt out information are illustrative only. Those items would not be considered opt out information in cases where the information is obtained from a source other than those listed in paragraph (d)(2). Comment is requested as to the appropriateness of these examples of categories and items of opt out information, and whether additional or different examples should be used.
The descriptions of the categories of information set out in proposed paragraph (d)(2) differ somewhat from those in section _.6(c)(2) of the privacy regulations. The agencies solicit comment on the extent to which the categories in (d)(2) can be treated as consistent with similar categories in the privacy regulations (such as disclosures of information from consumer reporting agencies) in order to reduce compliance burden and consumer confusion.
Proposed paragraph (e) explains how an institution can satisfy the requirement that it categorize the affiliates to which it communicates opt out information.
Paragraph (f) cross-references the sample notice in appendix A, which presents a further illustration of the content of an opt out notice.
Proposed paragraph (a) of section __ .6 states that financial institutions will provide a reasonable opportunity to opt out by providing a reasonable period of time for the consumer to opt out from the time that notice is delivered. Proposed paragraph (b) sets out examples of what is a reasonable period of time when notices are provided in person, by mail, or by electronic means. Comment is requested on whether there are other situations that would suggest a different reasonable period of time that the Agencies should note by example. Proposed paragraph (c) explains that a consumer may opt out at any time.
Proposed paragraph (a) sets forth the general rule that an institution provides a reasonable means of opting out if it provides a reasonably convenient method to the consumer to opt out. Examples of reasonable means of opting out and unreasonable means are set out in proposed paragraphs (b) and (c), respectively. Proposed paragraph (d) permits an institution to require each consumer to opt out through a specific means, as long as that means is reasonable for that consumer.
Proposed paragraph (a) provides that an institution must deliver an opt out notice so that each consumer can reasonably be expected to receive actual
An institution may give notice in writing or, if the consumer agrees, electronically. For example, the institution may e-mail its notice to a customer that conducts electronic transactions and has agreed to receive electronic notice. The Agencies invite comment on whether and how the proposed rules governing communications between a financial institution and a consumer via an electronic medium should be modified in light of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (the E-Sign Act).
Proposed paragraph (c) explains that oral notice alone does not comply with the notice requirement; however, oral notice may be provided in conjunction with appropriate written or electronic notice.
Proposed paragraph (d) explains that an institution must provide the notice so that the consumer can retain it or obtain it at a later time, and gives examples of retention or accessibility.
Proposed paragraph (e) permits an institution to provide a joint opt out notice with one or more of its affiliates that are identified in the notice, as long as the notice is accurate with respect to each entity jointly issuing the notice.
Proposed paragraph (f)(1) sets out rules that apply, notwithstanding any other provision of the regulations, when two or more consumers jointly obtain a product or service from an institution (referred to in the proposed regulation as joint consumers), such as a joint checking account. For example, an institution may provide a single opt out notice to joint accountholders. The notice must indicate whether the institution will consider an opt out by a joint accountholder as an opt out by all of the associated accountholders, or whether each accountholder may opt out separately. The institution may not require all accountholders to opt out before honoring an opt out direction by one of the joint accountholders. Paragraph (f)(2) gives examples of these rules.
Proposed section __ .9 addresses the situation in which an institution has provided a consumer with one or more opt out notices but later decides to communicate opt out information to its affiliates other than described in those notices. It explains that an institution must send a revised opt out notice that complies with section __ .4, including providing a reasonable means and opportunity to opt out, and communicating the information only if the consumer has not opted out.
Proposed section __ .10 explains that if an institution provides a consumer with an opt out notice, and the consumer opts out, the institution must comply as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the consumer's direction. Comment is solicited on whether the Agencies should establish a fixed number of days—for example, 30 days—that would be deemed a “reasonably practicable” period of time for complying with a consumer's opt out direction.
Proposed section __.11 provides that an opt out continues to apply to the information and affiliates described in the applicable opt out notice until revoked by the consumer in writing, or if the consumer agrees, electronically, as long as the consumer continues to have a relationship with the institution. If the consumer's relationship with the institution terminates, the opt out will continue to apply to this information. However, a new notice and opportunity to opt out must be provided if the consumer establishes a new relationship with the institution.
Proposed paragraph (a) reminds institutions that they may not “discriminate against” a consumer who is an “applicant” for credit because the applicant opts out. The source of this prohibition is the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA; 15 U.S.C. 1691
Appendix A, which is part of these regulations, contains a sample notice, part or all of which may be used to facilitate compliance with the notice requirements. Although use of the sample notice is not required, institutions using it properly to provide notices will be deemed to be in compliance.
The Agencies solicit comment on all aspects of the proposed regulations, including but not limited to those highlighted above.
The FDIC has included a page on its web site to facilitate the submission of electronic comments in response to this general solicitation (the EPC site). The EPC site provides an alternative to the written letter and may be a more convenient way for you to submit your comments. Commenting through the EPC site will assist the FDIC to more accurately and efficiently analyze comments submitted electronically. If you submit your comments through the EPC site your comments will receive the same consideration that they would receive if submitted in hard copy to the FDIC's street address. Information provided through the EPC site will be used by the FDIC only to assist in its analysis of the proposed regulation. The FDIC will not use an individual's name or any other personal identifier of an individual to retrieve records or information submitted through the EPC site. Like comments submitted in hard copy to the FDIC's street address, EPC site comments will be made available in their entirety (including the commenter's name and address if the commenter chooses to provide them) for public inspection.
The EPC site will be available on the FDIC's home page at http://www.fdic.gov. You will be able to provide comments directly on any of the sections of the proposed regulation as well as the specific questions that have been asked in the preceding Supplementary Information section. You will also be able to view the regulation and Supplementary Information sections that related to your comments directly on the site. Because the GLBA authorizes promulgation of this regulation, the FDIC encourages you to provide written comments in the
The FDIC is also interested in your feedback on the EPC site. We have provided a space for you to comment on the site itself. Answers to this question will help the FDIC to evaluate the EPC site for use in future rulemaking.
At the conclusion of the EPC site you will have an opportunity to provide us with your name, indicate whether you are an individual, insured depository institution, financial holding company, community-based organization, trade association, government agency, or other, and provide the name of the organization you represent, if applicable. Whether you choose to respond to these questions is entirely up to you. Any responses received may help the FDIC to better understand the public comments it receives.
The Agencies invite comment on: (1) Whether the collections of information contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking are necessary for the proper performance of each Agency's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of each Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) ways to minimize the burden of the information collections on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (5) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchases of services to provide information. No person is required to respond to these collections of information unless the collections display a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The Agencies are currently requesting their respective control numbers for these information collections from OMB.
This proposed regulation contains disclosure requirements for certain financial institutions and their affiliates. A financial institution that (a) has affiliates, (b) does not wish to be considered a consumer reporting agency, and (c) wishes to share consumer information (other than transaction and experience information) with its affiliates, must prepare and provide a notice to all its consumers advising them of their opportunity to opt out of information sharing with companies in the institution's corporate family. 12 CFR __ .4. If a financial institution wishes to share information in a way that is inconsistent with notices previously given to consumers, the institution must provide consumers with revised notices. 12 CFR __ .11. The proposed regulation also contains consumer reporting provisions. In order for consumers to opt out, they must respond to the institution's opt out notices. 12 CFR __ .7. At any time during their continued relationship with the institution, consumers have the right to change or update their opt out status with the institution. 12 CFR __ .10.
FCRA was amended to include disclosure and opt out provisions in 1996, but the Agencies were prohibited from issuing implementing regulations until 1999. Thus, the collections of information contained in this proposed rule are not new requirements. During the past three years, financial institutions have developed systems, policies, and procedures to bring themselves into compliance with the 1996 FCRA amendments. In estimating the burden associated with the collections of information in this proposed regulation, the Agencies took into account the fact that FCRA-related disclosure and opt out requirements have already become a usual and customary practice for covered institutions. However, because the proposed rule is more explicit and detailed than the statute, some institutions may need to revise their disclosure policies or their notices, and consumers may need to respond to the revised notices. The burden associated with these changes to current practice is represented in the estimates below. In estimating burden, the Agencies also assumed that if a financial institution provides an opt out notice under the FCRA, that notice must be included in certain notices mandated by the GLBA privacy provisions, and will not be sent out separately. The collection of information requirements contained in this notice of proposed rulemaking will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
The estimated number of bank respondents includes the total institutions supervised by each of the Agencies that have certain affiliate relationships. The requirements of the regulation only apply to institutions that share opt out information with affiliates that do not wish to be consumer reporting agencies; therefore, the Agencies cannot currently predict with certainty how many of these institutions will be subject to the rule. The analysis assumes that all institutions with certain affiliates will in fact, choose to share opt out information and thus be subject to the rule.
The estimated number of consumers who will receive opt out notices is the sum of deposit and loan consumers, and is derived from data in Board consumer studies. Each Agency's share of the total number of consumers is based on the share of total deposits, and consumer and mortgage loans, held by institutions supervised by the Agencies. Because OTS collects different information about consumer loans than the other Agencies, OTS estimated the number of thrift borrowers by dividing total consumer loans outstanding by the average balance, for different types of consumer loans. The analysis assumes that institutions will provide separate opt out notices based on product lines such as loans and deposit accounts, rather than single, combined notices covering all of the various relationships a consumer may have with the institution. The Agencies seek comment as to whether institutions would likely send separate or combined notices.
The number of consumer respondents provided by the OCC represents a conservative estimate based upon the total number of consumers who will receive an opt out notice. The OCC is using these conservative estimates because it lacks more precise data on the number of consumers who will exercise their opt out rights. The OCC expects that the actual number of consumer respondents will be lower than the estimate provided above, and invites comment on the number of
In addition, some of the requirements in the proposed rule have been designed to correspond to the requirements of the privacy regulations. For example, under both regulations, financial institutions, in certain circumstances, must deliver notices to consumers and to provide consumers an opportunity to opt out of certain information disclosures. This proposed rule would allow financial institutions to combine into one notice the notice they must deliver under FCRA and the notice that they must deliver under the privacy regulations. Also, institutions may combine their consumers' opt out responses into one opt out response. By combining the notices they deliver and the opt out responses they process, financial institutions will not need to produce additional notices or to process additional opt out responses under this rule. Because the proposed rule is designed to minimize FCRA's burden on financial institutions, and because the FCRA requirements have been effective since 1997, the OCC believes that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For these reasons, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Since 1997, the FCRA has provided that the term “consumer report” does not include any communication of other information (meaning information that is not transaction or experience information) among persons related by common ownership or affiliated by corporate control, if it is clearly and conspicuously disclosed to the consumer that the information may be communicated among such persons and the consumer is given the opportunity, before the time that the information is initially communicated, to direct that such information not be communicated among such persons. The proposed regulations would implement this provision and would provide guidance to certain Board-regulated institutions on how to comply, but would not substantively change existing law. No new type of disclosure or opt-out system would be required. While existing forms may need to be modified, these modifications are unlikely to result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Additionally, the proposed rule is designed to correspond as much as feasible to the requirements of Regulation P, which governs the privacy of consumer financial information. Both regulations implement statutory provisions for the delivery of information-sharing opt out notices to consumers. The proposed rule would facilitate compliance by financial institutions with the requirement to provide privacy notices and the use of opt out notices under the FCRA by allowing the two notices to be combined
Further, this proposed rule is designed to be consistent with the requirements of the regulation governing the privacy of consumer financial information. Both rules implement statutory requirements for financial institutions, in certain circumstances, to deliver notices to consumers and to provide consumers an opportunity to opt out of certain information disclosures. The Agencies have made the FCRA notice guidance parallel to the privacy rule requirements, thus facilitating the delivery of a single notice to consumers. Similarly, institutions may combine their consumers' opt out responses into one opt out response. By combining the notices they deliver and the opt out responses they process, financial institutions will not need to produce additional notices or to process additional opt out responses under this rule.
For the above reasons, the FDIC believes that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Further, this proposed rule is designed to be consistent with the requirements of the regulation governing the privacy of consumer financial information, 12 CFR part 573. Both rules implement statutory requirements for financial institutions, in certain circumstances, to deliver notices to consumers and to provide consumers an opportunity to opt out of certain information disclosures. The Agencies have made the FCRA notice guidance parallel to the privacy rule requirements, thus facilitating the delivery of a single notice to consumers. Similarly, institutions may combine a consumer's opt out responses into one opt out response. By combining the notices they deliver and the opt out responses they process, financial institutions will not need to produce additional notices or to process additional opt out responses under this rule. For these reasons, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The OCC and OTS each has determined that its portion of the proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. The OCC and OTS each has determined that this proposed rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more. Accordingly, neither the OCC nor the OTS has prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives considered.
Section 722 of the GLBA requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. We invite your comments on how to make this proposed rule easier to understand. For example:
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could this material be better organized?
• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? If not, how could the rule be more clearly stated?
• Do the regulations contain technical language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the regulation easier to understand?
• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? If so, which sections should be changed?
• What else could we do to make the regulation easier to understand?
The Agencies solicit comment on whether the inclusion of examples in the regulation is appropriate. Elevating the fact patterns to safe harbors in the rule may generate certain problems over time. For example, changes in technology or practices may ultimately
Banks, banking, Credit, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Banks, banking, Credit, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, State member banks.
Banks, banking, Credit, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Credit, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, the OCC proposes to amend chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new part 41 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 93a; 15 U.S.C. 1681s.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
The examples used in this part and the sample notice in appendix A to this part are not exclusive. Compliance with an example or use of the sample notice, to the extent applicable, constitutes compliance with this part.
As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(A) Presents the information in the notice in clear and concise sentences, paragraphs, and sections;
(B) Uses short explanatory sentences or bullet lists whenever possible;
(C) Uses definite, concrete, everyday words and active voice whenever possible;
(D) Avoids multiple negatives;
(E) Avoids legal and highly technical business terminology whenever possible; and
(F) Avoids explanations that are imprecise and are readily subject to different interpretations.
(ii)
(A) Uses a plain-language heading to call attention to the notice;
(B) Uses a typeface and type size that are easy to read;
(C) Provides wide margins and ample line spacing;
(D) Uses boldface or italics for key words; and
(E) In a form that combines the bank's notice with other information, uses distinctive type sizes, styles, and graphic devices, such as shading or sidebars.
(iii)
(A) Places either the notice, or a link that connects directly to the notice and that is labeled appropriately to convey the importance, nature, and relevance of the notice, on a page that consumers access often, such as a page on which transactions are conducted;
(B) Uses text or visual cues to encourage scrolling down the page if necessary to view the entire notice; and
(C) Ensures that other elements on the web page (such as text, graphics, links, or sound) do not detract attention from the notice.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(i) Credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes;
(ii) Employment purposes; or
(iii) Any other purpose authorized under section 604 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b).
(2)
(i) Any report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report;
(ii) Any communication of that information among affiliates;
(iii) Any communication among affiliates of opt out information if the conditions in §§ 41.4 through 41.9 are satisfied;
(iv) Any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device;
(v) Any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and the person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 615 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m); or
(vi) A communication described in section 603(o) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(o)).
(h)
(i)
(1) Ownership, control, or power to vote 25 percent or more of the outstanding shares of any class of voting security of the company, directly or indirectly, or acting through one or more other persons;
(2) Control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors, trustees, or general partners (or individuals exercising similar functions) of the company; or
(3) The power to exercise, directly or indirectly, a controlling influence over the management or policies of the company, as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency determines.
(j)
(k)
(1) Bears on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living;
(2) Is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part to serve as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for credit or another purpose listed in section 604 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b); and
(3) Is not a report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person reporting or communicating the information.
(l)
A bank's communication to its affiliates of opt out information about a consumer is not a consumer report if:
(a) The bank has provided the consumer with an opt out notice;
(b) The bank has given the consumer a reasonable opportunity and means, before the bank communicates the information to its affiliates, to opt out; and
(c) The consumer has not opted out.
(a)
(1) The categories of opt out information about the consumer that a bank communicates to its affiliates;
(2) The categories of affiliates to which the bank communicates the information;
(3) The consumer's ability to opt out; and
(4) A reasonable means for the consumer to opt out.
(b)
(1) Categories of opt out information about the consumer that the bank reserves the right to communicate to its affiliates in the future but does not currently communicate; and
(2) Categories of affiliates to which the bank reserves the right in the future to communicate, but to which the bank does not currently communicate, opt out information about the consumer.
(c)
(d)
(2) Categories of opt out information may include information:
(i) From a consumer's application;
(ii) From a consumer credit report;
(iii) Obtained by verifying representations made by a consumer; or
(iv) Provided by another person regarding its employment, credit, or other relationship with a consumer.
(3) Examples of information within a category listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section include a consumer's:
(i) Income;
(ii) Credit score or credit history with others;
(iii) Open lines of credit with others;
(iv) Employment history with others;
(v) Marital status; and
(vi) Medical history.
(4) A bank does not satisfy the requirement if it communicates or reserves the right to communicate individually identifiable health information (as described in section 1171(6)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d(6)(B)) but omits illustrative examples of this information.
(e)
(2) Categories of affiliates may include:
(i) Financial service providers; and
(ii) Non-financial companies.
(f)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) Designating check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms included with the opt out notice;
(2) Including a reply form together with the opt out notice;
(3) Providing an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be electronically mailed or a process at the bank's web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information; or
(4) Providing a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out.
(c)
(1) Requiring a consumer to write his or her own letter to a bank; or
(2) Referring in a revised notice to a check-off box that a bank included with a previous notice but that the bank does not include with the revised notice.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(i) Hand-delivers a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
(ii) Mails a printed copy of the notice to the last known mailing address of the consumer; or
(iii) For the consumer who conducts transactions electronically, posts the notice on its electronic site and requires the consumer to acknowledge receipt of the notice as a necessary step to obtaining a particular product or service;
(2) A bank may
(i) Only posts a sign in its branch or office or generally publishes advertisements presenting its notice; or (ii) Sends the notice via electronic mail to a consumer who does not obtain a product or service from the bank electronically.
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i) Hand-delivers a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
(ii) Mails a printed copy of the notice to the last known address of the consumer upon request of the consumer; or
(iii) Makes the bank's current notice available on a web site (or a link to another web site) for the consumer who obtains a product or service electronically and who agrees to receive the notice at the web site.
(e)
(f)
(i) The bank may provide a single notice to all of the joint consumers.
(ii) Any of the joint consumers has the opportunity to opt out.
(iii) The bank may treat an opt out direction by a joint consumer either as:
(A) Applying to all of the joint consumers; or
(B) Applying to that particular joint consumer.
(iv) The bank must explain in its opt out notice which of the two policies set forth in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section it will follow.
(v) If the bank follows the policy set forth in paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section, by treating the opt out of a joint consumer as applying to that particular joint consumer, the bank must also permit:
(A) A joint consumer to opt out on behalf of other joint consumers; and
(B) One or more joint consumers to notify the bank of their opt out directions in a single response.
(vi) A bank may not require
(vii) If a bank receives an opt out by a particular joint consumer that does not apply to the others, the bank may disclose information about the others as long as no information is disclosed about the consumer who opted out.
(2)
(i) Treat an opt out direction by A as applying to the entire account. If the bank does so and A opts out, the bank may not require B to opt out as well before implementing A's opt out direction.
(ii) Treat A's opt out direction as applying to A only. If the bank does so, it must also permit:
(A) A and B to opt out for each other; and
(B) A and B to notify the bank of their opt out directions in a single response (such as on a single form) if they choose to give separate opt out directions.
(iii) If A opts out only for A, and B does not opt out, the bank may disclose opt out information only about B, and not about A and B jointly.
If a bank has provided a consumer with one or more opt out notices and plans to communicate opt out information to its affiliates about the consumer other than as described in those notices, the bank must provide the consumer with a revised opt out notice that complies with §§ 41.4 through 41.8.
If a bank provides a consumer with an opt out notice and the consumer opts out, the bank must comply with the opt out as soon as reasonably practicable after the bank receives it.
An opt out remains effective until revoked by the consumer in writing or electronically, as long as the consumer continues to have a relationship with the bank. If the consumer's relationship with the bank terminates, the opt out will continue to apply to this information. However, a new notice and opportunity to opt out must be provided if the consumer establishes a new relationship with the bank.
(a)
(b)
(1) Denies the applicant credit because the applicant opts out;
(2) Varies the terms of credit adversely to the applicant such as by providing less favorable pricing terms to an applicant who opts out; or
(3) Applies more stringent credit underwriting standards to the applicant because the applicant opts out.
(c)
This appendix contains a sample notice to facilitate compliance with the notice requirements of this part. An institution may use applicable disclosures in this sample to provide notices required by this part.
What Information: Unless you tell us not to, [
• Information we obtain from your application, such as [
• Information we obtain from a consumer report, such as [provide illustrative examples, such as “
• Information we obtain to verify representations made by you, such as [
• Information we obtain from a person regarding its employment, credit, or other relationship with you, such as [
Shared With Whom: Companies in our corporate family who may receive this information are:
• Financial service providers, such as [
• Non-financial companies, such as [
If you prefer that we not share this information with companies in our corporate family, you may direct us not to share this information by doing the following [insert one or more of the reasonable means of opting out listed below
Your direction in this paragraph covers certain information about you that we might otherwise share with our corporate family. We may share other information about you with our corporate family as permitted by law.
12 CFR Chapter II
For the reasons set forth in the joint preamble, chapter II of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding a new part 222 to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1681s.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
The examples used in this part and the sample notice in appendix A to this part are not exclusive. Compliance with an example or use of the sample notice, to the extent applicable, constitutes compliance with this part.
As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(A) Present the information in the notice in clear and concise sentences, paragraphs, and sections;
(B) Use short explanatory sentences or bullet lists whenever possible;
(C) Use definite, concrete, everyday words and active voice whenever possible;
(D) Avoid multiple negatives;
(E) Avoid legal and highly technical business terminology whenever possible; and
(F) Avoid explanations that are imprecise and are readily subject to different interpretations.
(ii)
(A) Use a plain-language heading to call attention to the notice;
(B) Use a typeface and type size that are easy to read;
(C) Provide wide margins and ample line spacing;
(D) Use boldface or italics for key words; and
(E) In a form that combines your notice with other information, use distinctive type sizes, styles, and graphic devices, such as shading or sidebars.
(iii)
(A) Place either the notice, or a link that connects directly to the notice and that is labeled appropriately to convey the importance, nature, and relevance of the notice, on a page that consumers access often, such as a page on which transactions are conducted;
(B) Use text or visual cues to encourage scrolling down the page if necessary to view the entire notice; and
(C) Ensure that other elements on the web page (such as text, graphics, links, or sound) do not detract attention from the notice.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(i) Credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes;
(ii) Employment purposes; or
(iii) Any other purpose authorized under section 604 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b).
(2)
(i) Any report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report;
(ii) Any communication of that information among affiliates;
(iii) Any communication among affiliates of opt out information if the conditions in §§ 222.4 through 222.9 are satisfied;
(iv) Any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device;
(v) Any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and the person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 615 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m); or
(vi) A communication described in section 603(o) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(o)).
(h)
(i)
(1) Ownership, control, or power to vote 25 percent or more of the outstanding shares of any class of voting security of the company, directly or indirectly, or acting through one or more other persons;
(2) Control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors, trustees, or general partners (or individuals exercising similar functions) of the company;
(3) The power to exercise, directly or indirectly, a controlling influence over the management or policies of the company, as the Board determines.
(j)
(k)
(1) Bears on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living;
(2) Is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part to serve as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for credit or another purpose listed in section 604 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b); and
(3) Is not a report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person reporting or communicating the information.
(1)
(m)
Your communication to your affiliates of opt out information about a consumer is not a consumer report if:
(a) You have provided the consumer with an opt out notice;
(b) You have given the consumer a reasonable opportunity and means, before you communicate the information to your affiliates, to opt out; and
(c) The consumer has not opted out.
(a)
(1) The categories of opt out information about the consumer that you communicate to your affiliates;
(2) The categories of affiliates to which you communicate the information;
(3) The consumer's ability to opt out; and
(4) A reasonable means for the consumer to opt out.
(b)
(1) Categories of opt out information about the consumer that you reserve the
(2) Categories of affiliates to which you reserve the right in the future to communicate, but to which you do not currently communicate, opt out information about the consumer.
(c)
(d)
(2) Categories of opt out information may include information:
(i) From a consumer's application;
(ii) From a consumer credit report;
(iii) Obtained by verifying representations made by a consumer; or
(iv) Provided by another person regarding its employment, credit, or other relationship with a consumer.
(3) Examples of information within a category listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section include a consumer's:
(i) Income;
(ii) Credit score or credit history with others;
(iii) Open lines of credit with others;
(iv) Employment history with others;
(v) Marital status; and
(vi) Medical history.
(4) You do not satisfy the requirement if you communicate or reserve the right to communicate individually identifiable health information (as described in section 1171(6)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d(6)(B)) but omit illustrative examples of this information.
(e)
(2) Categories of affiliates may include:
(i) Financial service providers; and
(ii) Non-financial companies.
(f)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) Designating check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms included with the opt out notice;
(2) Including a reply form together with the opt out notice;
(3) Providing an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be electronically mailed or a process at your web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information; or
(4) Providing a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out.
(c)
(1) Requiring a consumer to write his or her own letter to you; or
(2) Referring in a revised notice to a check-off box that you included with a previous notice but that you do not include with the revised notice.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(i) Hand-deliver a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
(ii) Mail a printed copy of the notice to the last known mailing address of the consumer; or
(iii) For the consumer who conducts transactions electronically, post the notice on your electronic site and require the consumer to acknowledge receipt of the notice as a necessary step to obtaining a particular product or service;
(2) You may
(i) Only post a sign in your branch or office or generally publish advertisements presenting your notice; or
(ii) Send the notice via electronic mail to a consumer who does not obtain a product or service from you electronically.
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i) Hand-deliver a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
(ii) Mail a printed copy of the notice to the last known address of the consumer upon request of the consumer; or
(iii) Make your current notice available on a web site (or a link to another web site) for the consumer who obtains a product or service electronically and who agrees to receive the notice at the web site.
(e)
(f)
(i) You may provide a single notice to all of the joint consumers.
(ii) Any of the joint consumers has the opportunity to opt out.
(iii) You may treat an opt out direction by a joint consumer either as:
(A) Applying to all of the joint consumers; or
(B) Applying to that particular joint consumer.
(iv) You must explain in your opt out notice which of the two policies set
(v) If you follow the policy set forth in paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section, by treating the opt out of a joint consumer as applying to that particular joint consumer, you must also permit:
(A) A joint consumer to opt out on behalf of other joint consumers; and
(B) One or more joint consumers to notify you of their opt out directions in a single response.
(vi) You may not require
(vii) If you receive an opt out by a particular joint consumer that does not apply to the others, you may disclose information about the others as long as no information is disclosed about the consumer who opted out.
(2)
(i) Treat an opt out direction by A as applying to the entire account. If you do so and A opts out, you may not require B to opt out as well before implementing A's opt out direction.
(ii) Treat A's opt out direction as applying to A only. If you do so, you must also permit:
(A) A and B to opt out for each other; and
(B) A and B to notify you of their opt out directions in a single response (such as on a single form) if they choose to give separate opt out directions.
(iii) If A opts out only for A, and B does not opt out, you may disclose opt out information only about B, and not about A and B jointly.
If you have provided a consumer with one or more opt out notices and plan to communicate opt out information to your affiliates about the consumer other than as described in those notices, you must provide the consumer with a revised opt out notice that complies with §§ 222.4 through 222.8.
If you provide a consumer with an opt out notice and the consumer opts out, you must comply with the opt out as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it.
An opt out remains effective until revoked by the consumer in writing or electronically, as long as the consumer continues to have a relationship with you. If the consumer's relationship with you terminates, the opt out will continue to apply to this information. However, a new notice and opportunity to opt out must be provided if the consumer establishes a new relationship with you.
(a)
(b)
(1) Deny the applicant credit because the applicant opts out;
(2) Vary the terms of credit adversely to the applicant such as by providing less favorable pricing terms to an applicant who opts out; or
(3) Apply more stringent credit underwriting standards to the applicant because the applicant opts out.
(c)
This appendix contains a sample notice to facilitate compliance with the notice requirements of this part. An institution may use applicable disclosures in this sample to provide notices required by this part.
What Information: Unless you tell us not to, [
• Information we obtain from your application, such as [
• Information we obtain from a consumer report, such as [
• Information we obtain to verify representations made by you, such as [
• Information we obtain from a person regarding its employment, credit, or other relationship with you, such as [
Shared With Whom: Companies in our corporate family who may receive this information are:
• Financial service providers, such as [
• Non-financial companies, such as [
If you prefer that we not share this information with companies in our corporate family, you may direct us not to share this information by doing the following [
Your direction in this paragraph covers certain information about you that we might otherwise share with our corporate family. We may share other information about you with our corporate family as permitted by law.
12 CFR Chapter III
For the reasons set out in the joint preamble, chapter III of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended by adding a new part 334 to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 1681s; 12 U.S.C. 1819(a)(Tenth).
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
The examples used in this part and the sample notice in appendix A to this part are not exclusive. Compliance with an example or use of the sample notice, to the extent applicable, constitutes compliance with this part.
As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(A) Present the information in the notice in clear and concise sentences, paragraphs, and sections;
(B) Use short explanatory sentences or bullet lists whenever possible;
(C) Use definite, concrete, everyday words and active voice whenever possible;
(D) Avoid multiple negatives;
(E) Avoid legal and highly technical business terminology whenever possible; and
(F) Avoid explanations that are imprecise and are readily subject to different interpretations.
(ii)
(A) Use a plain-language heading to call attention to the notice;
(B) Use a typeface and type size that are easy to read;
(C) Provide wide margins and ample line spacing;
(D) Use boldface or italics for key words; and
(E) In a form that combines your notice with other information, use distinctive type sizes, styles, and graphic devices, such as shading or sidebars.
(iii)
(A) You place either the notice, or a link that connects directly to the notice and that is labeled appropriately to convey the importance, nature, and relevance of the notice, on a page that consumers access often, such as a page on which transactions are conducted;
(B) You use text or visual cues to encourage scrolling down the page if necessary to view the entire notice; and
(C) You ensure that other elements on the web page (such as text, graphics, links, or sound) do not detract attention from the notice.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(i) Credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes;
(ii) Employment purposes; or
(iii) Any other purpose authorized under section 604 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b).
(2)
(i) Any report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report;
(ii) Any communication of that information among affiliates;
(iii) Any communication among affiliates of opt out information if the conditions in §§ 334.4 through 334.9 are satisfied;
(iv) Any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device;
(v) Any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and the person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 615 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m); or
(vi) A communication described in section 603(o) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(o)).
(h)
(i)
(1) Ownership, control, or power to vote 25 percent or more of the outstanding shares of any class of voting security of the company, directly or indirectly, or acting through one or more other persons;
(2) Control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors,
(3) The power to exercise, directly or indirectly, a controlling influence over the management or policies of the company, as the FDIC determines.
(j)
(k)
(1) Bears on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living;
(2) Is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part to serve as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for credit or another purpose listed in section 604 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b); and
(3) Is not a report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person reporting or communicating the information.
(l)
(m)
Your communication to your affiliates of opt out information about a consumer is not a consumer report if:
(a) You have provided the consumer with an opt out notice;
(b) You have given the consumer a reasonable opportunity and means, before you communicate the information to your affiliates, to opt out; and
(c) The consumer has not opted out.
(a)
(1) The categories of opt out information about the consumer that you communicate to your affiliates;
(2) The categories of affiliates to which you communicate the information;
(3) The consumer's ability to opt out; and
(4) A reasonable means for the consumer to opt out.
(b)
(1) Categories of opt out information about the consumer that you reserve the right to communicate to your affiliates in the future but do not currently communicate; and
(2) Categories of affiliates to which you reserve the right in the future to communicate, but to which you do not currently communicate, opt out information about the consumer.
(c)
(d)
(2) Categories of opt out information may include information:
(i) From a consumer's application;
(ii) From a consumer credit report;
(iii) Obtained by verifying representations made by a consumer; and
(iv) Provided by another person regarding its employment, credit, or other relationship with a consumer.
(3) Examples of information within a category listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section include a consumer's:
(i) Income;
(ii) Credit score or credit history with others;
(iii) Open lines of credit with others;
(iv) Employment history with others;
(v) Marital status; and
(vi) Medical history.
(4) You do not satisfy the requirement if you communicate or reserve the right to communicate individually identifiable health information (as described in section 1171(6)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d(6)(B)) but omit illustrative examples of this information.
(e)
(2) Categories of affiliates may include:
(i) Financial service providers; and
(ii) Non-financial companies.
(f)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) Designating check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms included with the opt out notice;
(2) Including a reply form together with the opt out notice;
(3) Providing an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be electronically mailed or a process at your web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information; or
(4) Providing a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out.
(c)
(1) Requiring a consumer to write his or her own letter to you; or
(2) Referring in a revised notice to a check-off box that you included with a previous notice but that you do not include with the revised notice.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(i) Hand-deliver a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
(ii) Mail a printed copy of the notice to the last known mailing address of the consumer; or
(iii) For the consumer who conducts transactions electronically, post the notice on your electronic site and require the consumer to acknowledge receipt of the notice as a necessary step to obtaining a particular product or service;
(2) You may
(i) Only post a sign in your branch or office or generally publish advertisements presenting your notice; or
(ii) Send the notice via electronic mail to a consumer who does not obtain a product or service from you electronically.
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i) Hand-deliver a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
(ii) Mail a printed copy of the notice to the last known address of the consumer upon request of the consumer; or
(iii) Make your current notice available on a web site (or a link to another web site) for the consumer who obtains a product or service electronically and who agrees to receive the notice at the web site.
(e)
(f)
(i) You may provide a single notice to all of the joint consumers.
(ii) Any of the joint consumers has the opportunity to opt out.
(iii) You may treat an opt out direction by a joint consumer either as:
(A) Applying to all of the joint consumers; or
(B) Applying to that particular joint consumer.
(iv) You must explain in your opt out notice which of the two policies set forth in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section you will follow.
(v) If you follow the policy set forth in paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section, by treating the opt out of a joint consumer as applying to that particular joint consumer, you must also permit:
(A) A joint consumer to opt out on behalf of other joint consumers; and
(B) One or more joint consumers to notify you of their opt out directions in a single response.
(vi) You may not require
(vii) If you receive an opt out by a particular joint consumer that does not apply to the others, you may disclose information about the others as long as no information is disclosed about the consumer who opted out.
(2)
(i) Treat an opt out direction by A as applying to the entire account. If you do so and A opts out, you may not require B to opt out as well before implementing A's opt out direction.
(ii) Treat A's opt out direction as applying to A only. If you do so, you must also permit:
(A) A and B to opt out for each other; and
(B) A and B to notify you of their opt out directions in a single response (such as on a single form) if they choose to give separate opt out directions.
(iii) If A opts out only for A, and B does not opt out, you may disclose opt out information only about B, and not about A and B jointly.
If you have provided a consumer with one or more opt out notices and plan to communicate opt out information to your affiliates about the consumer, other than as described in those notices, you must provide the consumer with a revised opt out notice that complies with §§ 334.4 through 334.8.
If you provide a consumer with an opt out notice and the consumer opts out, you must comply with the opt out as soon as reasonably practicable after you receive it.
An opt out remains effective until revoked by the consumer in writing or electronically, as long as the consumer continues to have a relationship with the institution. If the consumer's relationship with the institution terminates, the opt out will continue to apply to this information. However, a new notice and opportunity to opt out must be provided if the consumer establishes a new relationship with the institution.
(a)
(b)
(1) Deny the applicant credit because the applicant opts out;
(2) Vary the terms of credit adversely to the applicant such as by providing less favorable pricing terms to an applicant who opts out; or
(3) Apply more stringent credit underwriting standards to the applicant because the applicant opts out.
(c)
This appendix contains a sample notice to facilitate compliance with the notice requirements of this part. An institution may use applicable disclosures in this sample to provide notices required by this part.
What Information: Unless you tell us not to, [
• Information we obtain from your application, such as [
• Information we obtain from a consumer report, such as [
• Information we obtain to verify representations made by you, such as [
• Information we obtain from a person regarding its employment, credit, or other relationship with you, such as [
Shared With Whom: Companies in our corporate family who may receive this information are:
• Financial service providers, such as [
• Non-financial companies, such as [
If you prefer that we not share this information with companies in our corporate family, you may direct us not to share this information by doing the following [
Your direction in this paragraph covers certain information about you that we might otherwise share with our corporate family. We may share other information about you with our corporate family as permitted by law.
By order of the Board of Directors, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
12 CFR Chapter V
For the reasons set out in the joint preamble, OTS proposes to amend chapter V of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding a new part 571 to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1828; 15 U.S.C. 1681s.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
The examples used in this part and the model form in appendix A to this part are not exclusive. Compliance with an example or use of the sample notice, to the extent applicable, constitutes compliance with this part.
As used in this part, unless the context requires otherwise:
(a)
(b)
(2)
(c)
(2)
(A) Present the information in the notice in clear and concise sentences, paragraphs, and sections;
(B) Use short explanatory sentences or bullet lists whenever possible;
(C) Use definite, concrete, everyday words and active voice whenever possible;
(D) Avoid multiple negatives;
(E) Avoid legal and highly technical business terminology whenever possible; and
(F) Avoid explanations that are imprecise and are readily subject to different interpretations.
(ii)
(A) Use a plain-language heading to call attention to the notice;
(B) Use a typeface and type size that are easy to read;
(C) Provide wide margins and ample line spacing;
(D) Use boldface or italics for key words; and
(E) In a form that combines your notice with other information, use distinctive type sizes, styles, and graphic devices, such as shading or sidebars.
(iii)
(A) You place either the notice, or a link that connects directly to the notice and that is labeled appropriately to convey the importance, nature, and relevance of the notice, on a page that consumers access often, such as a page on which transactions are conducted;
(B) You use text or visual cues to encourage scrolling down the page if necessary to view the entire notice; and
(C) You ensure that other elements on the web page (such as text, graphics, links, or sound) do not detract attention from the notice.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(i) Credit or insurance to be used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes;
(ii) Employment purposes; or
(iii) Any other purpose authorized under section 604 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b).
(2)
(i) Any report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person making the report;
(ii) Any communication of that information among affiliates;
(iii) Any communication among affiliates of opt out information if the conditions in §§ 571.4 through 571.9 are satisfied;
(iv) Any authorization or approval of a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly by the issuer of a credit card or similar device;
(v) Any report in which a person who has been requested by a third party to make a specific extension of credit directly or indirectly to a consumer conveys his or her decision with respect to such request, if the third party advises the consumer of the name and address of the person to whom the request was made, and the person makes the disclosures to the consumer required under section 615 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681m); or
(vi) A communication described in section 603(o) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(o)).
(h)
(i)
(1) Ownership, control, or power to vote 25 percent or more of the outstanding shares of any class of voting security of the company, directly or indirectly, or acting through one or more other persons;
(2) Control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors, trustees, or general partners (or individuals exercising similar functions) of the company; or
(3) The power to exercise, directly or indirectly, a controlling influence over the management or policies of the company, as OTS determines.
(j)
(k)
(1) Bears on a consumer's credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living;
(2) Is used or expected to be used or collected in whole or in part to serve as a factor in establishing the consumer's eligibility for credit or another purpose listed in section 604 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b); and
(3) Is not a report containing information solely as to transactions or experiences between the consumer and the person reporting or communicating the information.
(l)
(m)
Your communication to your affiliates of opt out information about a consumer is not a consumer report if:
(a) You have provided the consumer with an opt out notice;
(b) You have given the consumer a reasonable opportunity and means, before you communicate the information to your affiliates, to opt out; and
(c) The consumer has not opted out.
(a)
(1) The categories of opt out information about the consumer that you communicate to your affiliates;
(2) The categories of affiliates to which you communicate the information;
(3) The consumer's ability to opt out; and
(4) A reasonable means for the consumer to opt out.
(b)
(1) Categories of opt out information about the consumer that you reserve the right to communicate to your affiliates in the future but do not currently communicate; and
(2) Categories of affiliates to which you reserve the right in the future to communicate, but to which you do not currently communicate, opt out information about the consumer.
(c)
(d)
(2) Categories of opt out information may include information:
(i) From a consumer's application;
(ii) From a consumer credit report;
(iii) Obtained by verifying representations made by a consumer; or
(iv) Provided by another person regarding its employment, credit, or other relationship with a consumer.
(3) Examples of information within a category listed in paragraph (d)(2) of this section include a consumer's:
(i) Income;
(ii) Credit score or credit history with others;
(iii) Open lines of credit with others;
(iv) Employment history with others;
(v) Marital status; and
(vi) Medical history.
(4) You do not satisfy the requirement if you communicate or reserve the right to communicate individually identifiable health information (as described in section 1171(6)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d(6)(B)) but omit illustrative examples of this information.
(e)
(2) Categories of affiliates may include:
(i) Financial service providers; and
(ii) Non-financial companies.
(f)
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(c)
(a)
(b)
(1) Designating check-off boxes in a prominent position on the relevant forms included with the opt out notice;
(2) Including a reply form together with the opt out notice;
(3) Providing an electronic means to opt out, such as a form that can be electronically mailed or a process at your web site, if the consumer agrees to the electronic delivery of information; or
(4) Providing a toll-free telephone number that consumers may call to opt out.
(c)
(1) Requiring a consumer to write his or her own letter to you; or
(2) Referring in a revised notice to a check-off box that you included with a previous notice but that you do not include with the revised notice.
(d)
(a)
(b)
(i) Hand-deliver a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
(ii) Mail a printed copy of the notice to the last known mailing address of the consumer; or
(iii) For the consumer who conducts transactions electronically, post the notice on your electronic site and require the consumer to acknowledge receipt of the notice as a necessary step to obtaining a particular product or service;
(iv) You may
(A) Only post a sign in your branch or office or generally publish advertisements presenting your notice; or
(B) Send the notice via electronic mail to a consumer who does not obtain a product or service from you electronically.
(c)
(d)
(2)
(i) Hand-deliver a printed copy of the notice to the consumer;
(ii) Mail a printed copy of the notice to the last known address of the consumer upon request of the consumer; or
(iii) Make your current notice available on a web site (or a link to another web site) for the consumer who obtains a product or service electronically and who agrees to receive the notice at the web site.
(e)
(f)
(i) You may provide a single notice to all of the joint consumers.
(ii) Any of the joint consumers has the opportunity to opt out.
(iii) You may treat an opt out direction by a joint consumer either as:
(A) Applying to all of the joint consumers; or
(B) Applying to that particular joint consumer.
(iv) You must explain in your opt out notice which of the two policies set forth in paragraph (f)(1)(iii) of this section you will follow.
(v) If you follow the policy set forth in paragraph (f)(1)(iii)(B) of this section, by treating the opt out of a joint consumer as applying to that particular joint consumer, you must also permit:
(A) A joint consumer to opt out on behalf of other joint consumers; and
(B) One or more joint consumers to notify you of their opt out directions in a single response.
(vi) You may not require
(vii) If you receive an opt out by a particular joint consumer that does not apply to the others, you may disclose information about the others as long as no information is disclosed about the consumer who opted out.
(2)
(i) Treat an opt out direction by A as applying to the entire account. If you do so and A opts out, you may not require B to opt out as well before implementing A's opt out direction.
(ii) Treat A's opt out direction as applying to A only. If you do so, you must also permit:
(A) A and B to opt out for each other; and
(B) A and B to notify you of their opt out directions in a single response (such as on a single form) if they choose to give separate opt out directions.
(iii) If A opts out only for A, and B does not opt out, you may disclose opt out information only about B, and not about A and B jointly.
If you have provided a consumer with one or more opt out notices and plan to communicate opt out information to your affiliates about the consumer, other than as described in those notices, you must provide the consumer with a revised opt out notice that complies with §§ 571.4 through 571.8.
If you provide a consumer with an opt out notice and the consumer opts out,
An opt out remains effective until revoked by the consumer in writing or electronically, as long as the consumer continues to have a relationship with the institution. If the consumer's relationship with the institution terminates, the opt out will continue to apply to this information. However, a new notice and opportunity to opt out must be provided if the consumer establishes a new relationship with the institution.
(a)
(b)
(1) Deny the applicant credit because the applicant opts out;
(2) Vary the terms of credit adversely to the applicant such as by providing less favorable pricing terms to an applicant who opts out; or
(3) Apply more stringent credit underwriting standards to the applicant because the applicant opts out.
(c)
This appendix contains a sample notice to facilitate compliance with the notice requirements of this part. An institution may use applicable disclosures in this sample to provide notices required by this part.
What Information: Unless you tell us not to, [
• Information we obtain from your application, such as [
• Information we obtain from a consumer report, such as [
• Information we obtain to verify representations made by you, such as [
• Information we obtain from a person regarding its employment, credit, or other relationship with you, such as [
Shared With Whom: Companies in our corporate family who may receive this information are:
• Financial service providers, such as [
• Non-financial companies, such as [
If you prefer that we not share this information with companies in our corporate family, you may direct us not to share this information by doing the following [
Your direction in this paragraph covers certain information about you that we might otherwise share with our corporate family. We may share other information about you with our corporate family as permitted by law.
By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Final rule.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau) is amending the existing Financial Assistance and Social Services Program regulations to incorporate rules for Adult Care Assistance, Burial Assistance, Child Assistance, Disaster Assistance, Emergency Assistance, General Assistance, Services to Children, Elderly and Families, Tribal Welfare Reform, and Tribal Work Experience Program. All other sections are revised and renumbered to conform to existing programmatic and budgetary statutes and conditions. Also, these regulations have been rewritten in Plain English as required by Executive Order 12866. In keeping with the intent of Plain English, we added more subparts for easier use in reference.
These regulations take effect on November 20, 2000.
Larry Blair, Chief, Division of Social Services, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-4660-MIB, Washington, DC 20240 at telephone (202) 208-2721.
We last revised the financial assistance and social services regulations in 25 CFR part 20 in 1985. Since that time, a number of important changes have occurred that are not reflected in the existing regulations. These actions present an opportunity to review the current priorities and policies contained in the regulations and propose changes that conform to existing conditions. We published a proposed rule in the
• The primary purpose of the amendments is to provide clear, concise regulations that will improve program implementation;
• Congress has enacted a cap on the level of financial assistance funding;
• Existing financial assistance and social services regulations do not provide for the development of tribal welfare reform/redesign plans in accordance with tribal desires and existing law;
• Given fluctuations in financial assistance caseloads and emergencies, it has been difficult to plan and refine the existing service delivery framework;
• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has made a policy decision to allow Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) payments to be included as one of the grants under Public Law 102-477;
• Public Law 104-193 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) reduced funding level authorizations and required General Assistance (GA) payments to be equal to the level of state TANF payments; and
• The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act and the Adoption and Safe Families Act have established new standards in child welfare. The regulations need revision to incorporate and consolidate additional child protection and permanency planning requirements.
The Bureau continues to support the policy that Indian people are eligible and should receive financial assistance and social services from local state, county, and city resources on the same basis as non-Indians. For the purposes of simplifying the locations where we will provide the financial assistance and social services program, we use the term “service area” in these regulations and tell you how to get a service area if one does not yet exist.
The rule provides tribes the option of operating their own general assistance program through a redesign plan which incorporates welfare reform or utilizing the Bureau's revised regulations on general assistance as a program standard for operation. In addition, the rule provides clear concise guidance for operation of other program components including Adult Care Assistance, Burial Assistance, Child Assistance, Disaster Assistance, Emergency Assistance, Services to Children, Elderly and Families and Tribal Work Experience Program. These Bureau programs do not replace any existing services, but in many instances interface with existing federal, state, county and tribal programs. Many of these governmental public assistance programs have been modified and revised as a result of PRWORA and the Bureau has the task of distinguishing and describing its programs to prevent duplication of services. Much tribal input was received both during the comment period and in prior meetings with tribal leaders and program officials.
The final rule reflects this input and provides tribes with choices as to how they might proceed with their own versions of welfare reform. In addition, the rule clarifies specific eligibility criteria for applicants and describes where services may be provided for eligible applicants. The program will continue to be based upon need and the annual distribution of funds is based upon the number of cases and lack of other resources to meet need.
No comments were received on this definition.
One commenter recommended an applicant be an “enrolled Indian.”
One commenter stated the requirement of a written application was in conflict with § 20.600(a) which states an application may be written or oral. This section was renumbered as § 20.601 in the final rule.
One commenter stated that Area Director had changed to Regional Director.
No comments were received on this definition.
No comments were received on this definition.
No comments were received on this definition.
Some commenters raised the following questions: (1) What authority under Pub. L. 104-193 is used as the basis for the Bureau Standard of Assistance for General Assistance and Foster Care? (2) Why is the Bureau required to use Foster Care rates in accordance with Title IV of the Social Security Act? (3) What Bureau Standard of Assistance is used for multi-state tribes? (4) Why shouldn't the Bureau Standard of Assistance be an amount equal to the larger of either the state or tribal TANF amount? (5) Why should the Bureau set their own Standard of Assistance? (6) What is the Bureau's definition for financial assistance?
One commenter requested deletion of “indigent.” Other commenters recommended the tribe establish their own Burial Assistance payment level. One commenter recommended judgement funds not be counted as income toward the Burial Assistance payment.
Some commenters stated that the definition for case was too simplified and needed to be further defined.
Some commenters stated that social services staff cannot perform this function without additional resources, and one commenter stated that this is a practice issue, and should not be part of the Bureau's definitions.
Some commenters requested explanation as to when permanency plans should be included in case plans. One wanted a clarification as to how the case plan differed from the Individual Self-sufficiency Plan (ISP).
One commenter recommended that children should be exempted from employment as indicated in § 20.315.
Some commenters requested that the term “Child Welfare Assistance” be retained, and some stated the Bureau should retain the current Child Welfare Assistance language that allows assistance to be provided to Indian children until they reach age 22. Some commenters stated that this definition should include payments for adoption subsidies, guardianship subsidies, homemaker, day care, and other out of home placements that use child assistance funds. One commenter stated that the change in terminology emphasizes service to children and moves away from the idea that this is not “welfare.”
Some commenters requested the addition of a “designated tribal official” for tribal contracts or compacts.
One commenter recommended the addition of “man made” disasters, and another recommended the addition of a tribal community disaster definition which would describe economic failures in the fishing and agriculture industries. Another commenter stated that tribal communities should declare their own disasters.
Some commenters stated that Emergency Assistance is too narrowly defined and should include conditions for emergency food, transportation and loss of heat in a winter storm.
One commenter stated that in addition to being physically and mentally able to obtain employment, the person should have a high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED) to be considered employable.
One commenter recommended that tribes establish their own definition for essential needs.
Some commenters requested that “tradition” replace the word “custom,” and one commenter wanted language to insure that where tribal codes for family existed they would take precedence. Some commenters requested the inclusion of “Kinship care” into this definition. One commenter recommended revising the definition as follows: Extended family will be defined by tribal law or custom, or in the absence of such law or custom, means a grandparent, grandchild, aunt or uncle, brother or sister, brother-in-law or sister-in-law, niece or nephew, first or second cousin, or stepparent or stepchild.
Some commenters stated that the definition is limited and the language “is included in the file” is not a definition. Some commenters recommended the addition of clinical or social service evaluation to this definition to clarify what should be included in the assessment.
Some commenters stated that the definition is vague and too general.
One commenter stated that the regulation must specify that general assistance is “temporary,” and another stated that general assistance should be provided only to “enrolled eligible Indians” of a federally recognized tribe. Another commenter suggested simplifying the definition.
Some commenters stated that this definition needs to be redefined and clarified. One commenter stated that the definition should include language stating that one person can be the head of household, rather than a number of persons.
Some commenters recommended the deletion of the second sentence in the definition and deletion of “Medicaid/Medicare,” because this is a “policy” statement rather than a definition. One commenter stated that the definition is vague and needs clarity and should include homemaker services for adults and children and a reference should be made to residential care.
Some commenters requested that the definition be revised taking into consideration the existence of multiple households and the practice of accepting roommates when determining payment amounts. Another commenter stated that there is a need for the language “who function as members of a family unit.”
Some commenters stated that this definition should specify enrolled member or be simplified.
Some commenters recommended the deletion of “Court of Indian Offenses.”
Some commenters requested retention of the current definition which states Alaska Native Village or regional or village corporation and asked that the definition be simplified.
Some commenters stated that they objected to the addition of an ISP because this requirement will be burdensome. One commenter stated the self-sufficiency may be in conflict with
No comments were received on this definition.
Some commenters asked if “non-medical service” is the same as “non-medical care” as the definition was confusing and should be revised or deleted. One commenter requested changing the words “must not” to “should not.” Another commenter requested clarification in terms of what was considered as residential care services.
Some commenters recommended permanency plans be developed in accordance with ICWA language.
Some commenters objected to the sentence, “Social Workers will not remove individuals from their homes without a court order except in life or death situations.” One commenter requested additional clarity in explaining responsibility under protective services.
No comments were received on this definition.
No comments were received on this definition. This definition was revised for simplification.
No comments were received on this definition.
One commenter recommended the deletion of “other financial instruments which can be converted to cash.” Another commenter requested the exclusion of the value of the “primary residence.”
No comments were received on this definition.
(1) Reservations;
(2) Areas adjacent or adjoining reservations;
(3) Allotments outside the reservations;
(4) Areas defined as reservations or service areas by statute; and/or
(5) Other defined areas designated by the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs pursuant to this part.
Some commenters requested that this definition be simplified. Other commenters recommended that near reservation and reservation be added to the definition.
One commenter requested the retention of existing language at 25 CFR 20.24 (Family and Community Services), and one commenter recommended deletion of the word “elderly” in the title. Another commenter stated that they wanted clarification of what services will be provided to the elderly population.
Some commenters recommended the deletion of “one-time annual financial assistance payment” and requested clarification whether this category of assistance applied to both adults and children.
Some commenters requested deletion of the 2-year limitation and requested an additional reference to social services.
Some commenters stated this definition was confusing because it appeared to be interchangeable with the foster care at § 20.509 which was renumbered in the final rule as § 20.507.
No comments were received on this definition.
Some commenters requested deletion of “those programs of,” and replaced with “cash.”
No comments were received on this definition.
No comments were received on this definition.
No comments were received on this definition. This definition was revised to accurately reflect that this authority is codified and no longer limited to appropriation language.
Some commenters recommended that the TWEP definition include: gaining special experience, training and acquiring skills and knowledge necessary to qualify, access and retain employment.
Some commenters stated the definition was “demeaning,” and others recommended clarification. One commenter suggested that this definition be reworded to specify that Unemployable means a person that is exempted from the employment policy at § 20.314.
Several commenters stated that other Bureau program entities such as TWEP and Adult Services should be added to this section to better explain the types of services available.
Some commenters stated that the Bureau program descriptions should be expanded to include employment and educational activity and that it be clarified that in some instances the Bureau programs were supplementing other agency programs on behalf of certain individuals. Some other commenters requested that the language be expanded to clarify that in certain states the Bureau programs are not comparable to county or state services and therefore should be of a primary nature. One commenter recommended adding a reference to self-sufficiency.
No comments were received on this section.
Some commenters stated that the Bureau should work closer with all other public assistance service providers to insure that there is no duplication and that individual client's needs are being met without limiting services to existing financial resources. One commenter suggested that “will” be deleted from the first sentence. Another commenter recommended language referencing tribes in the statement.
Some commenters stated that the Bureau should ensure that all eligible Indian members within the reservation, near reservation or service area be provided services and that language to that effect should be placed in the regulations and that tribes be sanctioned if they do not comply. Another commenter stated that limiting services to only tribal members was necessary for budgetary purposes. Some commenters requested that time frames be placed upon the Bureau to process requests for designation as near reservation or service area. Some commenters asked that “Indian community” be defined in more specific terms. One commenter requested that service area be defined as places where tribal members reside with no specific geographic area designated. Another commenter stated that tribes should have the flexibility to define their own service area. One commenter stated that they wanted service area to remain the same unless tribal governments request a change. Another commenter stated that it was unreasonable to require tribes to provide documentation for evaluation when they submit their request for service area designation. Another commenter stated that this section should be deleted and tribes should be allowed to accomplish this by tribal resolution. Another commenter requested that the definition of reservation which is in the current regulations and which contains reference to Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (85 Stat. 688) and Indian Allotments be retained. Another commenter recommended that “can” in (b) be replaced with “will” to make it mandatory. One commenter stated that the language in (c)(2) which was renumbered as (a)(2) in the final rule was too vague in that comparable services between California counties and the Bureau programs is a point of contention and needs to be resolved before the regulations can be put in final. Another commenter questioned (d)(1) which was renumbered as (b)(l) in the final rule as to whether “administratively feasible” applied to the tribe or the Bureau. Another commenter questioned the use of the language that tribes had to document that the proposed service area would not include counties or parts thereof that have reasonably available comparable services. Another commenter requested clarification whether tribes having reservations and near reservation designations would be required to obtain a service area designation.
Some commenters requested that financial assistance be included in § 20.100 as a definition.
Some commenters asked why the Bureau was implementing the redesign at this time and asked what authority did the Bureau have to allow changes in general assistance eligibility criteria and payment levels. One commenter requested that the section include language giving approval for the redesign of child assistance. This commenter also requested language to the effect that redesigned programs may be expanded if appropriation language in the future expands the number of programs that could be redesigned. One commenter stated that redesign plans in Oklahoma would require additional funds. Another commenter requested further clarification of this section. Another commenter stated that tribes already have authority to redesign the general assistance program.
One commenter stated that the Bureau should add language to the effect that all welfare assistance programs should be allowed to be included with a Pub. L. 102-477 grant, a Public Law 103-413 self-governance annual funding agreement, or a tribal redesign plan. Another commenter stated that tribes needed flexibility to use these funds to meet members' needs according to how the tribes identified these needs. Another commenter stated that this section should be rewritten to better describe the redesign in relation to Pub. L. 102-477. Another commenter asked if TANF could be included as a part of the tribal redesign plan.
One commenter stated that the table of contents mistakenly worded this section by using the word “develop” instead of “submit.”
Some commenters requested clarification in terms of who is to provide technical assistance and what level of funding would be used for the redesign plans. Another commenter wanted it clarified that tribes are not required to do a redesign if they did not want to pursue it. One commenter requested clarification as to how this section might affect Oklahoma. One commenter requested inclusion of child and adult assistance in this section. One commenter suggested deletion of (d) as it was redundant.
Some commenters pointed out that existing procedures are in effect whereby self-governance tribes routinely obtain approval for their annual funding agreements through the Office of Self-Governance and changing this process for redesign plans would be disruptive and counterproductive and that this language requiring approval by the Regional Director should be deleted. One commenter recommended that criteria be added specifying what is needed to obtain approval.
One commenter questioned how a general assistance program could remain a need-based program if there were savings which could be used for other priorities. Another commenter requested the Bureau to explain the different types of TPA funding in this section. Another commenter stated that an equitable level of funding should be established before the start-up of the redesign plan.
One commenter stated that with a redesigned program there may be increased costs and if that were the case, the Bureau should assume the additional costs.
No comments were received on this section. This section was renumbered as § 20.209 in the final rule.
Some commenters requested an explanation as to why the general assistance program was the only program eligible for redesign. One commenter asked if their tribe could redesign their program eligibility criteria so as to exclude those members who are less than one-quarter blood quantum. Some commenters stated that under part 900 they already had authority to redesign programs. One commenter suggested that the section be deleted. Another commenter stated that tribes financially support, with their own funds, similar programs to the Bureau's welfare assistance programs and requested clarification as to whether they could supplement their programs with the Bureau funds.
Several commenters stated that (a) of this section is not consistent with § 20.100, definition of an Indian, and
One commenter questioned how the Bureau general assistance goals and objectives compared to those of the National PRWORA. They asked if the Bureau supported the goals of reducing out of wedlock pregnancies and increasing collection of child support payments. One commenter requested deletion of “meeting the goal of employment.” One commenter stated that elder assistance should be available nationwide not just in a selective Region and stated that existing services should not be dropped.
Several commenters stated that all Indian applicants with dependent children are required to apply for TANF because general assistance is a secondary source. One commenter stated that applicants whose TANF benefits have been reduced due to TANF sanctions may not be eligible to receive general assistance as tribally determined. Another commenter stated these regulations require individuals to follow TANF regulations, and requested deletion of “and follow TANF regulations.”
Two commenters stated that in (d) of this section which was renumbered as (c) in the final rule, the statement “Not receive TANF” should be changed to state “If not directly receiving TANF Cash Aid” and the word “entitlement” be changed to “cash assistance” because it is not the intent of the General Assistance regulations to prohibit a recipient from receiving general assistance while they are receiving other non-cash forms of assistance such as food stamps, surplus commodities, etc. One commenter stated that the ISP/Employment strategy development for each recipient is burdensome for tribes, who receive very little administrative money to administer general assistance and requested section (e) which was renumbered as (d) in the final rule be changed to read “whenever possible.”
One commenter stated time limits are not feasible in Alaska.
Some commenters stated that home visits should not be included in redetermining program eligibility. One commenter stated that ISP's were not included in this section.
One commenter asked how the Bureau was going to deal with states that pay $100 in TANF funds and recommended provisions to supplement amounts in states having low payment levels for TANF.
No comments were received on this section.
Two commenters stated they would like to have art work, crafts and beading struck from (a) of this section if the applicant/recipient performs the work as a hobby, but the language should remain for professionals.
One commenter stated that “or 25 percent of the state standard, whichever is less” be deleted. One commenter stated that (c) be deleted in its entirety. One commenter questioned how shelter could be provided as in-kind income. One commenter stated that workman compensation settlement payments should be considered as income. One commenter stated that trust dollars should not be included.
No comments were received on this section.
One commenter stated that there are instances where general assistance recipients may receive income tax refunds. The commenter stated that language should be added to insure that income tax refunds are counted as income rather than disregarded.
One commenter asked if the $2,000 cited in subsection (a) is the statutory disregard of trust resources or an increase of the $1,000 disregard currently in 25 CFR 20.21(g)(2)(i). This commenter stated that this section is unclear and may reduce eligibility requirements making additional individuals eligible for the program. Another commenter requested a list of federal disregards be published in the regulations. One commenter requested that this disregard also apply to children. Another commenter requested addition of (d) to clarify that vehicles are a disregarded resource.
Some commenters requested clarification as to how the Bureau will compute financial assistance payments. Another commenter stated General Assistance grants should be prorated from the date of application. Another commenter stated language needs to be developed for tribal redesign plans. Another commenter stated that the procedure in (b) for prorating shelter costs when two households reside in the same shelter is unclear and may reduce eligibility requirements and thus make additional individuals eligible for the program.
One commenter stated that for a period of 60 days but not more than 90 days be changed to “for a period of at least 30 days” because the sanction was too severe. Another commenter asked if job search will be eliminated once an ISP is established and agreed upon by the social services worker and recipient.
One commenter requested more descriptive information in (c) to fully describe the example. Another commenter suggested changing (c) to the recipient must make satisfactory progress in an ISP that leads to employment and add language that states that continued eligibility for the program is also based on satisfactory progress. Another commenter recommended deleting language in (c) that states that “he/she was an active general assistance recipient.” Another commenter suggested in (g) changing the age to 5 and under if they do not attend school/head start. Another commenter asked if educational opportunity was limited to those under 19 and to those that have been active general assistance recipients. Another asked for an explanation of section 5404 of Public Law 100-297. Another commenter suggested deletion of (h) and eliminating the minimum commuting time of one hour each way and replacing it with reasonable travel time. Another commenter recommended adding language stating the employment policy would not apply for a person for whom employment is not accessible in a commuting time that is reasonable and comparable with others in similar circumstances.
One commenter suggested the following change: “If you are covered by the employment policy in § 20.314, you must seek employment in accordance with your ISP.” This will make § 20.316 consistent with § 20.319.
One commenter asked how the ineligibility period would be
One commenter stated social services workers should not have to supervise recipients because of lack of funds and staff and that case managers should help recipients get the services needed to meet their goals in their ISP. Another commenter recommended that social services worker be changed to a family advocate.
One commenter stated that the language “Performs successfully” needs to be explained in (b) and (c) and substitute words like “satisfactory progress.” Another commenter questioned why a recipient must be in treatment and counseling.
No comments were received on this section.
One commenter requested that the payment standards be tribally determined. Another commenter asked whether TWEP was considered an incentive payment.
One commenter recommended deletion of the following language “in situations where the participation is mandatory.” Another commenter suggested the following change: “Where there are multiple family units in one household” to “Where there are more than one household in a dwelling.”
One commenter suggested inclusion of language that states local TWEP must have specific written program procedures that cover progress.
No comments were received on this section.
One commenter suggested changing SSI to SSA lump sum death benefits. Another commenter stated that the standard of payments for burials is currently $1,300 and is not enough to take care of a proper burial and updating these standards should be considered. Another commenter stated, “A tribal cultural wake in accordance to the tribe's culture” should be added. Another suggested that a payment standard should be recommended by the Regional Director or Central Office. Another commenter recommended changing the language to state that requests and applications for Burial Assistance must be submitted within 30 days after the issuance of a Death Certificate rather than following death.
One commenter stated that it should be up to the tribe to determine when transportation expenses could be paid particularly in those instances when the individual is gone for more than 6 months. Another commenter stated that they were opposed to this section because they had tribal members who have resided outside of the service area for a period of time exceeding 6 consecutive months and this regulation prohibits them from helping these members with burial assistance.
One commenter suggested tribal resolutions should be used to request disaster assistance. Another commenter recommended deletion of “provided” and insertion of the word “available.”
One commenter stated that a tribal resolution requesting disaster assistance should be adequate rather than a Presidential declaration. Another commenter stated that there should be a time limit for response by the Bureau and that (b) should be deleted. One commenter suggested the tribal requests go directly to the Assistant Secretary for a final decision.
One commenter suggested language establishing a disaster contingency fund.
One commenter recommended raising the rates and another stated that this section should only apply to tribes that have their own standards/guidelines for emergency assistance. Another commenter recommended that this section be deleted.
One commenter requested clarification as to the meaning of services to children, elderly and families.
One commenter stated that adult care service should be included in this section. Another commenter suggested that chore services should be included in this section. Other commenters recommended that additional funds be distributed to tribes as the work described in this section required more personnel. Another commenter stated that coordination with law enforcement and the courts could not be completed before removal of individuals needing protective services. Some commenters stated that there was confusion as the word “elderly” was used in the section title but within the body of the section “adult” was used consistently. One commenter stated that language should be added to explain that referrals could be made for adults in addition to children. Another commenter stated that language in (b)(4)(ii) which was renumbered as § 20.403(d)(2) was troublesome, specifically the language, “treatment of the identified conditions that are within the competence of social services.” Another commenter made a comparison of this section with the Bureau's current regulation in § 20.24 and stated that in his/her opinion the following services which are included in § 20.24 would be unavailable: Services to responsible family members or guardians to seek appropriate court protections for the child or adult; investigation and reporting of adult abuse and neglect and of delinquency and runaways; and provisions of services by court order for marriage and divorce counseling, child custody, probation, foster care and supervision of children and adults in the home. Another commenter suggested that protective services be explained in more detail.
One commenter stated that this section was not consistent with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Another commenter stated that the eligibility criteria should be deleted. Another commenter asked the question if tribes receive Title IV-E funding for foster care will their current Bureau funding for foster care be reduced. One commenter questioned why a documented family assessment was required in (a) which was renumbered as (b)(3) in the final rule. Another commenter stated that special needs in (a) which was renumbered as (b)(2) in the final rule should be defined. Another commenter requested clarification that courts do not make requests but instead issue orders. Another commenter requested an explanation of (d) which was renumbered as (f) in the final rule in terms of what is the meaning of all income accruing to children. Another commenter asked if relative care givers under (d) which was renumbered as (c) in the final rule would have to apply to state TANF and be denied payments or other assistance. Another commenter asked for language to allow general assistance to supplement TANF. Some commenters stated that in (e) where the word “must” was used that it should be replaced by the word “will” and another commenter stated that (e) should be deleted. One commenter stated that some of the services in subpart E are duplicated in subpart D and should be consolidated in subpart D. Another commenter noted a typographic error because “and” was not inserted after (a), (b) and (d). One commenter recommended that the residential care rate be computed the same way as the foster care rate.
One commenter questioned why the Bureau used Title IV of the Social Security Act as the payment rate for foster care and did not either set a Bureau rate or allow tribes to set their own rate.
One commenter stated that the requirement of a written agreement to be approved by the Regional Director, should be changed to the local Bureau official for approval. Another commenter requested clarification that this service was out of the home. Another commenter requested deletion of the requirement that placements had to be in facilities licensed by the tribe or state. Another commenter requested deletion of the requirement that a written agreement be signed between the various funding sources to identify the services each will pay before the actual placement. Another commenter requested that child assistance be used for other services other than room and board.
One commenter suggested that the 2-year limit for adoption and guardianship subsidies should be eliminated and that the Regional Director approval be changed.
One commenter requested explanation as to why children must be under the age 18 to be eligible for adoption subsidy or subsidized guardianship. Another commenter questioned the eligibility requirement for children to have been in foster care previously to be eligible for adoption subsidy or subsidized guardianship. Another commenter stated that this section prevented placement of children on temporary basis without permanency planning. Another commenter asked what the special circumstances were in (a). This section was combined with § 20.503 in the final rule.
Some commenters stated that the payment standard should be decided by the tribes operating the programs. This section was combined with § 20.501 in the final rule.
One commenter stated that homemaker services should stay short term not to exceed 3 months. Another commenter requested that it not be limited to 3 months but language should be added to state it would be reviewed every 6 months. This section was renumbered as § 20.504 in the final rule.
One commenter requested that a written agreement signed among the various funding sources should be deleted. Another commenter requested that (b) protective services be explained in more detail. This section was renumbered as § 20.505 in the final rule.
One commenter suggested that this section be deleted as it was unnecessary. One commenter suggested the addition of language at the end of (d) if available and at the end (h) if applicable after Medicaid. Another commenter suggested a rewrite of the section because (e) which references a payment plan with parental agreement may not be applicable where parents do not agree to contribute financial support. This section was renumbered as § 20.506 in the final rule.
One commenter asked if the intent of this section was to require social services workers to enforce child support collection. Another commenter asked whether homemaker services could be used for handicapped children. Another commenter pointed out that in many instances there was a poor relationship between tribes and state courts. One commenter stated that background checks conducted on foster home providers were not legal. One commenter stated that (a) implied that the court had a role in selecting the placement rather than social services and recommended language deleting the reference to courts. Another commenter questioned the use of state standards of payment for necessary care in (e) and recommended establishing the rates at the local level. Another commenter suggested a problem in (f) in gaining parental agreement and recommended addition of the phrase “when possible.” This section was renumbered as § 20.507 in the final rule.
One commenter stated that there was an inconsistency because § 20.508(i) stated that a court needed to be involved if a placement goes beyond 30 days and therefore the language in § 20.510 needed rewording because there were instances where the court may not be involved. This section was renumbered § 20.508(i) in the final rule.
Some commenters stated that the requirement to have permanency planning developed within 6 months was not possible or realistic and suggested that it be changed to 12 months.
No comments were received on this section.
One commenter suggested changing “must” to “should.”
One commenter stated that this section conflicted with § 20.510.
One commenter stated that in some instances there was not enough staff for a supervisor to complete case reviews every 90 days.
One commenter suggested replacing “must” with the word “will” and also noted that there were insufficient funds to handle child abuse and neglect cases. One commenter questioned the requirement of child protection teams as their reading of Public Law 99-570 and Public Law 101-630 did not specify child protection teams.
One commenter stated that there was confusion as to whether an application was required to be in writing. One commenter stated that there was confusion between applications and referrals. Another commenter stated that language was needed to clarify that contractors should forward applications to the appropriate tribal staff.
Some commenters stated that when there was a change in the recipient's circumstances which affected payment level that a process for overpayment should be described and the direct service providers should be able to refer this matter to administrative staff for follow up. One commenter stated that this section was in conflict with § 20.304 because it stated a recipient was required to immediately inform social services of any changes rather than within 30 days.
One commenter stated that the proper reference in this section was §§ 20.300 through 20.516 and also suggested the section should be rewritten to state that the Bureau is the approving or denying authority and that an additional section should be added for tribes to outline how they approve or deny an application. This section was renumbered as § 20.603 in the final rule.
One commenter noted that under (5) “not” had been deleted and thus allowing an appeal under part 2 when the intent was to make the decision final and not subject to appeal if there was no request for a hearing within 20 days of the date of the notice. Another commenter suggested an additional section for contractors and inclusion of language in the original section stating that this section applied to the Bureau only. This section was renumbered as § 20.604 in the final rule.
One commenter suggested an additional section for contractors and inclusion in the original section which specified that this section applied to the Bureau only. This section was renumbered as § 20.606 in the final rule.
No comments were received on this section. This section was renumbered as § 20.607 in the final rule and rewritten for clarification purposes.
No comments were received on this section.
One commenter stated that an applicant should not receive assistance if they have not been determined eligible for assistance.
One commenter stated that the section should be rewritten to explain that the recipient has a right to request an extension of 10 days for the date of the hearing.
No comments were received on this section.
No comments were received on this section.
One commenter stated that there should be a process for applicants or recipients to appeal tribal decisions. Another commenter stated that this section violated tribal sovereignty.
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. Tribes have been operating this financial assistance program for 30 years and the amount of funding is dependent upon the local economy in terms of unemployment and extent of need for funds. Approximately 400 tribes receive some form of financial assistance yearly and the amount of funds varies according to caseload increases and decreases. The Bureau's total expenditure for social service programs is $94 million.
(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. It establishes procedures for various social services programs, but does not alter the amounts that will be awarded.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues.
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. The financial assistance funds available total $94 million and are divided up between 400 Indian communities based upon need.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, federal, state, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. This rule provides guidance for a welfare benefit program and will not affect payment levels of eligible clients nor cause increases or decreases in existing caseloads or total expenditures.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment,
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 (1 U.S.C. 1531,
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is not required.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 this rule does not have significant Federalism effects. Consultation was not conducted with state and local officials because the rule does not affect state and local entities but does affect tribal communities. Consultation was conducted with tribal officials at three separate locations and their recommendations were considered in the preparation of the final rule.
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 regulation requires an information collection from 10 or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is required. An OMB Form 83-I and an information collection packet were reviewed by the Department and were sent to OMB for approval on March 31, 1999. Subsequently, OMB provided approval on June 8, 1999, for form number OMB 1076-0017 for the Bureau Financial and Social Services Program.
The Bureau has reviewed the information needed and reduced the amount of information being collected. The information collection takes 15 minutes for 200,000 respondents for a burden of 50,000 hours. The information collection is used to make decisions within the framework of the financial assistance program, such as determining eligibility, ensuring uniformity of services, and maintaining current records for audit purposes. The information collection is required to obtain or retain a benefit. Information covered by the Privacy Act will be kept confidential as required by regulation. Please note that an agency may not collect or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
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.
Administrative practice and procedures, Child welfare, Indians—social welfare, Public assistance programs.
25 U.S.C. 13; Pub. L. 93-638; Pub. L. 98-473; Pub. L. 102-477; Pub. L. 104-193; Pub. L. 105-83.
(1) Adult Care Assistance for adults who require non-medical personal care and supervision;
(2) Burial Assistance for indigent burials;
(3) Child Assistance for any child with special needs, in need of placement in a foster home or residential care facility, or in need of adoption or guardianship;
(4) Disaster Assistance;
(5) Emergency Assistance for essential needs to prevent hardship caused by burnout, flooding of homes, or other life threatening situations that may cause loss or damage of personal possessions;
(6) General Assistance for basic essential needs; or
(7) Tribal Work Experience Program for participants in work experience and training.
The regulations in this part govern the provision to eligible Indians of the following kinds of financial assistance and social services:
(a) Adult Care Assistance;
(b) Burial Assistance;
(c) Child Assistance;
(d) Disaster Assistance;
(e) Emergency Assistance;
(f) General Assistance;
(g) Services to Children, Elderly and Families; and
(h) Tribal Work Experience Program.
(a) Bureau social services programs are a secondary, or residual resource, and must not be used to supplement or supplant other programs.
(b) The Bureau can provide assistance under this part to eligible Indians when comparable financial assistance or social services are either not available or not provided by state, tribal, county, local or other federal agencies.
(c) Bureau financial assistance and social services are subject to annual Congressional appropriations.
The information collection requirements contained in §§ 20.300, 20.400, and 20.500 were submitted for clearance to the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 35d
We will coordinate all financial assistance and social services programs with state, tribal, county, local and other federal agency programs to ensure that the financial assistance and social services program avoids duplication of assistance.
The Assistant Secretary can designate or modify service areas for a tribe. If you are a tribe requesting a service area designation, you must submit each of the following:
(a) A tribal resolution that certifies that:
(1) All eligible Indians residing within the service area will be served; and
(2) The proposed service area will not include counties or parts thereof that have reasonably available comparable services.
(b) Additional documentation showing that:
(1) The area is administratively feasible (that is, an adequate level of services can be provided to the eligible Indians residing in the area.);
(2) No duplication of services exists; and
(3) A plan describing how services will be provided to all eligible Indians can be implemented.
(c) Documentation should be sent to the Regional Director or Office of Self-Governance.
The Director or office will evaluate the information and make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary. The Assistant Secretary can make a determination to approve or disapprove and publish notice of the designation of service area and the Indians to be served in the
If you are a tribe administering a general assistance program, you can develop and submit to us a tribal redesign plan to change the way that you administer the program.
(a) A tribal redesign plan allows a tribe to:
(1) Change eligibility for general assistance in the service area; or
(2) Change the amount of general assistance payments for individuals within the service area.
(b) If you develop a tribal redesign plan it must:
(1) Treat all persons in the same situation equally; and
(2) Will not result in additional expenses for the Bureau solely because of any increased level of payments.
Yes, when a tribe redesigns its general assistance program, it may include assistance from other sources (such as Public Law 102-477 federal funding sources) in the plan.
No, you must submit a tribal redesign plan under § 20.206 only if you want to change the way that the General Assistance program operates in your service area.
Yes, if you have a redesign plan, you can change eligibility criteria or levels of payment for general assistance.
(a) The funding level for your redesigned general assistance program will be the same funding received in the most recent fiscal or calendar year, whichever applies.
(b) If you do not have a prior year level of funding, the Bureau or Office of Self-Governance will establish a tentative funding level based upon best estimates for caseload and expenditures.
(c) A Bureau servicing office can administer a tribal redesign plan as requested by a tribal resolution.
If you have a Public Law 93-638 contract or receive direct services from us, you must obtain our approval before implementing a redesign plan. You can apply for approval to the Regional Director or through the Bureau servicing office.
(a) You must submit your redesign plan for approval at least 3 months before the effective date.
(b) If you operate with a self-governance annual funding agreement, you must obtain the approval of the redesign from the Office of Self-Governance.
(c) If you operate with a Public Law 102-477 grant, you must obtain approval from the Bureau Central Office.
Yes, you may use savings from a redesign of the general assistance program to meet other priorities.
The tribe must meet any increase in cost to the General Assistance program that results solely from tribally increased payment levels due to a redesign plan.
Yes, a tribe operating under a tribal redesign plan can choose to return to operation of the program as provided in §§ 20.300 through 20.323.
No, unless otherwise provided by law, the Bureau nor a tribe may change eligibility criteria or levels of payment for Burial Assistance, Child Assistance, Disaster Assistance, and Emergency Assistance awarded in Public Law 93-638 contracts, Public Law 102-477 grants, or Public Law 103-413 self-governance annual funding agreements.
To be eligible for assistance or services under this part, an applicant must meet all of the following criteria:
(a) Be a member of an Indian tribe;
(b) Not have sufficient resources to meet the essential need items defined by the Bureau standard of assistance for those Bureau programs providing financial payment;
(c) Reside in the service area as defined in § 20.100; and
(d) Meet the additional eligibility criteria for each of the specific programs of financial assistance or social services in §§ 20.301 through 20.516.
The goal of the General Assistance program is to increase self-sufficiency. Each General Assistance recipient must work with the social services worker to develop and sign an Individual Self-Sufficiency Plan (ISP). The plan must outline the specific steps the individual will take to increase independence by meeting the goal of employment.
Yes, all Indian applicants with dependent children are required to apply for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and follow TANF regulations.
To be eligible for General Assistance an applicant must:
(a) Meet the criteria contained in § 20.300;
(b) Apply concurrently for financial assistance from other state, tribal, county, local, or other federal agency programs for which he/she is eligible;
(c) Not receive any comparable public assistance; and
(d) Develop and sign an employment strategy in the ISP with the assistance of the social services worker to meet the goal of employment through specific action steps including job readiness and job search activities.
The Bureau will review eligibility for General Assistance:
(a) Every 3 months for individuals who are not exempt from seeking or accepting employment in accordance with § 20.315 or the ISP;
(b) Every 6 months for all recipients; and
(c) Whenever there is a change in status that can affect a recipient's eligibility or amount of assistance. Recipients must immediately inform the social services office of any such changes.
Redetermination is an evaluation by a social services worker to assess the need for continued financial assistance as outlined in § 20.304. It includes:
(a) A home visit;
(b) An estimate of income, living circumstances, household composition for the month(s) for which financial assistance is to be provided; and
(c) Appropriate revisions to the case plan and the ISP.
(a) Under Public Law 104-193, the Bureau must use the same TANF payment standard (and any associated rateable reduction) that exists in the state or service area where the applicant or recipient resides. This payment standard is the amount from which the Bureau subtracts net income and resources to determine General Assistance eligibility and payment levels;
(b) If the state does not have a standard for an adult, we will use either the difference between the standard for a child and the standard for a household of two, or one-half of the standard for a household of two, whichever is greater; and
(c) If the state does not have a TANF program, we will use the AFDC payment standard which was in effect on September 30, 1995, in the State where the applicant or recipient resides.
When the Bureau determines General Assistance eligibility and payment levels, we consider income and other resources as specified in §§ 20.308 and 20.309.
(a) All income, earned or unearned, must be calculated in the month it is received and as a resource thereafter, except that certain income obtained from the sale of real or personal property may be exempt as provided in § 20.309.
(b) Resources are considered to be available when they are converted to cash.
Earned income is cash or any in-kind payment earned in the form of wages, salary, commissions, or profit, from activities by an employee or self-employed individual. Earned income includes:
(a) Any one-time payment to an individual for activities which were sustained over a period of time (for example, the sale of farm crops, livestock, or professional artists producing art work); and
(b) With regard to self-employment, total profit from a business enterprise (i.e., gross receipts less expenses incurred in producing the goods or services). Business expenses do not include depreciation, personal business and entertainment expenses, personal transportation, capital equipment purchases, or principal payments on loans for capital assets or durable goods.
Unearned income includes, but is not limited to:
(a) Income from interest; oil and gas and other mineral royalties; gaming income per capita distributions; rental property; cash contributions, such as child support and alimony, gaming winnings; retirement benefits;
(b) Annuities, veteran's disability, unemployment benefits, and federal and state tax refunds;
(c) Per capita payments not excluded by federal statute;
(d) Income from sale of trust land and real or personal property that is set aside for reinvestment in trust land or a primary residence, but has not been reinvested in trust land or a primary residence at the end of one year from the date the income was received;
(e) In-kind contributions providing shelter at no cost to the individual or household, this must equal the amount for shelter included in the state standard, or 25 percent of the state standard, whichever is less; and
(f) Financial assistance provided by a state, tribal, county, local, or other federal agency.
The social services worker will prorate the following recurring income:
(a) Recurring income received by individuals over a 12-month period for less than a full year's employment (for example, income earned by teachers who are not employed for a full year);
(b) Income received by individuals employed on a contractual basis over the term of a contract; and
(c) Intermittent income received quarterly, semiannually, or yearly over the period covered by the income.
(a) The social services worker will deduct the following amounts from earned income:
(1) Other federal, state, and local taxes;
(2) Social Security (FICA);
(3) Health insurance;
(4) Work related expenses, including reasonable transportation costs;
(5) Child care costs for children under the age of 6 except where the other parent in the home is unemployed and physically able to care for the children; and
(6) The cost of special clothing, tools, and equipment directly related to the individual's employment.
(b) For self-employed individuals, the social services worker will deduct the costs of conducting business and all of the amounts in paragraph (a) of this section.
The social services worker will deduct the following amounts from income, or other resources:
(a) The first $2,000 of liquid resources annually available to the household;
(b) Any home produce from a garden, livestock, and poultry used by the applicant or recipient and his/her household for their consumption; and
(c) Resources specifically excluded by federal statute.
(a) The social services worker will compute financial assistance payments by beginning with the Bureau standard of assistance and doing the following:
(1) Subtracting from all resources calculated under §§ 20.307 through 20.310;
(2) Subtracting the rateable reduction or maximum payment level used by the state where the applicant lives;
(3) Subtracting an amount for shelter (see paragraph (b) of this section for details on how to calculate a shelter amount); and
(4) Rounding the result down to the next lowest dollar.
(b) The social services worker must calculate a shelter amount for purposes of paragraph (a)(3) of this section. To calculate the shelter amount:
(1) The shelter amount must not exceed the amount for shelter in the state TANF standard;
(2) If the state TANF does not specify an amount for shelter, the social services worker must calculate the amount as 25 percent of the total state TANF payment; and
(3) If there is more than one household in a dwelling, the social services worker must prorate the actual shelter cost among the households receiving General Assistance; this amount cannot exceed the amount in the standard for individuals in similar circumstances. The head of each household is responsible for his/her portion of the documented shelter cost.
(c) The social services worker must not provide General Assistance payments for any period before the date of the application for assistance.
(a) An applicant or recipient must:
(1) Actively seek employment, including the use of available state, tribal, county, local or Bureau-funded employment services;
(2) Make satisfactory progress in an ISP; and
(3) Accept local and seasonable employment when it is available.
(b) A head of household who does not comply with this section will not be eligible for General Assistance for a period of at least 60 days but not more than 90 days. This action must be documented in the case file.
(c) The policy in this section does not apply to any person meeting the criteria in § 20.315.
The employment policy in § 20.314 does not apply to the persons shown in the following table.
(a) If you are covered by the employment policy in § 20.314, you must seek employment and provide evidence of your monthly efforts to obtain employment in accordance with your ISP.
(b) If you do not seek and accept available local and seasonal employment, or you quit a job without good cause, you cannot receive General Assistance for a period of at least 60 days but not more than 90 days after you refuse or quit a job.
(a) If you refuse or quit a job, your ineligibility period will continue as provided in § 20.316(b) until you seek and accept appropriate available local and seasonal employment and fulfill your obligations already agreed to in the ISP;
(b) The Bureau will reduce your suspension period by 30 days when you show that you have sought local and seasonal employment in accordance with the ISP; and
(c) Your eligibility suspension will affect only you. The Bureau will not apply it to other eligible members of the household.
In working with each recipient, you, the social services worker must:
(a) Assess the general employability of the recipient;
(b) Assist the recipient in the development of the ISP;
(c) Sign the ISP;
(d) Help the recipient identify the service(s) needed to meet the goals identified in their ISP;
(e) Monitor recipient participation in work related training and other employment assistance programs; and
(f) Document activities in the case file.
In working with the social services worker, you, the recipient, must:
(a) Participate with the social services worker in developing an ISP and sign the ISP;
(b) Perform successfully in the work related activities, community service, training and/or other employment assistance programs developed in the ISP;
(c) Participate successfully in treatment and counseling services identified in the ISP;
(d) Participate in evaluations of job readiness and/or any other testing required for employment purposes; and
(e) Demonstrate that you are actively seeking employment by providing the social services worker with evidence of job search activities as required in the ISP.
TWEP is a program that provides work experience and job skills to enhance potential job placement for the general assistance recipient. TWEP programs can be incorporated within Public Law 93-638 self-determination contracts, Public Law 102-477 grants, and Public Law 103-413 self-governance annual funding agreements at the request of the tribe.
Yes, incentive payments to participants are allowed under TWEP.
(a) Incentive payments are separate. The Bureau will not consider incentive payments as wages or work related expenses, but as grant assistance payments under §§ 20.320 through 20.323.
(b) The approved payment will not exceed the Bureau maximum TWEP payment standard established by the Assistant Secretary.
(a) The head of the family unit normally receives the TWEP assistance payment.
(b) The social services worker can designate a spouse or other adult in the assistance group to receive the TWEP assistance payment. The social services worker will do this only if:
(1) The recognized head of the family unit is certified as unemployable; and
(2) The designation is consistent with the ISP.
(c) Where there are multiple family units in one household, one member of each family unit will be eligible to receive the TWEP incentive payment.
Yes, the local TWEP must have specific written program procedures that cover hours of work, acceptable reasons for granting leave from work, evaluation criteria and monitoring plans and ISP's for participants. Work readiness progress must be documented in each ISP.
In the absence of other resources, the Bureau can provide Burial Assistance for eligible indigent Indians meeting the requirements prescribed in § 20.300.
If you are a relative of a deceased Indian, you can apply for burial assistance for the deceased Indian under this section.
(a) To apply for burial assistance under this section, you must submit the application to the social services worker. You must submit this application within 30 days following death.
(b) The Bureau will determine eligibility based on the income and resources available to the deceased in accordance with § 20.100. This includes but is not limited to SSI, veterans' death benefits, social security, and Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts. Determination of need will be accomplished on a case-by-case basis using the Bureau payment standard.
(c) The Bureau will not approve an application unless it meets the criteria specified at § 20.300.
(d) The approved payment will not exceed the Bureau maximum burial payment standard established by the Assistant Secretary.
Transportation costs directly associated with burials are normally a part of the established burial rate. If a provider adds an additional transportation charge to the burial rate because of extenuating circumstances, the social services worker can pay the added charge. To do this, the social services worker must ensure and document in the case plan that:
(a) The charges are reasonable and equitable;
(b) The deceased was an eligible indigent Indian who was socially, culturally, and economically affiliated with his or her tribe; and
(c) The deceased resided in the service area for at least the last 6 consecutive months of his/her life.
Disaster assistance is immediate and/or short-term relief from a disaster and can be provided to a tribal community in accordance with § 20.328.
(a) The tribe affected by the disaster is considered the applicant and must submit the following to the Regional Director through the local Superintendent:
(1) A tribal resolution requesting disaster assistance;
(2) A copy of county, state, or Presidential declaration of disaster; and
(3) The projected extent of need in the service area not covered by other federal funding sources.
(b) The Regional Director must forward the above tribal documents and his/her recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for final decision on whether disaster assistance will be provided and to what extent.
Emergency Assistance payments can be provided to individuals or families who suffer from a burnout, flood, or other destruction of their home and loss or damage to personal possessions. The Bureau will make payments only for essential needs and other non-medical necessities.
The approved payment will not exceed the Bureau's maximum Emergency Assistance payment standard established by the Assistant Secretary.
Adult care assistance provides non-medical care for eligible adult Indians who:
(a) Have needs that require personal care and supervision due to advanced age, infirmity, physical condition, or mental impairments; and
(b) Cannot be cared for in their own home by family members.
An adult Indian is eligible to receive adult care assistance under this part if he/she:
(a) Is unable to meet his/her basic needs, including non-medical care and/or protection, with his/her own resources; and
(b) Does not require intermediate or skilled nursing care.
To apply for adult care assistance, you or someone acting on your behalf must submit an application form to the social services worker.
(a) The Bureau will determine eligibility based upon the income and available resources of the person named in the application.
(b) Upon approval by the social services worker, payments will be approved under purchase of service agreements for adult care provided in state or tribally licensed or certified group settings, or by individual service providers licensed or certified for homemaker service.
The approved payment for adult care assistance will not exceed the applicable state payment rate for similar care.
Services to Children, Elderly, and Families will be provided for Indians meeting the requirements prescribed in § 20.300 who request these services or on whose behalf these services are requested.
Services to Children, Elderly, and Families include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) Assistance in solving problems related to family functioning and interpersonal relationships;
(b) Referral to the appropriate resource for problems related to illness, physical or mental handicaps, drug abuse, alcoholism, and violation of the law; and
(c) Protective services.
In addition, economic opportunity and money management may also be provided.
Protective services are provided when children or adults:
(a) Are deprived temporarily or permanently of needed supervision by responsible adults;
(b) Are neglected, abused or exploited;
(c) Need services when they are mentally or physically handicapped or otherwise disabled; or
(d) Are under the supervision of the Bureau in regard to the use and disbursement of funds in the child's or adult's Individual Indian Money (IIM) account. Those IIM accounts that are established for children will be supervised by the Bureau until the child becomes an adult as defined in 25 CFR 115.
Protective services provided to a child, family or elderly person will be documented in the case files and:
(a) Can include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
(1) Providing responses to requests from members of the community on behalf of children or adults alleged to need protective services;
(2) Providing services to children, elderly, and families, including referrals for homemaker and day care services for the elderly and children;
(3) Coordinating with Indian courts to provide services, which may include, but are not limited to, the following:
(i) Investigating and reporting on allegations of child abuse and neglect, abandonment, and conditions that may require referrals (such as mental or physical handicaps);
(ii) Providing social information related to the disposition of a case, including recommendation of alternative resources for treatment; and
(iii) Providing placement services by the court order before and after adjudication.
(4) Coordinating with other community services, including groups, agencies, and facilities in the community. Coordination can include, but are not limited to:
(i) Evaluating social conditions that affect community well-being;
(ii) Treating conditions identified under paragraph (d)(1) of this section that are within the competence of social services workers; and
(iii) Working with other community agencies to identify and help clients to use services available for assistance in solving the social problems of individuals, families, and children.
(5) Coordinating with law enforcement and tribal courts, to place the victim of an alleged and/or substantiated incident of abuse, neglect or exploitation out of the home to assure safety while the allegations are being investigated. Social services workers may remove individuals in life threatening situations. After a social services assessment, the individual must be either returned to the parent(s) or to the home from which they were removed or the social services worker must initiate other actions as provided by the tribal code; and
(6) Providing social services in the home, coordinating and making referrals to other programs/services, including Child Protection, and/or establishing Multi-Disciplinary Teams.
(b) Must include, where the service population includes IIM account holders:
(1) Conducting, upon the request of an account holder or other interested party, a social services assessment to evaluate an adult account holder's circumstances and abilities and the extent to which the account holder needs assistance in managing his or her financial affairs; and
(2) Managing supervised IIM accounts of children and adults (in conjunction with legal guardians), which includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(i) Evaluating the needs of the account holder;
(ii) Developing, as necessary and as permitted under 25 CFR 115, a one-time or an annual distribution plan for funds held in an IIM account along with any amendments to the plan for approval by the Bureau;
(iii) Monitoring the implementation of the approved distribution plan to ensure that the funds are expended in accordance with the distribution plan;
(iv) Reviewing the supervised account every 6 months or more often as necessary if conditions have changed to warrant a recommendation to change the status of the account holder, or to modify the distribution plan;
(v) Reviewing receipts for an account holder's expenses and verifying that expenditures of funds from a supervised IIM account were made in accordance with the distribution plan approved by the Bureau, including any amendments made to the plan; and
(vi) Petitioning a court of competent jurisdiction for the appointment of, or change in, a legal guardian for a client, where appropriate.
A social services assessment must contain, but is not limited to, the following:
(a) Identifying information about the client (for example, name, address, age, gender, social security number, telephone number, certificate of Indian blood, education level), family history and medical history of the account holder;
(b) Description of the household composition: information on each member of the household (e.g., name, age, and gender) and that person's relationship to the client;
(c) The client's current resources and future income (e.g., VA benefits, retirement pensions, trust assets, employment income, judgment funds, general assistance benefits, unemployment benefits, social security income, supplemental security income and other governmental agency benefits);
(d) A discussion of the circumstances which justify special services, including ability of the client to handle his or her financial affairs and to conduct day-to-day living activities. Factors to be considered should include, but are not limited to:
(1) Age;
(2) Developmental disability;
(3) Chronic alcoholism or substance abuse;
(4) Lack of family assistance or social support systems, or abandonment;
(5) Self-neglect;
(6) Financial exploitation or abuse;
(7) Physical exploitation, neglect or abuse;
(8) Senility; and
(9) Dementia.
(e) Documentation supporting the need for assistance (e.g., medical reports, police reports, court orders, letters from interested parties, prior assessments or evaluations, diagnosis by psychologist/psychiatrist); and
(f) Summary of findings and proposed services to meet the identified needs of the client.
A child is eligible for Child Assistance under this subpart if all of the following criteria are met:
(a) The child must meet the requirements in § 20.300.
(b) The child's legally responsible parent, custodian/guardian, or Indian court having jurisdiction must:
(1) Request assistance under this part in writing;
(2) State that they are unable to provide necessary care and guidance for the child, or to provide for the child's special needs in his/her own home; and
(3) Provide a documented social services assessment from the social services worker of whether parent(s), custodian, guardian(s) are able to care for their child.
(c) All income accruing to the child, except income exempted by federal statute, must be used to meet the cost of special needs, foster home or residential care facility as authorized and arranged by social services.
The social services program can use Child Assistance funds to pay for services as shown in the following table.
You, the social service program, can use Child Assistance funds to purchase or contract for room and board in licensed residential care facilities.
(a) You can use Child Assistance funds to pay only for room and board. You must pay for other services that may be needed, including mental health, education, and physical therapy from other sources.
(b) Before placement the various funding sources must sign an agreement that specifies the services each source will pay. The Bureau Line Officer must approve this agreement.
You, the social services program, can use Child Assistance funds to provide either adoption or guardianship subsidies if all of the following are true:
(a) The child is 17 or younger;
(b) The child has been in foster care prior to approval of the subsidy;
(c) The social services worker has considered all other available resources, attempted permanency planning, and documented in the case file that placement was in the best interest of the child; and
(d) The Bureau Line Officer approves the subsidy before it is authorized and redetermines eligibility on a yearly basis.
You, the social services program, can use Child Assistance funds to pay for homemaker services as specified in § 20.501 and this section. While housekeeping services are covered, homemaker services must focus on training household members in such skills as child care and home management. Homemaker services are provided for:
(a) A child who would otherwise need foster care placement or who would benefit from supportive (protective) supervision;
(b) A severely handicapped or special needs child whose care places undue stress on the family; or
(c) A child whose care would benefit from specialized training and supportive services provided to family members.
The services listed in this section are provided by Services to Children, Elderly, and Families under this subpart jointly with the Child Assistance Program.
(a) Social services provided for children in their own home aimed at strengthening the family's ability to provide for and nurture their child. These supportive services can include:
(1) Social work case management;
(2) Counseling for parents and children;
(3) Group work, day care; and
(4) Homemaker services, when necessary.
(b) Protection of Indian children from abuse, neglect or exploitation in coordination with law enforcement and courts.
(c) A written case plan must be established within 30 days of placement and reviewed within 60 days of placement or as outlined in tribally established standards, when temporary placement outside the home is necessary. The case plan must contain a written agreement signed among the various funding sources to identify the services that will be paid by each source in those instances where the child
At a minimum the following information is required:
(a) Tribal enrollment verification in accordance with § 20.100;
(b) A written case plan (established within 30 days of placement), which would include a permanency plan detailing the need for and expected length of placement;
(c) Information on each child's health status and school records, including medications and immunization records;
(d) Parental consent(s) for emergency medical care, school, and transportation;
(e) A signed plan for payment, including financial responsibility of parents and use of other appropriate resources;
(f) A copy of the certification/license of the foster home;
(g) A current photo of each child;
(h) A copy of the social security card, birth certificate, Medicaid card and current court order;
(i) For a placement beyond 30 days, copy of the action taken or authorized by a court of competent jurisdiction that documents the need for protection of the child;
(j) For an involuntary placement, a social services assessment completed by a social services worker within 30 days of placement;
(k) Documentation of a minimum of one visit to the placement setting per month by the social services worker with each child; and
(l) A list of all prior placements, including the names of the foster parents and dates of placements.
If a child needs foster care, the social services worker must select care that meets the physical, behavioral, and emotional needs of the child. Foster care is intended to be short-term. The case plan must show that all of the requirements in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section are met:
(a) All foster homes must be certified or licensed by the tribe or other appropriate authority. Foster care placements beyond 30 days must be made through a court of competent jurisdiction to ensure that:
(1) Federal background checks are completed prior to placement as required by Public Law 101-630; and
(2) Training (optional for placements with relatives) is provided to the foster family.
(b) If the child is placed with relatives in an adoption and guardian placement, the case file must contain an approved current home study.
(c) An off-reservation foster home, or residential care facility under contract must meet the licensing standards of the state in which it is located or tribally established certifying/licensing standards.
The social services agency must make efforts to secure child support for the child in foster care or residential care through a court of competent jurisdiction.
When a child is placed in foster care or a residential care facility the social services worker must do all of the following:
(a) Discuss with foster parents or caretakers, the child's special needs, including disabilities;
(b) Provide counseling or referral to available resources;
(c) Refer any child requiring medical, substance abuse, or behavioral (mental) health services to an appropriate health services to be assessed and to receive services;
(d) Ensure that the case plan provides for all necessary costs of care (including clothing, incidentals, and personal allowance) in accordance with established state standards of payments;
(e) Develop a foster family agreement signed and dated by the parties involved that specifies the roles and responsibilities of the biological parents, foster parents, and placing agency; the terms of payment of care; and the need for adherence to the established case plan;
(f) Immediately report any occurrences of suspected child abuse or neglect in a foster home or residential care facility to law enforcement and protective services in accordance with tribal standards and reporting requirements under Public Law 101-630; and
(g) Complete a yearly assessment of each tribal or state licensed foster home or residential care facility evaluating how the home has fulfilled its function relative to the needs of the child placed in the home.
The court retains custody of a child in placement and the care and supervision must be given to the appropriate social services agency. While the court can issue any court order consistent with tribal law, the courts do not have the authority to require expenditure of federal funds to pay for specifically prescribed or restrictive services or out-of-home placements of children. Case plans must be reviewed with the appropriate court at least every 6 months and a permanency hearing held within 12 months after a child enters foster care or residential care, or according to established tribal standards. These standards can be established in the tribal code and can be in accordance with available funding source requirements.
Permanency planning must be developed for all child placements within 6 months after initial placement of the child. Every reasonable effort will be made to preserve the family and/or reunify the children with the family and relatives when developing permanency plans. However, the child's health and safety are the paramount concern.
The Bureau is not an authorized adoption agency and staff must not arrange adoptive placements. However, long-term permanency planning can involve the Bureau social services workers cooperating with tribal courts to provide an adoption subsidy. Tribal contractors will provide adoption services as authorized by the tribal courts in accordance with tribal codes/law.
Interstate compact agreements should be used when appropriate for foster care, adoption and guardianship to protect the best interests of the child and to assure the availability of the funding resources and services from the originating placement source.
The courts can request the following:
(a) Investigations of law enforcement reports of child abuse and neglect;
(b) Assessment of the need for out-of-home placement of the child; and
(c) Provision of court-related services following adjudication, such as monitoring, foster care, or residential care, or pre/post placement services.
Social services workers must document regular contact with children and families in accordance with specific program requirements. The social services agency is responsible for implementation of quality case management; this requires the supervisor's review of case plans every 90 days.
Reported child abuse, neglect or exploitation cases and the requirement for background clearances will be handled in accordance with the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act of 1990, Public Law 101-630, 25 CFR part 63, federal and/or state laws where applicable, and tribal codes which protect Indian children and victims of domestic violence. This includes developing and maintaining Child Protection Teams in accordance to Public Law 101-630 and collection of child abuse, neglect and exploitation data according to Public Law 99-570. Those cases referred by the state will be handled according to the Indian Child Welfare Act, Public Law 95-608, and 25 CFR part 23.
(a) You can apply for financial assistance or social services under this part if you:
(1) Believe that you are eligible to receive benefits; or
(2) Are applying on behalf of someone who you believe is eligible to receive benefits.
(b) Under paragraph (a) of this section, any of the following may apply for benefits on behalf of another person: relatives, interested individuals, social services agencies, law enforcement agencies, courts, or other persons or agencies.
You can apply for financial assistance or social services under this part by:
(a) Completing an application that you can get from your social services worker or tribe; or
(b) Through an interview with a social services worker who will complete an application for you based on the oral interview.
(a) You, the applicant, are the primary source of information used to determine eligibility and need. If it is necessary to secure information such as medical records from other sources, you must authorize the release of information.
(b) You must immediately report to your social services worker any changes in circumstances that may affect your eligibility or the amount of financial assistance that you receive.
(a) Each application must be approved if the applicant meets the eligibility criteria in this part for the type of assistance requested. Financial assistance will be made retroactive to the application date.
(b) An application must be denied if the applicant does not meet the eligibility criteria in §§ 20.300 through 20.516.
(c) The Superintendent must approve or deny an application within 30 days of the application date. The local social services worker must issue written notice of the approval or denial of each application within 45 days of the application date.
(d) If for a good reason the Superintendent cannot meet the deadline in paragraph (c) of this section, he or she must notify the applicant in writing of:
(1) The reasons why the decision cannot be made; and
(2) The deadline by which the Superintendent will send the applicant a decision.
If the Bureau increases, decreases, suspends, or terminates financial assistance, the social services worker must mail or hand deliver to the applicant or recipient a written notice of the action. The notice must:
(a) State the action taken, the effective date, and the reason(s) for the decision;
(b) Inform the applicant or recipient of the right to request a hearing if dissatisfied with the decision;
(c) Advise the applicant or recipient of the right to be represented by an authorized representative at no expense to the Bureau;
(d) Include the address of the local Superintendent or his/her designated representative to whom the request for a hearing must be submitted;
(e) Advise the applicant or recipient that failure to request a hearing within 20 days of the date of the notice will cause the decision to become final and not subject to appeal under 25 CFR part 2; and
(f) Be delivered to the applicant 20 days in advance of the effective date of the action.
If you are an applicant or recipient and appeal a decision made under § 20.604, you can continue to receive your assistance while your appeal is pending. For this to happen, you must submit your appeal by the deadline in § 20.604(e).
(a) When an incorrect payment of financial assistance has been made to an individual or family, a proper adjustment or recovery is required.
(b) The proper adjustment or recovery is based upon individual need as appropriate to the circumstances that resulted in an incorrect payment.
(c) Before adjustment or recovery, the recipient will be notified of the proposal to correct the payment and given an informal opportunity to resolve the matter.
(d) If an informal resolution cannot be attained, the recipient must be given a written notice of decision and the procedures of § 20.604 will apply.
(e) If a hearing is requested, the hearing will be conducted in accordance with the procedures under §§ 20.700 through 20.705.
Applicants or recipients who knowingly and willfully provide false or fraudulent information are subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which carries a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both. The social services worker will prepare a written report detailing the information considered to be false and submit the report to the Superintendent or his/her designated representative for appropriate investigative action.
Yes, if you are an applicant or recipient, and are dissatisfied with a Bureau decision made under this part, you can request a hearing before the Superintendent or his/her designated representative. You must submit your request by the deadline in § 20.604. The Superintendent or his/her designated representative can extend the deadline if you show good cause.
Yes, if you appeal under this subpart, financial assistance will be continued or reinstated to insure there is no break in financial assistance until the Superintendent or his/her designated representative makes a decision. The Superintendent or his/her designated representative can adjust payments or recover overpayments to conform with his/her decision.
The Superintendent or his/her designated representative must set a date for the hearing within 10 days of the date of request for a hearing and give written notice to the applicant or recipient.
The written notice of hearing must include:
(a) The date, time and location of the hearing;
(b) A statement of the facts and issues giving rise to the appeal;
(c) The applicant's or recipient's right to be heard in person, or to be represented by an authorized representative at no expense to the Bureau;
(d) The applicant or recipient's right to present both oral and written evidence during the hearing;
(e) The applicant's or recipient's right to confront and cross-examine witnesses at the hearing;
(f) The applicant's or recipient's right of one continuance of not more than 10 days with respect to the date of hearing; and
(g) The applicant's or recipient's right to examine and copy, at a reasonable time before the hearing, his/her case record as it relates to the proposed action being contested.
(a) The Superintendent or his/her designated representative conducts the hearing in an informal but orderly manner, records the hearing, and provides the applicant or recipient with a transcript of the hearing upon request.
(b) The Superintendent or his/her designated representative must render a written decision within 10 days of the completion of the hearing. The written decision must include:
(1) A written statement covering the evidence relied upon and reasons for the decision; and
(2) The applicant's or recipient's right to appeal the Superintendent or his/her designated representative's decision pursuant to 25 CFR part 2 and request Bureau assistance in preparation of the appeal.
Yes, the applicant or recipient must pursue the appeal process applicable to the Public Law 93-638 contract, Public Law 102-477 grant, or Public Law 103-413 self-governance annual funding agreement. If no appeal process exists, then the applicant or recipient must pursue the appeal through the appropriate tribal forum.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed Determination to Terminate Special Review.
This Notice sets forth EPA's preliminary determination regarding the continued registration of pesticide products containing triphenyltin hydroxide (TPTH) and sets forth the Agency's assessment of the risks and benefits associated with pesticidal uses of TPTH. On January 9, 1985, the Agency issued a Notice of Special Review of pesticide products containing triphenyltin hydroxide based on developmental toxicity (teratogenicity) concerns (50 FR 1107). Although not a subject of the Special Review, the Agency also cited concerns for reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity, inhalation toxicity and adverse effects to non-target organisms in the Position Document 1. Due to voluntary actions by the registrants that have reduced worker exposure to TPTH, as well as additional data that refine the risk assessment, EPA has determined that the risks of using TPTH are substantially lower than when the Special Review was initiated in 1985. This Notice proposes to terminate the triphenyltin hydroxide Special Review based on the Agency's determination that the benefits of TPTH use outweigh the risks.
Comments, data and information relevant to the Agency's proposed decision, identified by the docket control number [OPP-30000/42A], must be received on or before November 20, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
Phil Budig, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone (703) 308-8029; e-mail address: budig.phil@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are a pesticide registrant with registered products which contain triphenyltin hydroxide as an active ingredient, or if you are an agricultural producer or a mixer, loader or applicator using products containing triphenyltin hydroxide as an active ingredient. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
3.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-30000/42A 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 in response to this document as confidential 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.
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
• Explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Describe any assumptions you used.
• Provide copies of technical information or data that support your views.
• If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate you provide.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
• Offer alternative ways to improve the Agency's proposed action.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
• 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
Triphenyltin hydroxide is most commonly sold under the trade names Super Tin®, Pro-Tex®, Photon®, and Brestan H®. TPTH is formulated both as a wettable powder in a water-soluble pack and as a flowable concentrate requiring a mechanical transfer (ground equipment applications) or closed system (aerial and chemigation applications) for mixing and loading.
Triphenyltin hydroxide was first registered as a fungicide under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in 1971 and is a non-systemic protectant foliar fungicide currently registered for use on pecans, potatoes and sugarbeets. The fungicide was formerly registered for use on carrots, peanuts and tobacco. These uses were subsequently canceled and the appropriate tolerances were revoked. In addition to fungus control, TPTH is also registered as a suppressant of Colorado potato beetle populations on potatoes.
Triphenyltin hydroxide is classified by EPA as a Restricted Use pesticide [Ref. 1] due to acute and developmental toxicity concerns. Under section 3(d) of FIFRA this means, among other things, that only certified applicators trained for and familiar with pesticide use, or persons under their direct supervision, can use products containing TPTH.
A Special Review was initiated in 1985 to address the use of triphenyltin hydroxide and examine the developmental toxicity risk to mixers, loaders and applicators. Since the time the Special Review was initiated, the Agency has identified carcinogenicity as an endpoint of concern and the registrant has voluntarily taken actions that have reduced worker exposure to TPTH. These actions include deletion of certain uses, closed mixing/loading systems for aerial applications, addition of protective clothing requirements to labels, adoption of mechanical transfer systems for all liquid formulations, packaging of the wettable powder formulation in water soluble packets, and reduced maximum seasonal application rates. In addition, the registrant submitted additional data, including a dermal developmental toxicity study and an occupational exposure monitoring study for pecan mixer/loaders and pecan harvesters, to refine the exposure estimates for this site.
EPA has refined its risk assessments for both developmental and cancer concerns, and completed its risk/benefit analysis of TPTH. Taking into account all of the worker mitigation measures that have been adopted since the initiation of the special review, the Agency has determined that the risks of using TPTH are no longer unreasonable. Consistent with this finding, the Agency published its Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) for TPTH in the
In order to obtain a registration for a pesticide under FIFRA, an applicant must demonstrate that the pesticide satisfies the statutory standard for registration. The standard requires, among other things, that the pesticide will not cause “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” [FIFRA section 3(c)(5)]. The term “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” means “any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide” [FIFRA section 2(bb)]. This standard requires a finding that the benefits of each use of the pesticide outweigh the risks of such use, when the pesticide is used in compliance with the terms and conditions of registration and in accordance with commonly recognized practices.
The burden of proving that a pesticide satisfies the statutory standard is on the proponents of registration and continues as long as the registration remains in effect. Under FIFRA section 6, the Administrator may cancel the registration of a pesticide or require modification of the terms and conditions of a registration if (s)he determines that the pesticide product causes unreasonable adverse effects to man or the environment. EPA created the Special Review process to facilitate the identification of pesticide uses that may not satisfy the statutory standard for registration and to provide a public procedure to gather and evaluate information about the risks and benefits of these uses.
A Special Review may be initiated if a pesticide meets or exceeds the risk criteria set out in the regulations at 40 CFR part 154. EPA announces that a Special Review is initiated by publishing a notice, Position Document 1 (PD 1), in the
The Special Review process may be concluded in various ways depending upon the outcome of EPA's risk/benefit assessment. If EPA concludes that all of its risk concerns have been adequately rebutted, the pesticide registration will be maintained unchanged. If, however, all risk concerns are not rebutted, EPA will proceed to a full risk/benefit assessment for non-dietary risks. In determining whether the use of a pesticide poses risks that are greater than the benefits, EPA considers possible changes to the terms and conditions of registration that can reduce risks to the level where the benefits outweigh the risks, and it may require that such changes be made in
Issuance of this Notice means that the Agency has assessed the potential adverse effects associated with the uses of triphenyltin hydroxide and has preliminarily determined that the benefits override the risks.
The Registration Standard for TPTH was published in September 1984 [Ref. 1]. The Standard established the restricted use classification based on concerns of acute and developmental toxicity; announced EPA's intent to initiate a Special Review based on developmental toxicity risks to workers; imposed label warnings regarding developmental toxicity and potential adverse ecological effects; established a 24-hour reentry period; and required submission of product chemistry, toxicology, residue chemistry, environmental fate, and ecological effects data.
On October 23, 1984, EPA issued a letter notifying the TPTH registrants that the Agency was concerned about developmental effects from TPTH and was considering placing the fungicide into Special Review. On January 9, 1985, the EPA issued a notice to initiate a Special Review based on potential developmental toxicity risks to mixers, loaders and applicators for registrations of products containing TPTH (50 FR 1107). This document, also referred to as Position Document 1 or PD 1, detailed the basis for the Agency's decision to initiate a Special Review. The Agency determined that all uses would be the subject of the Special Review for TPTH. The Agency had reviewed data concerning the potential adverse effects associated with uses of TPTH that indicated that TPTH produces developmental toxicity effects in laboratory animals and had determined that pesticide products containing TPTH met or exceeded the risk criterion that, under regulations then in effect, would require EPA to initiate a Special Review (40 CFR 162.11(a)(3)(ii)(B) (1975)). Current regulations in 40 CFR 154.7(a)(2) (1985), set forth a similar criterion for initiation of a Special Review by EPA. The PD 1 also noted EPA concerns for reproductive toxicity, carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity, inhalation toxicity and adverse effects to non-target organisms, however, these were not cited as grounds for initiating Special Review.
Since initiating the TPTH Special Review the Agency completed the TPTH Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) in November 1999. Although not triggers for Special Review, the TPTH RED assessed dietary and ecological risk, along with occupational risk. The Agency did not identify any dietary risks of concern at the time of the PD 1. However, the TPTH RED assessed dietary risks on the basis of more recent data under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. While the Agency found that dietary risks from food consumption were acceptable, it could not rule out the potential for dietary risk through drinking water exposures from surface water sources. This potential risk was addressed through buffer zones from water bodies to prevent TPTH run-off into surface water. With these mitigation measures in place, the Agency has determined that there is a reasonable certainty of no harm from TPTH use on sugarbeets, potatoes, and pecans [Ref. 2]. The Agency also noted in the PD 1 that TPTH is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, warmwater fish and estuarine/marine organisms, and moderately to highly toxic to avian species. While insufficient data on these effects were available to trigger a special review, the Registration Standard required additional studies to clarify the environmental fate and potential ecological effects of TPTH. These studies were reviewed as part of the RED. As a result of this review, the registrants amended their labels to mitigate risks to non-target organisms through reductions in the maximum seasonal use of TPTH on pecans, sugarbeets, and potatoes, as well as through a 100 foot buffer from water bodies for ground applications of TPTH, and a 300-foot buffer from water bodies for aerial applications of TPTH [Ref. 2]. This document focuses on reproductive and cancer risk to workers, as occupational risks triggered the initiation of the TPTH Special Review in 1985.
EPA has determined that the benefits associated with the continued use of TPTH under the current terms of TPTH's registration outweigh the risks. Thus, EPA is proposing to terminate the Special Review of TPTH.
The Special Review of TPTH was initiated in 1985 because of data indicating that TPTH produces developmental toxicity effects in laboratory animals and concerns about the adequacy of the carcinogenicity assessment. The Agency's Registration Standard required additional testing to verify the potential for TPTH to induce developmental and carcinogenic effects [Ref. 1]. This section summarizes the Agency's current assessment of developmental and carcinogenic issues. [For a fuller treatment of the toxicity endpoints see Refs. 2 and 3].
Studies submitted in response to the Registration Standard, including studies in rabbits [Ref. 4], rats [Refs. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9] and hamsters [Ref. 10], were reviewed and determined to be acceptable for evaluating the potential for assessing maternal and developmental effects in these three species [Ref. 3]. In a document dated January 9, 1991, the Peer Review Committee for Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity concluded that these studies establish no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) and lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) for maternal and developmental effects in all three species, with the rabbit being the most sensitive [Ref. 11].
The lowest NOAEL for developmental toxicity in rabbits was established at 0.3 mg/kg/day based on decreased pup weight and the presence of unossified hyoid in the rabbit fetuses at the LOAEL of 0.9 mg/kg/day [Ref. 7]. The lowest maternal toxicity NOAEL was 0.1 mg/kg/day based on decreased maternal body weight gain in rabbits at the LOAEL of 0.3 mg/kg/day. It was noted that 2 mg/kg/day could not be tolerated in the rabbit since there were compound related resorptions to preclude fetal examinations.
Several rat studies were performed and reviewed, and some of these included postnatal development phases. The rat was less sensitive than the rabbit with a NOAEL of 1 mg/kg/day for maternal toxicity (decreased body weight gain) occurring at 2.8 mg/kg/day. The developmental NOAEL in rats was inconsistent among the several studies being either 1.0 or 2.8 mg/kg/day with a LOAEL of either 2.8 or 8 mg/kg/day since not all of the same effects in the developing fetuses were seen in each study. At higher doses there was deceased fetal weight and increased resorptions and fewer pups. The new rat developmental toxicity studies did not
Subsequent to the 1991 peer review meeting, the Agency requested a developmental toxicity study by the dermal route in rabbits since extrapolation of the rabbit oral toxicity study resulted in unacceptable margins of exposure. The dermal developmental toxicity study [Ref. 12] established a NOAEL of 3.0 mg/kg/day for both maternal and developmental toxicity since there were no effects at this level, which was the highest dose level tested.
In the PD 1, the Agency indicated some concern about the carcinogenic effects of TPTH and did not consider the existing data base adequate for carcinogenicity assessment. The registrant subsequently submitted replacement rat [Ref. 13] and mouse [Ref. 14] studies.
1.
2.
On March 18, 1992, CPRC members agreed to support their previous conclusion that TPTH should be classified as a B2 carcinogen with the Q
3.
TPTH belongs to a class of chemicals (organotins) known to be immunotoxic. The primary treatment related effects via oral exposures are immunotoxicity as indicated by decreases in lymphocytes and immunoglobulins in rats and mice, following both sub-chronic and chronic exposures. To better characterize potential immunotoxic effects, the Agency has called in a special developmental immunotoxicity study as part of its reregistration eligibility decision.
The endpoints used in assessing the occupational risks for TPTH are presented in Table 1 [Ref. 18].
In the January 1985 Notice of Special Review (PD 1), the Agency concluded that potential developmental toxicity risks to mixers, loaders and applicators for registrations of products containing triphenyltin hydroxide may result in unreasonable adverse effects. The Agency's risk analysis was limited to dermal exposure to TPTH resulting from air blast application to pecan trees, as this was the use pattern expected to generate the most exposure to workers. This analysis was based on exposure estimates derived from Agency data and assumed dermal absorption would be 100%.
When conducting the 1985 risk assessment, the Agency assumed that all workers were unprotected, wore cotton work clothes, short-sleeved shirts, long pants and no hat, gloves or respirator. Three-thousand square centimeters of the body surface was assumed to be uncovered. Applicator exposure was calculated from a linear regression correlation derived from Agency data for the air blast application to orchards. The Agency's assumptions were conservative and may have overestimated actual exposure.
The Agency estimated a typical exposure value for a mixer/loader/applicator of 0.74 mg/kg/day, based on ranges of 0.68 to 0.88 mg/kg/day, due to variations in application rates.
At the time of the PD 1, an available study on rats showed apparent hydrocephalus and hydronephrosis at all dose levels. There were, however, no data available to estimate the dermal penetration of TPTH. Since dermal exposure was the greatest single source of exposure to workers, this was an important parameter in the resulting risk. Due to the lack of dermal absorption data, the Agency calculated the risk to workers from TPTH by assuming that 100 percent of TPTH would be absorbed. Potential exposure of pesticide applicators to TPTH occurred at a level that was known to produce developmental effects in laboratory animals, thereby resulting in a highly significant developmental risk for pregnant women.
The TPTH Task Force has voluntarily implemented measures that have reduced worker exposure to TPTH. These actions include deleting certain crops, such as carrots and peanuts [Ref. 19], requiring the use of closed cab tractors for TPTH applications and additional protective clothing. The Task Force also adopted water soluble packaging to reduce worker exposure to their wettable powder formulation, and added protective clothing requirements to product labels. The flowable concentrate formulation must be used with a mechanical transfer or closed loading system, with workers required to wear a coverall over long sleeve shirt and long pants, chemical-resistant gloves, chemical-resistant apron (when mixing, loading or cleaning), and a respirator. For workers using the wettable powder in water soluble packaging; coveralls, long-sleeve shirt, long pants, chemical-resistant gloves and a dust/mist respirator are required. To apply TPTH by airblast, applicators must wear long-sleeve shirts, long pants, shoes and socks (no gloves are required, since enclosed cabs are necessary to apply TPTH). Flaggers must also be in enclosed cabs. The current risk assessment for TPTH incorporates data submitted since the initiation of the special review as well as the risk mitigation measures put into place since 1985.
EPA required that the registrants conduct a rabbit developmental toxicity study to allow a direct determination of maternal and developmental toxicity via the dermal route. This technique provides a direct, more accurate estimate of dermal toxicity than extrapolating from the rabbit oral study to dermal exposure. In addition, the TPTH Task Force generated exposure data for pecan harvesters as no such data were available for this unusual exposure scenario (pecan harvesting involves shaking trees, sweeping pecans into rows under the trees (windrowing), and collecting pecans). The current assessment also reflects the revised Q
Exposures to workers mixing, loading and applying TPTH were assessed as part of the RED. Risks to flaggers were also assessed. Assessments incorporating current label conditions were conducted for both liquid and wettable powder formulations, as well as for the different application methods (ground, aerial, and chemigation) for each of the three use sites [Refs. 2 and 20].
Dermal exposure is the most significant route of exposure for TPTH. However, the Agency also assessed the potential for inhalation exposure because although inhalation is a very minor route of exposure for workers applying TPTH, subchronic inhalation studies have resulted in lung injury and death to test animals at extremely low doses. The current exposure assessment is based on data from the Pesticide Handlers Exposure Database (PHED) Version 1.1 as well as chemical-specific data from monitoring studies for mixing/loading TPTH wettable powder in a water soluble pack formulation for application to pecan groves and applying TPTH to pecans using an enclosed-cab airblast sprayer [Ref. 21]. Assumptions for the exposure assessment included:
• An average body weight of 70 kg for an adult handler was used in the inhalation and cancer assessments. A body weight of 60 kg was used in the short- and intermediate-term dermal assessments (the typical weight for a woman since the NOAEL is based on a developmental study with developmental toxicity an endpoint of concern).
• The average workday interval is 8 hours per day (e.g., the acres treated or volume of spray solution prepared in a typical day).
• The Agency assumed typical acres treated per workday as follows: 40 acres for airblast application to pecan orchards, 150 acres for groundboom application to potatoes and sugar beets, 1,000 acres for aerial application to potatoes and sugar beets, and 400 acres for aerial application to pecan orchards (this is rarely done). Since specific data were not available for private growers using chemigation for potatoes, or for flaggers during aerial application, a default estimate of 350 acres representing the Exposure Science Advisory Counsel estimate for aerial and chemigation applications in agricultural settings was used. Although a typical aerial application of TPTH involves treatment of 1,000 acres, the Agency assumed that an automated means of flagging, rather than human flaggers would be employed for applications to greater than 350 acres.
• For the non-cancer assessment, the Agency used the maximum application rates for each crop.
• For the cancer assessment, the Agency used typical application rates, typical number of acres treated per day, typical number of applications per year, and assumed a worker life span of 70 years with a TPTH exposure period of over 35 years, and that workers were exposed for 8 hours per day for the
• The following generic protection factors (PF) were used to represent various risk mitigation measures on the labels: 50 percent PF for body exposure with a double layer of clothing, 90 percent PF for hand exposure for use of chemical resistance gloves, and 80 percent PF for use of dust/mist mask for respiratory protection.
• A dermal absorption factor of 10% was used for the cancer assessment based on the comparison of the LOAELs of the oral and dermal developmental toxicity studies in rabbits [Refs. 3 and 22].
Because different toxic effects were selected for the assessment of non-cancer dermal and inhalation risks, separate risk assessments were conducted for dermal and inhalation exposures. Both short- and intermediate-term Margins of Exposure (MOEs) for occupational handlers were derived based upon comparison of dermal exposure estimates against a NOAEL of 3 mg/kg/day from a dermal developmental study in the rabbit. Inhalation MOEs were derived based upon comparison of inhalation exposure estimates against a NOAEL of 0.00034 mg/L or 0.092 mg/kg/day. The cancer assessment used the oral Q
1.
Although the MOEs for mixing/loading wettable powder for aerial/chemigation application were calculated to be less than 100, based on a number of factors, the Agency determined in its reregistration eligibility determination that the MOEs for the water soluble bag formulation are acceptable. First, the results of the Agency's non-cancer occupation risk assessment for this formulation (and similar results in the occupational cancer risk assessment discussed below), are not consistent with the Agency's experience that water soluble packaging results in exposures comparable to the use of other engineering controls such as closed mixing/loading systems for liquid formulations, and is therefore a protective measure that the Agency generally promotes. Second, the Agency believes that the significant discrepancy observed between exposure from liquid formulations in closed systems and water soluble bags for this chemical are due to the failure of the TPTH water soluble bag study to replicate actual use patterns on all three registered crop sites i.e., the study monitored workers who handled only enough active ingredient to treat 5 acres, modeling an airblast application scenario for pecan orchards which are 40 acres, rather than the 1,000 acres for aerial application to sugar beets and potatoes.
Results of the worker exposure study were thus, of necessity, extrapolated to calculate risks from handling enough active ingredient to evaluate larger acreages. However, the Agency does not believe, under the circumstances present, that a linear extrapolation of exposure from 5 acres to 1,000 acres is reliable. Consequently, while the Agency believes that the study is appropriate to estimate exposures based on treatment of 40 acres (i.e., airblast application on pecan orchards), it does not believe that it is appropriate to use this same study to estimate exposures based on treatment of 1,000 acres, and that use of this study provides an overestimate of risk. Based on the Agency's experience that water soluble packaging results in exposures comparable to the use of other engineering controls such as closed mixing/loading systems for liquid formulations, the Agency determined in the RED that a new exposure study based on a larger treated acreage, which was required with the issuance of the RED, will demonstrate that the MOEs for the water soluble bag formulation are acceptable.
2.
3.
The Agency determined there were three main categories of activities which could result in the potential postapplication exposures to individuals entering areas treated with TPTH [Ref. 17]:
• Harvesting pecans (although mechanically harvested, it is a very dusty operation); Scouting and moving hand-set irrigation pipes for potatoes and sugar beets; and
• Harvesting, sorting/packing, and brushing/washing potatoes and sugar beets.
None of these crop activities have been identified as scenarios yielding potential chronic exposure (i.e., " 180 days of exposure/year) concern.
The postapplication exposure assessment for pecan harvesting was based on a reentry study of pecan workers operating windrowing equipment as part of pecan harvesting activities [Ref. 23]. Both dermal and inhalation exposure monitoring were conducted. In addition, soil and thatch samples were collected from the dripline beneath the treated pecan trees (potential TPTH postapplication exposures were expected from both the pecans and disturbances of the soil under trees). Both the monitoring data, as well as the soil/thatch residue levels, were used in the assessment.
Soil and foliar dissipation data that were collected following applications of TPTH to potatoes and peanuts [Ref. 24] were also used for the postapplication exposure assessment for potatoes and sugar beets (since potatoes and sugar beets both have similar application rates and cultural techniques). TPTH did not appear to dissipate in the soil; therefore, the highest daily mean level (1.36 parts per billion TPTH) at one day post application was used in the assessment. The soil level was used in conjunction with a soil/dermal transfer coefficient of 3.9 ng/ppb/hr. The foliar dissipation curve is (log Y = -0.0573X + -0.498), from the TPTH foliar dissipation study accepted by EPA in 1986 (Y = the dislodgeable foliar residue in
The assumptions used in the calculations for occupational postapplication risks include the following:
• Application rates used for the different postapplication scenarios were:
No rate required for pecan harvesting since the study provided exposure values (
For the harvesting and maintenance activities assessment, the non-cancer calculations were completed using the maximum application rates for specific crops recommended by the available TPTH labels. Typical application rates were used in the calculations for the cancer assessment.
• Transfer coefficients (Tc) were not used for pecan harvesting estimates because the study provides exposure values (
• Daily exposure is assumed to occur for 8 hours per day.
• The average body weight of 60 kg is used in the non-cancer risk estimates (due to a developmental endpoint), while for cancer estimates, 70 kg is used, representing a typical adult.
• Exposure frequency is estimated to be 40 days/year for pecan harvesting, and 30 days/year for potato and sugar beet maintenance activities and harvesting.
• Exposure duration is assumed to be 35 years. This represents a typical working lifetime.
• Lifetime is assumed to be 70 years.
• Dermal absorption is assumed to be 10 percent for cancer estimates because the Q
• The Q
The postapplication risks are summarized in Tables 4-6 below. The postapplication assessment indicates that for pecan harvesting, MOEs exceed 100 on day zero after application, while cancer risk estimates are greater than 1.0
As indicated in Table 5 below, MOEs for maintenance activities are " 100 on day zero after application for potatoes, and on the second day after application for sugar beets. The cancer risk estimate for maintenance activities was found to be less than 1.0
The Agency conducted a benefits assessment for TPTH by analyzing the economic impact of cancellation on each of the three registered use sites. Of the three sites for which TPTH is registered (pecans, potatoes and sugarbeets), moderate economic impacts to pecan production are anticipated if TPTH is not available for disease control. The impact will be due to higher prices for the alternatives rather than their reduced efficacy. More importantly, however, there is potential for development of resistance from the use of the registered alternatives which, as part of the triazole group of fungicides, share a single site and similar mode of action, thereby increasing the risk of resistance development over time in the absence of TPTH, which has a different mode of action from the triazoles. For potatoes and sugarbeets, minor economic impacts would result from TPTH cancellation, although the cancellation of TPTH could adversely affect resistance management programs relying on TPTH as an inexpensive contact fungicide with a multi-site mode of action. Sugarbeet growers would also apply greater amounts of an alternative fungicide (e.g. mancozeb), if TPTH were not available, resulting in a negative impact on sugarbeet integrated pest management (IPM) programs and greater overall environmental pesticide loading.
As already noted, TPTH is a non-systemic protectant foliar fungicide registered for use on three sites: pecans, potatoes and sugarbeets. The fungicide was also formerly registered for use on carrots, peanuts and tobacco, and as an industrial preservative for vinyl (PVC) electrical tubing. The exact mode of action of TPTH is not clearly understood. Researchers indicate that TPTH inhibits oxidative phosphorylation in fungal pathogens. The fungicide's inhibition of other metabolic pathways has also been proposed [Ref. 25]. In addition to disease control, TPTH is registered as a suppressant of Colorado potato beetle populations on potatoes. The mode of action of TPTH against the Colorado potato beetle has not been identified.
TPTH use is limited to some extent by its phytotoxicity. The TPTH label recommends that the fungicide not be applied in combination with surfactants, spreaders, stickers or buffers to reduce the possibility of phytotoxicity. A phytotoxic response occurs when applied alone at the full label rate on potatoes [Ref. 26].
The Agency estimates total usage of TPTH in the United States at approximately 569,000 pounds of active ingredient per year [Ref. 27]. Pecans and sugarbeets represent the largest volume of use and highest percent crop treated of the three use sites [Ref. 27].
1.
In addition to scab, TPTH is registered to control other diseases on pecans including: brown leaf spot (
2.
TPTH plays a role in potato IPM programs in the upper Midwest. University plant pathologists have developed IPM programs incorporating the use of TPTH, thereby allowing growers to reduce the total amount and number of fungicide applications to potatoes per growing season.
TPTH is also registered as a suppressant of Colorado potato beetle (CPB) populations. Research by Hare, Logan and Wright [Ref. 29] indicated that applications of TPTH reduced CPB larval densities. The researchers concluded that applications of TPTH may enable potato growers to reduce the total number of insecticides necessary for control of CPB. However, applying TPTH at the rate reported to suppress CPB may not be acceptable due to applications of the fungicide resulting in a phytotoxic response to many commercially desirable varieties. Thus, the Agency does not consider TPTH to be a viable pest control option for control of CPB.
3.
TPTH applications begin when environmental conditions conducive for Cercospora leafspot infection appear or when infection is first observed.
1.
Published data were not available for the Agency to determine the efficacy of TPTH compared to registered alternatives for control of scab. Due to this lack of data, the Agency spoke with experts familiar with scab to determine pecan yield impacts without the use of TPTH. Based on expert input, it appears that pecan diseases can be controlled using registered alternatives, but production costs will increase. The experts also claimed that the pecan growers are already on the verge of bankruptcy, and if the production costs were to increase, then many small pecan growers may be forced out of business. All experts believed that in the absence of TPTH, propaconazole and fenbuconazole would be used for scab control. In the southern states, pecans are sprayed approximately 6-8 times per year with different fungicides (mostly TPTH, propaconazole and fenbuconazole). The researchers estimated that replacing TPTH with propaconazole and fenbuconazole will not impact the yield but pecan production costs will be increased due to higher fungicide costs. In addition, since propaconazole and fenbuconazole belong to the triazole group of fungicides, their extensive use may result in pest resistance due to their similar modes of action [Ref. 27].
During 1999, azoxystrobin was also registered for use on pecan against scab. Azoxystrobin is very effective in controlling scab and possibly other diseases but growers may not use it extensively due to its higher cost per acre. The rest of the registered alternative fungicides appear to have limited viability for the control of pecan diseases. The scab pathogen has developed resistance against benomyl and thiophanate-methyl. Applications of dodine result in a phytotoxic response by several pecan varieties [Refs. 33 and 34]. Some states suggest that the use of dodine be restricted to certain varieties or be used only during the pre-pollination period [Ref. 35]. Applications of copper or sulfur may result in a phytotoxic response by pecan foliage at high temperatures. No data are available to determine the efficacy of fenarimol for control of scab. Based on a communication with a university plant pathologist, fenarimol is less efficacious than TPTH [Ref. 30].
Cultural controls are practiced to reduce scab infection. These include pruning the tree for better air circulation and the use of resistant varieties [Refs. 36, 37 and 38]. However, these non-chemical controls alone cannot provide acceptable control of scab.
2.
Growers use TPTH in the late season to control pathogen sporulation to prevent tuber blight phase of the disease. Recently registered fungicides (azoxystrobin, dimethemorph, and cymoxanil) also have antisporulation activity against the late blight pathogen. However, TPTH is preferred due to its lower per acre treatment costs, reasonable efficacy and because it has a different mode of action than the other registered alternatives, diminishing the likelihood of resistance development [Refs. 27 and 32].
Chlorothalonil, mancozeb and azoxystrobin are also effective in controlling early blight disease on potatoes. Based on three field studies, EPA concluded that combinations of TPTH/mancozeb fungicide applications provide either equal or greater efficacy than any other fungicide application for control of early blight [Refs. 39, 40 and 41]. However, a statistical analysis of the data indicates that there were no significant differences when comparing mancozeb/TPTH to mancozeb treatments in terms of yield. Thus, the Agency believes that if TPTH were not available, growers could use mancozeb at 0.80 to 1.60 lbs ai/A without any decrease in efficacy in the upper Midwest potato growing region. Other secondary alternatives (chlorothalonil, maneb and metiram) could also be used without any decrease in efficacy. The Agency is aware that the unavailability of TPTH might affect potato IPM programs. This may result in growers applying greater amounts of other fungicides (chlorothalonil and EBDCs) during the potato growing season than if TPTH use were allowed to continue.
Cultural controls are practiced to reduce fungal infection. These include: (1) Planting tolerant and/or resistant varieties and (2) supplying adequate fertilizer and water to maintain plant vigor and reduced susceptibility to fungal infection [Ref. 42]. However, fungicides are still needed for acceptable disease control.
3.
If both TPTH and tetraconazole were not available, then the growers would have no choice but to use mancozeb alone. Based on two comparative performance studies the Agency estimates sugarbeet growers would most likely use mancozeb without a decrease in efficacy if the spraying frequencies are doubled [Ref. 44]. The Agency estimates that seven mancozeb applications would be needed compared to a total of four with TPTH. This increased number of applications and the higher application rate of using EBDC fungicides would lead to an increase in the pesticide load on sugarbeets of about 10 lbs a.i./A, resulting in a negative impact on
Other registered fungicides on sugarbeets include benomyl, thiophanate-methyl and thiabendazole, and copper compounds. These fungicide are not considered viable alternatives due to the development of Cercospora leafspot isolates resistant to these fungicides [Ref. 45]. Cercospora leafspot resistance to TPTH has not occurred in the United States but has been reported in Greece where there has been extensive and exclusive use of the fungicide on sugarbeets [Ref. 25].
Cultural practices can mitigate disease incidence, but none of the practices can provide commercially acceptable control without the use of fungicides. These non-chemical control practices include the planting of resistant varieties and long crop rotations [Ref. 36].
Although no comments relating to the carcinogenicity or inhalation toxicity were received in response to the PD 1, the Agency did receive a number of comments relating to the toxicity and immunotoxicity of TPTH. A summary of these comments and the Agency's responses follow.
1.
2.
3.
A single comment relating to the reproductive effects toxicity of TPTH was received in response to the PD 1. A summary of this comment and the Agency's response follows.
A single comment relating to the toxicity to non-target organisms of
Comments relating to exposure to TPTH were received in response to the PD 1. A summary of those comments and the Agency's responses follow.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Over 490 comments to the TPTH PD1 were received and reviewed by the Agency for information useful to the assessment of fungicidal benefits of TPTH applications. Useful information includes that on efficacy, use practices, alternative control measures, economic impact, and extent of usage. The majority of the comments were endorsements of the benefits of TPTH for agricultural production. However, no data were submitted to support the benefits of TPTH in these testimonial comments. Responses to comments providing information on the benefits to TPTH are listed below.
1.
2.
The comment discussed the use of resistant varieties for control of scab. Most of the old resistant varieties found in pecan groves today were introduced because of their resistance to scab. However, the scab fungus has been able to overcome this resistance resulting in an increase in scab infection. The introduction of new pecan varieties does not provide acceptable scab resistance. The development of resistance by the scab fungus to introduced pecan varieties and the limited amount of available pecan germplasm indicate that varietal resistance may not be an acceptable method of control.
The comment also addressed registered alternative fungicides to TPTH, specifically benzimidazole fungicides (benomyl and thiophanate-methyl) and dodine. Applications of dodine result in a phytotoxic response to many pecan varieties. Pecan phytotoxicity to dodine was also addressed by several other comments from both the university and pecan grower community. Scab resistance to benzimidazole fungicides has been reported in several pecan orchards. Pest resistance has resulted in the failure of this class of fungicides to control scab.
3.
EPA has evaluated the risk posed by TPTH to workers mixing, loading and applying the pesticide to pecans, sugarbeets and potatoes. Developmental toxicity MOE estimates are greater than 100 for mixer/loaders using the flowable concentrate formulation, with the exception of applications to sugar beets at the maximum application rate with aerial/chemigation application (MOE of 84), based on conservative assumptions and a developmental NOAEL based on the highest dose tested, since no LOAEL was established. MOEs for mixer/loaders for the wettable powder formulation in water soluble bags for aerial/chemigation application are less than 100 (ranging from 33 to 82); however, the Agency believes these MOEs are actually over 100 given deficiencies in the exposure study used to model this formulation (see discussion in Unit IV.E. of this preamble). MOEs for applicators and harvesters are all greater than 100.
The cancer risks to mixer/loaders range from 1.0
If TPTH were unavailable, growers would have to use greater quantities of alternative fungicides. Some of these may not provide as effective control as TPTH. Reliance on available alternatives, without the ability to rotate in TPTH treatments, could also result in an increased likelihood of resistance development. Additional possible disadvantages of using alternative fungicides include phytotoxicity, limited availability due to local restrictions, and higher cost. Unavailability of TPTH could also result in increased use of EBDC fungicides, which are used at shorter intervals than TPTH and at higher rates, resulting in a higher overall volume of pesticide use and environmental loading.
Based on its risk and benefits assessment, the Agency has concluded that the risks associated with the use of TPTH in accordance with current label restrictions are not unreasonable. Therefore, benefits provided from the use of TPTH outweigh the risks.
EPA has concluded that the risks of TPTH are outweighed by the benefits of continued use. EPA proposes to terminate the Special Review examining the developmental toxicity of TPTH to workers. Label modifications highlighting teratogenic risks and requiring protective gear and the adoption of engineering controls (use of water soluble packs, closed mixing/loading systems, and mechanical transfer systems) have significantly reduced worker exposure to TPTH. The availability of dermal developmental data and data on dermal absorption have enabled the Agency to refine the 1985 risk assessment used in the PD 1, which assumed 100% dermal absorption and minimal worker protection. The risks associated with exposure to TPTH are thus considered to be outweighed by the benefits derived from its use. The Agency believes that exposure to TPTH does not pose an unreasonable risk to workers or the general public under currently labeled use conditions, which include classification as a Restricted Use Pesticide, engineering controls and protective clothing requirements.
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Triphenyltin Hydroxide Pesticide Registration Standard and Guidance Document, September 1984.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH), November 1999.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Triphenyltin Hydroxide: Toxicology Branch Chapter for the RED, Memorandum from John Doherty to Angel Chiri, March 22, 1999.
4. Rodwell, D. (1987). An Embryotoxicity Study in Rabbits with Tri-phenyltin Hydroxide: Laboratory Project No. WIL-39012. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories. 308 p. (MRID 40104801).
5. Carlton, B.D.; Connell, M.M. (1981). Final Report on Evaluation of the Teratogenicity of Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH) in the Sprague-Dawley Rat: Project No. NO723-0200. (Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1982 under 148-689; prepared by Battelle, submitted by Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co., Kansas City, KS.; CDL:070696-A) (MRID 00094903).
6. Kavlock, Robert J. Triphenyltin Hydroxide Developmental Toxicology Study, EPA, Health Effects Research Laboratory, RTP, March 28, 1985.
7. Bates, D. (1985). A Teratology Study in Rats with Triphenyltin Hydroxide: Final Report: Project No. WIL-39011. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. 371 p. (MRID 00144489).
8. Tasker, E. (1985). One Generation Teratology and Reproductive Study in Rats with Triphenyltin Hydroxide: Project No: WIL-39013: Final Rept. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories, Inc. 443 p. (MRID 00142878).
9. American Hoechst Corp. (1986). A Dietary Two-generation Reproduction Study in Rats with Triphenyltin Hydroxide: Final Report: Project No. WIL-39022. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Laboratories. 2,815 p. (MRID 00162655).
10. Carlton, B.D.; Howard, M. (1982). Final Report on the Evaluation of the Teratogenicity of Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH) in the Syrian Golden Hamster: Project No. NO723-0100. (Unpublished study received Mar 2, 1982 under 148-689; prepared by Battelle, submitted by Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co., Kansas City, KS.; CDL:070697-A) (MRID 00094904).
11. Miller, Victor. Memorandum to Louis Kerestesy and Eric Ferris and Susan Lewis (all USEPA). Peer Review of Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH), Tox. Chemical No. 896E. January 9, 1991.
12. Nemec, M. (1993). A Developmental Toxicity Study of Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH) Administered Dermally in Rabbits: Final Report: Lab Project Number: WIL-160012. Unpublished study prepared by WIL Research Labs, Inc. 493 p. (MRID 42909101).
13. Tennekes, H.; Horst, K.; Luetkemeier, H.; et al. (1989). TPTH Technical (Code: HOE 029664 of ZD97 0004) Chronic Toxicity/Oncogenicity: 104-week Feeding Study in Rats: Laboratory Project ID No. 046980. Unpublished study prepared by Research & Consulting Co. AG. in cooperation with Experimental Pathology Services, ANAWA Laboratories AG and Cytotest Cell Research GmbH & Co. KG. 2116 p. (MRID 41085702).
14. Tennekes, H.; Horst, K.; Luetkemeier, H.; et al. (1989). TPTH Technical (Code: HOE 029664 of ZD97 0004) Oncogenicity: 80-week Feeding Study in Mice: Laboratory Project ID No. 047002. Unpublished study prepared by Research & Consulting Co. AG in cooperation with Experimental Pathology Services and ANAWA Laboratories AG and CCR. 1428 p. (MRID 41085701).
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Peer Review of Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH), Memorandum from Roy Sjoblad to Jack Housenger, 1990.
16. Doherty, John and Copley, Marion. Memorandum to Jack Housenger (USEPA) and Cynthia Giles-Parker (USEPA).
17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. TPTH (Triphenyltin Hydroxide): HED Revised Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document, Memorandum from Sarah Levy to Loan Phan, September 21, 1999.
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH)—Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee, Memorandum from John Doherty and Jess Rowland to Christina Scheltema, November 13, 1998.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Revised Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment and Recommendations for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document for Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH), Memorandum from Kelly O'Rourke to Sarah Law, September 14, 1999.
21. Bookbinder, M. (1995). Exposure of Workers Mixing/Loading Super-Tin 80WP (Triphenyltin Hydroxide: TPTH) Fungicide for Application to Pecan Groves in Georgia: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: AA930104. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and Griffin Corp. Chemical Services. 602 p. (MRID 43599401).
22. Lewis, Paul and Scheltema, Christina. Memorandum to Jude Andreasen (USEPA). Revised Occupational Risk Assessment for the Use of TPTH on Pecans. March 6, 1997.
23. Bookbinder, M. (1994). Exposure of Workers During Reentry into Pecan Groves Treated with Super-Tin 80WP (Triphenyltin Hydroxide: TPTH) Fungicide: Final Report: Lab Project Number: AA930102: AA930103. Unpublished study prepared by American Agricultural Services, Inc. and Case Consulting Labs, Inc. 1000 p. (MRID 43557401).
24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review of Reentry Data Submission to Support the Reregistration of Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH), Memorandum from Jeff Evans to Eric Feris, March 1, 1993.
25. Chrysayi-Tokousbalides, M. and Giannopolitis, C.N. 1981. Cross-resistance in
26. Stevenson, W. 1992. University of Wisconsin. Personal communication to P.I. Lewis (USEPA). March 9, 1992.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH) Benefits Analysis, Memorandum from Tara Chand-Goyal and John Faulkner to Robert McNally/Loan Phan, August 15, 1999.
28. Latham, H.A. and Hammond, J.M. 1983. Control of
29. Hare, J.D.; Logan, P.A.; and Wright, R.J. 1983. Suppression of Colorado potato beetle,
30. White, L.V. Griffin Corporation. 1991. Personal communication to J. Lamb. Jellinek, Schwartz, Connolly, Freshman, Inc. August 16, 1991.
31. Jones, R. 1992. University of Minnesota. Personal communication to P.I. Lewis. USEPA. March 25, 1992.
32. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review of Supplemental Information (Letters, Faxes and E-Mails from the Growers, Commodity Groups and University Researchers) to Update TPTH Benefits Based on Fungicide Resistance Management on Pecans, Potatoes, and Sugarbeets, Memorandum from Tara Chand-Goyal to Nancy Zahedi/Robert McNally, November 1999.
33. Brown, S. Crocker, T.F., Ellis, H.C., and Hadden, J. (1991). Georgia pecan spray guide. The University of Georgia. Cooperative Extension Service. College of Agriculture.
34. McVay, J.R. Estes, P. Gazaway, W.S., Patterson, M.G. J.W. Everest and W.D. Goff. (1991). 1991 Commercial Pecan Insect, Disease and Weed Control Recommendations. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. Auburn University, Auburn, AL. Circular ANR-27.
35. Littrell, R.H. and Betrand, P.F. (1981). Management of Pecan Fruit and Foliar Diseases and Fungicides. Plant Disease 65:769-774.
36. Horne, C.W., Amador, J.M., Johnson, J.D., McCoy, N.L., Philley, G.L., Lee, T.A., Kaufman, H.W., Jones, R.K., Barnes, L.W. and Black, M.C. (1988). Texas Plant Disease Handbook. B-1140. College Station, TX.
37. Amling, H.J. Everest, J.W. Goff, W.D. McVay, J.R. (1984). Pecan Production. Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. Circular ANR-54. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
38. Latham, A.J. Carden, E.L., and McDaniel, N.R. (1988). Highlights of Agricultural Research. 35:10. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
39. Stevenson, W.R. and Gilson, F.A. (1982). Control of potato early and late blight with foliar fungicide sprays, 1981. Fungicide and Nematicide Test Results. 37:157.
40. Stevenson, W.R., James, R.V., and Stewart, J.S. (1991). Wisconsin Vegetable Disease Trials—1990. University of Wisconsin.
41. Stevenson, W.R., Stewart, J., Pscheidt, J., and Sanderson, P. (1986). Evaluation of foliar sprays for control of potato early blight, 1985. Fungicide and Nematicide Tests. 41:105.
42. Binning, L.K. et al. (1991). Commercial Vegetable Production in Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin. Madison, WI.
43. Lamey, H.A. (1999). Department of Plant Pathology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND. Personal communications to Tara Chand-Goyal (USEPA) in October and November, 1999.
44. Ely, C. (1985). Covington and Burling. Washington, DC. Comments on behalf of American Hoechst Corporation, Duphar, Griffin Corporation, M&T Chemical Inc., and Wesley Industries, Inc. in Response to the Notice of Special Review for Pesticide Products Containing Triphenyltin Hydroxide (TPTH).
45. Lamey, H.A. (1991). North Dakota Plant Disease Control Guide. NDSU Extension Service. Fargo, ND.
46. Ravert, J.; Parke, G.S.E. (1976). Investigation of Teratogenic and Toxic Potential of Technical Triphenyltin Hydroxide: Laboratory No. 6E-524. (Unpublished study received Oct 18, 1979 under 148-689; prepared by Cannon Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Thompson-Hayward Chemical Co., Kansas City, KS; CDL:099051-A) (MRID 00086547).
Environmental protection.