Agricultural Marketing Service
Forest Service
National Agricultural Statistics Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Minerals Management Service
Reclamation Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
Management and Budget Office
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Agricultural Statistics Service
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Small Business Administration.
Final rule.
This final rule modifies the management-ownership diversity requirement in SBA's Small Business Investment Company (“SBIC”) Program to prohibit the ownership of more than 70% of a leveraged SBIC by any single investor or group of affiliated investors. An exception to the prohibition permits an investor that qualifies as a “traditional investment company”, as determined by SBA, to own in excess of 70% of an SBIC. This final rule will help to ensure that each new leveraged SBIC has managers that exercise independence in managing the operations of the SBIC.
This rule is effective on December 29, 2000.
Leonard W. Fagan, at (202) 205-7583.
On August 14, 2000, SBA published a proposed rule (65 FR 49511) to revise the management-ownership diversity regulation in SBA's Small Business Investment Company (“SBIC”) Program. Under the proposal, no single investor or group of affiliated investors would be permitted to own or control more than 70% of a leveraged SBIC. SBA also proposed an exception to allow an entity qualifying as a “traditional investment company” to own and control more than 70% of an SBIC. SBA solicited comments on the proposed rule and specifically sought comment as to whether the proposed exception should be expanded to cover other categories of investors.
SBA received no comments on the proposed rule and, accordingly, is finalizing it without substantive change. SBA has made certain minor non-substantive edits to the proposed version of section 107.150 (“Management-ownership diversity requirement”), including relettering of the paragraphs, in order to conform to drafting requirements of the
The proposed rule summarized the changes in the management-ownership diversity regulation since its adoption in 1994. That summary and SBA's explanation of the proposed changes to the regulation, all of which have been implemented in this final rule, are repeated here as a convenience to the reader.
In 1994, SBA adopted a regulation requiring that all small business investment companies (“SBICs”) intending to issue participating securities have independence, or “diversity”, between the management and the ownership of the company. 59 Fed. Reg. 16918 (April 8, 1994). This requirement of independence was designed to prevent the types of abuses that SBA had observed in SBICs owned and operated by a single individual or group of individuals. The abuses, which included conflict of interest transactions, misapplication of funds, and other types of self-dealing activities, had resulted in significant losses to SBA.
To satisfy the 1994 management-ownership diversity regulation, at least 30% of the capital of the SBIC had to be owned by investors who were neither Associates nor Affiliates of any Associates of the SBIC (as such terms were defined in 13 CFR Parts 107 and 121). In other words, at least 30% of the capital of the SBIC had to be owned by investors who were not part of the SBIC's management team and did not control the SBIC's management team. In general, three such “diversity investors” were required, but a single diversity investor would suffice if the investor was an entity that met certain net worth and regulatory oversight requirements.
The 1994 regulation permitted an SBIC with a parent company (
In 1996, SBA extended the management-ownership diversity requirement to all new SBICs intending to use SBA financial assistance, or “leverage”, whether the leverage was in the form of participating securities or debentures. 61 FR 3177 (January 31, 1996). SBA also replaced the automatic look-through provision described above with a discretionary look-through: SBA, in the exercise of its discretion, could look through to the parent's investors, but such treatment was no longer automatic. This change was in response to the increasing complexity SBA was encountering in “drop-down” SBICs (SBIC subsidiaries of larger companies), where the combination of multi-tiered organizational structures and other factors had led SBA to conclude that the necessary oversight by independent owners might not be present. SBA could still look through to the parent company's investors to find diversity, but would do so only if SBA believed that the result was consistent with the intent of the diversity regulation.
Later in 1996, Congress expressed its support for management-ownership diversity by enacting a statutory provision requiring SBA to ensure that the management of all new SBICs “is sufficiently diversified from and unaffiliated with the ownership of the licensee in a manner that ensures independence and objectivity in the financial management and oversight of the investments and operations of the licensee.” 15 U.S.C. 682(c); Public Law 104-208, section 208(c)(3) (September 30, 1996). SBA subsequently made minor changes to strengthen the management-ownership diversity regulation. These changes included requiring (1) that the diversity investors be unrelated to each other, (2) that each diversity investor have a significant ownership interest in dollar and percentage terms, and (3) that an SBIC's diversity be evidenced in its paid-in capital, not just its unfunded commitments. 63 FR 5859 (February 5, 1998).
As SBA stated in the proposed rule published on August 14, 2000, SBA believes that, overall, the management-ownership diversity regulation has been successful in encouraging the presence of investors who are truly independent of management. However, SBA has had
To provide diversity under the regulation as in effect since 1994, the non-management interest was required to be at least 30% of the SBIC, but could have been as much as 100% and could have been owned by a single entity. This single super-majority investor could provide the required diversity from management as long as the investor did not control, was not controlled by, and was not under common control with, the managers of the SBIC. Thus, for diversity to be provided by a single super-majority investor who was otherwise unrelated to the SBIC's management team, SBA had to conclude that the investor did not control the SBIC's managers by virtue of the size of the investor's ownership interest in the SBIC.
As SBA explained in the proposed rule, SBA believes that the degree of influence that can be exerted by a super-majority investor may significantly reduce the management team's ability to act independently and objectively. The larger the size of an investor's ownership interest, the greater the investor's potential influence over the activities of the SBIC. This is true even if the investor is a passive limited partner.
At some ownership level, an investor's power to influence effectively becomes the power to control the managers of the SBIC, and the management team can no longer be said to have the ability to act independently. SBA's experience in administering the management-ownership diversity regulation persuaded it that it is difficult to objectively establish when that ownership level is reached. However, if the super-majority investor is limited to owning not more than 70%, and there is a 30% diversity investor that is independent of both the management and the super-majority investor, the super-majority investor's degree of potential influence on management becomes acceptable.
Accordingly, SBA proposed to amend the management-ownership diversity regulation, section 107.150, to prohibit ownership of more than 70% of a leveraged SBIC by a single investor or group of affiliated investors.
SBA recognized that there might be categories of investors who could be permitted to own in excess of 70% of an SBIC without destroying the SBIC's management-ownership diversity. SBA proposed an exception for one such category—the traditional investment company—a professionally managed firm organized exclusively to pool capital from more than one source for the purpose of investing in businesses that are expected to generate substantial returns to the firm's investors.
A subsidiary SBIC of such a traditional investment company can offer meaningful management-ownership diversity even if the investment company owns substantially all of the SBIC. This is true for a number of reasons. First, a traditional investment company has managers who are largely unrelated to and unaffiliated with the investors in the firm. These independent managers typically also serve as the managers of the subsidiary SBIC. Second, the managers of a traditional investment company and its subsidiary SBIC are properly authorized and motivated to make investments that, in their independent judgment, are likely to produce significant returns to all investors in the investment company and in the SBIC. Although the managers act independently of the investors in the firm, they are directly accountable to them. Most importantly, a traditional investment company benefits from the use of a subsidiary SBIC only if the SBIC makes profitable investments.
As SBA discussed in the proposed rule, SBICs with other types of super-majority investors do not necessarily present the same degree of management independence and objectivity, plus investor oversight. The objectives of other super-majority investors may include something other than profit maximization at the SBIC level. Large operating companies, for example, may profit from the use of a subsidiary SBIC other than through the financial performance of the SBIC. The SBIC might make strategic investments to support or otherwise benefit the non-investing activities of the operating company, rather than investments intended solely to contribute to the profitability of the SBIC. This would defeat one of the underlying purposes of management-ownership diversity—the protection of SBA's financial interest in the SBIC.
Under the final rule, a traditional investment company is permitted to own and control more than 70% of an SBIC.
In addition, the final rule adopts without change the proposed revisions to the 30% test (new paragraph (c) of section 107.150) in the management-ownership diversity regulation. Under those revisions, (1) publicly-traded licensees can no longer automatically satisfy the 30% test, (2) two new categories are added to the list of entities permitted to serve as the sole (30%) diversity investor in an SBIC, and (3) the scope of one of the other categories of entities on that list is clarified.
The first of those revisions is accomplished by deleting paragraph (a)(2) of the old diversity regulation. The second revision, the addition of two new categories of entities permitted to serve as the sole diversity investor, appears in new paragraphs (c)(1)(ii) and (iii) of section 107.150. The new categories are Institutional Investors that (1) are listed on the New York Stock Exchange or (2) are publicly-traded and meet the minimum numerical and corporate governance listing standards of that Exchange. Companies satisfying either of these listing standards have sufficient size and public oversight and visibility to justify treating them the same as regulated companies for purposes of the diversity regulation. SBA expects this change to resolve any uncertainty as to the requirements for a publicly-traded company to be considered acceptable to SBA as a single diversity investor under the regulation.
The third revision referred to above appears in new paragraph (c)(1)(i) of section 107.150. It makes clear that an entity seeking to qualify as the sole diversity investor because it is subject to government oversight or regulation must have its overall activities both regulated and periodically examined by a governmental authority satisfactory to SBA. U.S. federal and state bank regulators or insurance commissions are examples of satisfactory governmental authorities for this purpose. Regulation of an entity's health and safety activities by the Office of Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), on the other hand, would not be acceptable for this purpose.
An existing SBIC that is not currently required to have diversity will become subject to the new management-ownership diversity regulation only if (1) the SBIC applies for approval of a change of control and SBA requires diversity as a condition of its approval, or (2) the SBIC was not licensed with the expectation that it would issue leverage but it now seeks approval to do so.
As was proposed, SBA also is amending section 107.440(c) to clarify that SBA's approval of a change of control of an SBIC may be conditioned upon the licensee's compliance with the diversity regulation, as well as minimum capital requirements, then in effect. This has been SBA's practice since the diversity regulation was first adopted.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and therefore was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
SBA has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The purpose of the final rule is to redefine and clarify the concept of management-ownership diversity in an SBIC. The final rule will not apply to the approximately 365 companies currently licensed as SBICs, except in the insignificant number of cases where a transfer of control of the licensee occurs or where an SBIC that was not licensed with the expectation that it would issue leverage applies for such approval.
For purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA has determined that this final rule is drafted, to the extent practicable, in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 3 of that Order.
For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule will have no federalism implications.
For purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. Ch. 35, SBA has determined that this final rule contains no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
Investment companies, Loan programs—business, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.
1. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 681
(a)
(1) In order to obtain an SBIC license (unless you do not plan to obtain Leverage),
(2) If at the time you were licensed you did not plan to obtain Leverage, but you now wish to be eligible for Leverage, or
(3) If SBA so requires as a condition of approval of your transfer of Control under § 107.440.
(b)
(2)
(i) Whether the managers of the firm are unrelated to and unaffiliated with the investors in the firm;
(ii) Whether the managers of the firm are authorized and motivated to make investments that, in their independent judgment, are likely to produce significant returns to all investors in the firm;
(iii) Whether the firm benefits from the use of the SBIC only through the financial performance of the SBIC; and
(iv) Other related factors.
(c)
(i) Entities whose overall activities are regulated and periodically examined by state, Federal or other governmental authorities satisfactory to SBA;
(ii) Entities listed on the New York Stock Exchange;
(iii) Entities that are publicly-traded and that meet both the minimum numerical listing standards and the corporate governance listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange;
(iv) Public or private employee pension funds;
(v) Trusts, foundations, or endowments, but only if exempt from Federal income taxation; and
(vi) Other Institutional Investors satisfactory to SBA.
(2)
(d)
(2)
(e)
(1) Notify SBA within 10 days; and
(2) Re-establish diversity within six months. For the consequences of failure to re-establish diversity, see §§ 107.1810(g) and 107.1820(f).
(c) Require compliance with any other conditions set by SBA, including compliance with the requirements for minimum capital and management-ownership diversity as in effect at such time for new license applicants.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the food additive regulations to provide for the safe use of ultraviolet (UV) irradiation to reduce human pathogens and other microorganisms in juice products. This action is in response to a food additive petition filed by California Day-Fresh Foods, Inc.
This rule is effective November 29, 2000. Submit written objections and requests for a hearing by December 29, 2000.
Submit written objections to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
William J. Trotter, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-206), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3088.
In a notice published in the
Under section 201(s) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 321(s)), a source of radiation used to treat food is defined as a food additive. The additive is not, literally, added to food. Instead, a source of radiation is used to process or treat food such that, analogous to other food processes, its use can affect the characteristics of the food. In the subject petition, the intended technical effect is a change in the microbial load of the food, specifically, a reduction of human pathogens and other microorganisms in juice products.
FDA has evaluated the safety of the use of UV irradiation to reduce human pathogens and other microorganisms in juices. This safety assessment was based on the current understanding of the effects of UV irradiation on the major chemical components of food. Having evaluated the data in the petition and other relevant material in the agency's files, the agency finds that any photochemical changes that may occur as a result of the UV irradiation are of no toxicological significance (Ref. 1).
The petitioner submitted data demonstrating the reduction of specific pathogens (
The petitioned UV radiation is produced by low pressure mercury lamps, which emit more than 90 percent of their light at 253.7 nanometers (nm) (2,537 Angstroms); juice being treated passes through a transparent tube in which the juice is subjected to UV irradiation. Because most juices strongly absorb UV radiation, most of the UV radiation would be absorbed by the juice at the wall of the tube near the source of the UV irradiation. However, the amount of UV irradiation that would reach juice in the middle of the tube would be insufficient to reduce significantly human pathogens. Therefore, the petitioner proposed that the juices flow under turbulent conditions that produce eddies and swirls in the juice to ensure that as much juice as possible will reach the wall of the UV transparent tube where the juice would be exposed to UV irradiation. This would help to reduce human pathogens and other microorganisms throughout the juice. The conditions for turbulent flow are described mathematically by the unitless Reynolds number (Re):
The amount of UV irradiation necessary for human pathogen reduction will depend on various factors, such as the type of juice, the initial microbial load, and the design of the irradiation system (
Based on the data and studies submitted in the petition and other information in the agency's files, FDA concludes that the proposed use of UV irradiation of juice products is safe, that the irradiation will achieve its intended technical effect, and therefore, that the regulations in § 179.39 should be amended as set forth below.
FDA is also making an editorial change to the existing regulation to describe more accurately the approved emission sources and to remove an unnecessary and confusing description. This change does not affect the nature or properties of permitted sources. Currently, § 179.39(a) stipulates that “The radiation sources consist of ultraviolet emission tubes designed to emit wavelengths within the range of 2200-3000 Angstrom units with 90 percent of the emission being the wavelength 2537 Angstrom units.” The stipulation that 90 percent of the emission is at 253.7 nm (2,537 Angstroms) is sufficient to describe the sources as low pressure mercury lamps. Furthermore, since a small percentage of the emission from these tubes is outside of the 220.0 to 300.0 nm (2,200 to 3,000 Angstroms) range, this restriction is factually inaccurate. Therefore, FDA is removing the restriction of the wavelength range in § 179.39(a) and in the table in paragraph (b) under the “Limitations column,” and is instead specifying that the source of the irradiation to be low pressure mercury lamps.
In accordance with § 171.1(h) (21 CFR 171.1(h)), the petition and the documents that FDA considered and relied upon in reaching its decision to approve the petition are available for inspection at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition by appointment with the information contact person listed above. As provided in § 171.1(h), the agency will delete from the documents any materials that are not available for public disclosure before making the documents available for inspection.
The agency has previously considered the environmental effects of this rule as announced in the Filing Notice for FAP 9M4676 (June 25, 1999, 64 FR 34258). No new information or comments have been received that would affect the agency's previous determination that there is no significant impact on the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required.
This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Any person who will be adversely affected by this regulation may at any time file with the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written objections by December 29, 2000. Each objection shall be separately numbered, and each numbered objection shall specify with particularity the provisions of the regulation to which objection is made and the grounds for the objection. Each numbered objection on which a hearing is requested shall specifically so state. Failure to request a hearing for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on that objection. Each numbered objection for which a hearing is requested shall include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information intended to be presented in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. Failure to include such a description and analysis for any particular objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing on the objection. Three copies of all documents are to be submitted and are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The following references have been placed on display in the Dockets Management Branch (address above) and may be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
1. FDA Memorandum, A. Mattia to W. Trotter, November 2, 1999.
2. FDA Memorandum, E. Jensen to W. Trotter, September 6, 2000.
3. FDA Memorandum, R. Merker to W. Trotter, January 26, 2000.
4. FDA Memorandum, E. Jensen to W. Trotter, October 27, 1999.
5. FDA Memorandum, E. Jensen to W. Trotter, October 27, 2000.
Food additives, Food labeling, Food packaging, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs and symbols.
21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 343, 348, 373, 374.
(a) The radiation sources consist of low pressure mercury lamps emitting 90 percent of the emission at a wavelength of 253.7 nanometers (2,537 Angstroms).
(b) * * *
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of implementation.
This notice implements 33 CFR 100.1101, Southern California annual marine events, for the San Diego Christmas Boat Parade of Lights. The event will consist of private vessels approximately 10 to 60 feet in length with Christmas lights formed in a parade through the San Diego Harbor. These regulations will be effective on that portion of San Diego Harbor, from the northern portion of the main channel from Seaport Village to the Shelter Island Yacht Basin. Notice of Implementation of 33 CFR 100.1101 is necessary to control vessel traffic in the regulated areas during the event to ensure the safety of participants and spectators.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 100.1101(b)(3), Commanding Officer, Coast Guard Activities San Diego, is designated Patrol Commander for this event; he has the authority to delegate this responsibility to any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast Guard.
This section is effective on December 10, 2000 from 2:00 p.m. (PST) until 10:00 p.m. (PST) and on December 17, 2000 from 5:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m. (PST). If the event concludes prior to the scheduled termination date and/or time, the Coast Guard will cease enforcement of this section and will announce that fact via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Petty Officer Nicole Lavorgna, U.S. Coast Guard MSO San Diego, San Diego, California; Telephone: (619) 683-6495.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule as a matter of information to the public. The Kansas City Southern Lift Bridge across the Neches River, mile 19.5, in Beaumont, TX is currently controlled from a remote location. The owner of the bridge, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company operates the bridge from their dispatch office in Shreveport, LA. This rule provides the public with a complete description of the operation of this bridge.
This rule becomes effective on November 29, 2000.
Documents referred to in this rule are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Hale Boggs Federal Building, room 1313, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-3396 between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (504) 589-2965. Commander (ob) maintains the public docket for this rulemaking.
Mr. David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone number 504-589-2965.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM.
An NPRM is not necessary because this rule makes no substantive changes to the operation of the Kansas City Southern Lift Bridge, but it does describe the full remote operation of the bridge for the benefit of the public.
The Kansas City Southern Lift Bridge across the Neches River, mile 19.5, in Beaumont, TX is a remotely operated railroad bridge that opens to navigation on demand. The owners of the bridge, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company operates the bridge remotely from Shreveport, LA and has installed a sound device that transmits the vessel signals for an opening to the bridge operator. Then, through this same device, the bridge operator can respond whether the bridge can be opened at that time or not. No changes will be made to how the bridge currently operates.
For the benefit of the public, the Coast Guard is adding a description of the full operation of this remotely operated bridge to 33 CFR 117 subpart b.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this final rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Because the Coast Guard expects there to be no impact from this rule, it certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Coast Guard expects no impact from this rule. There will be no changes made to the operation of the bridge.
This final rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that this final rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This final rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
This final rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This final rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
We considered the environmental impact of this final rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this final rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This final rule will not change the operation of the bridge. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Bridges.
33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 105 Stat. 5039.
(a) The draw of the Kansas City Southern automated bridge, mile 19.5, at Beaumont, is not constantly manned and is operated from a remote site in Shreveport, Louisiana. The bridge is normally maintained in the closed to navigation position, providing 13 feet of vertical clearance above mean high tide. This bridge will open on signal.
(1) Mariners may request a bridge opening at anytime via one of the following methods:
(i) Telephone at 1-877-829-6295;
(ii) Marine radio on VHF-FM Channel 16; or
(iii) Proper sound signal as prescribed in § 117.15.
(2) When signaling by sound, if return sound signal is not sent from the remote bridge operator, in compliance with § 117.15, contact the remote operator via telephone or marine radio.
(3) An audible warning siren will sound when the bridge is in motion. Video cameras will constantly monitor the waterway near and under the draw. Once a vessel has passed through the bridge, the draw will lower, provided the infrared “under bridge” presence detector and video cameras reveal nothing under the draw.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation in 33 CFR 117.979 governing the operation of the State Route 82, swing span bridge across Sabine Lake, mile 10.0 at Port Arthur, Texas. This deviation allows the State of Texas, Department of Transportation to close the bridge to navigation from 7 a.m. on December 1, 2000 through 5 p.m. on December 15, 2000. Presently, the draw is required to open on signal except that from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall open on signal if at least six hours notice is given to the Maintenance Construction Supervisor or the Maintenance Foreman at Port Arthur. This temporary deviation is issued to allow for replacement of the operator house and to perform electrical and mechanical maintenance.
This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. on December 1, 2000 through 5 p.m. on December 15, 2000.
Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this notice are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Commander (ob), 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130-3396. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
Phil Johnson, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone (504) 589-2965.
The State Route 82, swing span bridge across Sabine Lake, mile 10.2, near Port Arthur, Texas, has a vertical clearance of 9 feet above high water in the closed-to-navigation position and unlimited clearance in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of fishing vessels, and recreational craft, although the bridge is occasionally transited by small tugs with tows, transporting sand, gravel and marine shells. The State of Texas, Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation from the normal operation of the drawbridge in order to accommodate the maintenance work, involving construction of a new operator house and replacement of the submarine power supply cable and other electrical and mechanical repairs. This maintenance is necessary for the continued operation of the bridge. An alternate route via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway is available.
This deviation allows the draw of the State Route 82 Bridge swing span drawbridge across Sabine Lake, mile 10.0, to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. on December 1, 2000 through 5 p.m. on December 15, 2000.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is redesignating the Nashua, New Hampshire nonattainment area to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) air quality standard and approving a maintenance plan that will insure that the Nashua area remains in attainment. The EPA is also redesignating the Manchester, New Hampshire nonattainment area to attainment for the CO air quality standard and approving a maintenance plan that will insure that the Manchester area remains in attainment. Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the CAA), designations can be revised if sufficient data are available to warrant such revisions and the request to redesignate shows that all of the requirements of section 107(d)(E)(3) of the CAA have been met. EPA is approving the New Hampshire maintenance plans and other redesignation submittals because they meet the maintenance plan and redesignation requirements, and will ensure that the two areas remains in attainment. The approved maintenance plans will become a federally enforceable part of the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action, EPA is also approving the New Hampshire 1990 baseline emission inventories for both of these areas, transportation conformity budgets for both areas and a revision to the motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/M) SIP approved for the Nashua area.
This direct final rule is effective January 29, 2001 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 29, 2000. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air Quality Planning, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Copies of the State's redesignation requests and other information supporting this action and EPA's technical support document are available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA and Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.
Jeffrey S. Butensky, Environmental Planner, Air Quality Planning Unit of the Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England office, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1665 or at butensky.jeff@epa.gov.
On February 2, 1999, the State of New Hampshire submitted formal CO redesignation requests for the City of Manchester and the City of Nashua. These two submittals also included maintenance plans, 1990 CO emission inventories, and transportation conformity budgets for both cities. Both of these submittals are being approved in today's action. New Hampshire also submitted a revision to the CO attainment SIP for Nashua. This submittal, dated February 1, 1999, requests to replace the previously implemented CO I/M program in the Nashua area with controls consisting of the existing federal Tier 1 emission
Inhaling high levels of CO inhibits the blood's capacity to carry oxygen to organs and tissues. Persons with heart disease, children, and individuals with respiratory diseases are particularly sensitive to CO. Effects of CO on healthy adults include impaired exercise capacity, visual perception, manual dexterity, learning functions, and ability to perform complex tasks. As a result of these potential health impacts, EPA developed National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), or the level at which CO concentrations in the ambient air become unhealthful.
The City of Manchester was designated nonattainment on March 31, 1978 (43 FR 8962) and the City of Nashua was designated nonattainment on April 11, 1980 (45 FR 24869). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Pursuant to Section 107(d)(1)(C) of the CAA, the City of Manchester and the City of Nashua retained their designations of nonattainment for carbon monoxide by operation of law. See (56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991)). At the same time, both areas were classified as “not classified” since ambient monitoring data for both areas was showing attainment of the CO NAAQS.
Because these areas were not classified under the CAA, it is section 172 of the CAA that sets forth the applicable requirements for these nonattainment areas. The 1990 CAA required such areas to achieve the standard by November 15, 1995, and both Manchester and Nashua have fulfilled this requirement.
On February 1, 1999, the State of New Hampshire sent EPA a CO attainment plan revision request for Nashua, and on February 2, 1999, submitted a redesignation request, maintenance plan, requisite emission inventory, and conformity budgets for the City of Nashua. Similarly, on February 2, 1999, New Hampshire submitted a redesignation request, maintenance plan, requisite emission inventory, and conformity budget for the City of Manchester. All of these components are being approved today and are discussed in detail in this document. New Hampshire submitted evidence that the State held public hearings on January 7, 1999, for the Nashua CO attainment plan revision, the Nashua CO redesignation request and related components, and the Manchester CO redesignation request and related components.
In 1985, the State of New Hampshire submitted several SIP revisions forming the components the CO attainment plan that included a basic I/M program for CO. This basic CO I/M program was implemented in Nashua and eleven surrounding towns
Prior to redesignation, New Hampshire cannot remove the Nashua CO I/M program from its SIP unless it makes a demonstration under CAA section 193, the so-called savings clause, that the State is replacing that program with another that achieves equivalent or greater emissions reductions in the nonattainment area. Therefore, in addition to requesting that EPA redesignate the Nashua area to attainment, the State also submitted a request to replace the Nashua CO I/M program with controls consisting of the Tier 1 emission standards and the reformulated gasoline program (RFG). These programs became effective in New Hampshire in 1994 and 1995, respectively.
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) conducted an analysis that provides evidence that the Tier 1 emission standards and the RFG program are providing equal or more emission reductions that the Nashua CO I/M program. The calculations show that the replacement package of measures (
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments provides five specific requirements that an area must meet in order to be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.
1. The area must have attained the applicable NAAQS;
2. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of CAA;
3. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable;
4. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA;
5. The area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D of the CAA.
The New Hampshire redesignation request meets the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) as discussed in the following:
1.
2.
On October 5, 1982, and December 20, 1982, the State submitted an attainment plan for Manchester that EPA subsequently approved on June 27, 1983 (48 FR 29479). To reach attainment, the state implemented signal adjustments and the addition of turn lanes in the downtown Manchester area.
Before EPA may redesignate the New Hampshire areas to attainment, the SIP must have fulfilled the applicable requirements of part D. Under part D, an area's classification indicates the requirements to which it is subject. Subpart 1 of part D sets forth the basic nonattainment requirements applicable to all nonattainment areas, classified as well as not classifiable. Therefore, to be redesignated to attainment, the State must meet the applicable requirements of subpart 1 of part D—specifically sections 172(c) and 176. Additionally, the 1990 CAA required that CO nonattainment areas such as Manchester and Nashua to achieve other specific new requirements. Each of these requirements are discussed in greater detail below.
These conformity rules require that the States adopt both transportation and general conformity provisions in the SIP for areas designated nonattainment or subject to a maintenance plan approved under CAA section 175A. Pursuant to Sec. 51.390 of the transportation conformity rule, the State of New Hampshire was required to submit a SIP revision containing transportation conformity criteria and procedures consistent with those established in the federal rule by August 15, 1998. Similarly, pursuant to Sec. 51.851 of the general conformity rule, New Hampshire was required to submit a SIP revision containing general conformity criteria and procedures consistent with those established in the federal rule by December 1, 1994.
On July 10, 1999, the State of New Hampshire submitted a general conformity rule that EPA approved into the SIP on August 16, 1999 (64 FR 44417). In addition, New Hampshire has a State approved transportation
Although New Hampshire does not yet have an approved transportation conformity SIP, EPA may approve this redesignation request. EPA interprets the requirement of a fully approved SIP in section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) to mean that, for a redesignation request to be approved, the State must have met all requirements that become applicable to the subject area before or at the time of the submission of the redesignation request. EPA's federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of state-adopted rules. Therefore, a delay in approving state rules does not relieve an area from the obligation to implement conformity requirements.
Areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement conformity under all circumstances, therefore, it is reasonable to view these requirements as not being applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request. Furthermore, New Hampshire has continually fulfilled all of the requirements of the federal transportation conformity and general conformity rules, so it is not necessary that the State have their transportation conformity rule approved in the SIP before redesignation to insure that New Hampshire meet the substance of the conformity requirements.
On January 30, 1996, EPA modified its national policy regarding the interpretation of the provisions of section 107(d)(3)(E) concerning the applicable requirements for purposes of reviewing a CO redesignation request (61 FR 2918 (January 30, 1996)). Under this new policy, for the reasons discussed, EPA believes that the CO redesignation request may be approved notwithstanding the lack of approved state transportation conformity rules.
Each of the redesignation requests from New Hampshire contained carbon monoxide motor vehicle emission budgets for use in conformity. Those budgets were 55.83 tons per day for Manchester and 60.13 tons per day for Nashua. On March 2, 1999, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that submitted emission budgets cannot be used for transportation conformity determinations until EPA has affirmatively found them adequate. EPA published an adequacy notice in the
In this action, EPA is approving the CO emission budgets submitted by New Hampshire for the cities of Manchester and Nashua into the CO SIP.
3.
Manchester and Nashua have been achieving the CO NAAQS since 1987 and 1988, respectively, and both areas continue to monitor attainment to date. The air quality improvements in both cities are due to the permanent and enforceable measures contained in the SIPs. EPA finds that the combination of certain existing EPA-approved SIP and federal measures contribute to the permanence and enforceability of reduction in ambient CO levels that have allowed the area to attain the NAAQS.
4.
Section 175A of the Clean Air Act states that the twenty year maintenance period must consist of an initial ten year maintenance plan and the submittal of a second ten year maintenance plan eight years after redesignation. In the Manchester and Nashua CO redesignation requests, New Hampshire modeled for 2010 in addition to 2020. In addition, the State submitted a maintenance plan that extends to 2020 even though maintenance plans are typically only applicable for a ten year period, or until 2010. EPA will not require a second maintenance plan for the 2010 to 2020 period provided that New Hampshire submits to EPA an acknowledgment that the maintenance plan will remain in effect for a second ten year period, that New Hampshire will continue to implement that plan, and that both cities will remain in attainment. This acknowledgment must be received by EPA within eight years of the effective date of this redesignation. New Hampshire has acknowledged this requirement in the February 2, 1999 submittals for both Manchester and Nashua.
In this notice, EPA is approving the State of New Hampshire's maintenance plans for the Cities of Manchester and Nashua because EPA finds that New Hampshire's submittal meets the requirements of section 175A.
The State of New Hampshire submitted a comprehensive inventory of CO emissions for the Manchester and Nashua area. The inventory includes emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources using 1990 as the base year for calculations. The 1990 inventory is considered representative of attainment conditions because the NAAQS was not violated during 1990 and was prepared in accordance with EPA guidance. New Hampshire established CO emissions for 1990 as well as forecasts to the year 2020. These estimates were derived from the State's 1990 emissions inventory. The State submittals contains the following information:
In today's action, EPA is approving the emission inventories for Manchester and Nashua.
Total CO emissions were projected from 1990 base year out to 2020. These projected inventories were prepared in accordance with EPA guidance, and it is anticipated that the area will maintain CO levels below the NAAQS.
Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in the Manchester and Nashua areas depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period, and the State will submit periodic inventories of CO emissions. Therefore, eight years from today, New Hampshire must submit to EPA an acknowledgment that the maintenance plan will remain in effect and New Hampshire will continue to implement it for a second ten year period and that the area will maintain attainment through 2020.
The level of CO emissions in the Manchester and Nashua areas will largely determine its ability to stay in compliance with the CO NAAQS in the future. Despite the State's best efforts to demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS, the ambient air pollutant concentrations may exceed or violate the NAAQS, although highly unlikely. Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that the contingency provisions include a requirement that the State implement all measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation, and New Hampshire has fulfilled this requirement. In addition, New Hampshire has provided contingency measures in the event of a future CO air quality problem.
New Hampshire has developed a continency plan consisting of the New Hampshire's low emission vehicle program
In accordance with section 175A(b) of the CAA, the State must implement two ten year maintenance plans. New Hampshire must submit to EPA eight years from today an acknowledgment that its 20 year maintenance plan will remain in effect for a second ten year period.
5.
EPA is approving the revision to the CO SIP for the City of Nashua; the CO redesignation request, maintenance plan, transportation conformity budget, and emissions inventory for the City of Nashua; and the CO redesignation request, maintenance plan, transportation conformity budget, and emissions inventory for the City of Manchester. The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views these as a noncontroversial amendments and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996)), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988)) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 29, 2001. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) Approval—On February 1, 1999, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services submitted a revision to the State Implementation Plan to remove the Nashua Inspection/Maintenance program for carbon monoxide that ceased operating on January 1, 1995. The Nashua Inspection/Maintenance was originally approved at § 52.1520(c)(39). The Nashua Inspection/Maintenance program was replaced with controls consisting of the existing federal Tier 1 emission standards for new vehicles and the federal reformulated gasoline program.
(b) Approval—On February 2, 1999, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services submitted a request to redesignate the City of Manchester carbon monoxide nonattainment area to attainment for carbon monoxide. As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as required by 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Elements of the section 175A maintenance plan include a base year (1990 attainment year) emission inventory for carbon monoxide, a demonstration of maintenance of the carbon monoxide NAAQS with projected emission inventories to the year 2010 for carbon monoxide, a plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency plan, and an obligation to submit additional information in eight years acknowledging that the maintenance plan will remain in effect through the year 2020, as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area records a violation of the carbon monoxide NAAQS (which must be confirmed by the State), New Hampshire will implement one or more appropriate contingency measure(s) which are contained in the contingency plan. The menu of contingency measures includes the enhanced safety inspection program and New Hampshire's low emission vehicle program (NLEV) as contingency measures. The redesignation request establishes a motor vehicle emissions budget of 55.83 tons per day for carbon monoxide to be used in determining transportation conformity for the Manchester area. The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the redesignation requirements in sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act as amended in 1990, respectively.
(c) Approval—On February 2, 1999, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services submitted a request to redesignate the City of Nashua carbon monoxide nonattainment area to attainment for carbon monoxide. As part of the redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as required by 175A of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990. Elements of the section 175A maintenance plan include a base year (1990 attainment year) emission inventory for carbon monoxide, a demonstration of maintenance of the carbon monoxide NAAQS with projected emission inventories to the year 2010 for carbon monoxide, a plan to verify continued attainment, a contingency plan, and an obligation to submit additional information in eight years acknowledging that the maintenance plan will remain in effect through the year 2020, as required by the Clean Air Act. If the area records a violation of the carbon monoxide NAAQS (which must be confirmed by the State), New Hampshire will implement one or more appropriate contingency measure(s) which are contained in the contingency plan. The menu of contingency measures includes the enhanced safety inspection program and New Hampshire's low emission vehicle program (NLEV) as contingency measures. The redesignation request establishes a motor vehicle emissions budget of 60.13 tons per day for carbon monoxide to be used in determining transportation conformity for the Nashua area. The redesignation request and maintenance plan meet the redesignation requirements in sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A of the Act as amended in 1990, respectively.
4. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency.
Direct final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) is granting a petition by the Territory of American Samoa for exemption from the anti-dumping requirements for gasoline sold in the United States after January 1, 1995. This action is being taken because compliance with the anti-dumping requirements is not feasible or is unreasonable due to American Samoa's unique geographic location and economic factors. If the gasoline anti-dumping exemption were not granted, American Samoa would be required to import gasoline from a supplier meeting the anti-dumping requirements adding a considerable expense to gasoline purchased by the American Samoan consumer. American Samoa is in full attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ozone. This action is not expected to cause harmful effects to the citizens of American Samoa.
EPA is concurrently proposing in the Proposed Rules section of today's
This action will be effective on January 29, 2001, unless the Agency receives adverse or critical comments or a request for a public hearing by December 29, 2000. If the Agency receives adverse or critical comments, EPA will publish in the
Any persons wishing to submit comments should submit them (in duplicate, if possible) to the two dockets listed below, with a copy forwarded to Marilyn Winstead McCall, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., (Mail Code: 6406J), Washington, DC 20460.
Marilyn Winstead McCall at (202) 564-9029, facsimile: (202) 565-2085, e-mail address:
Entities potentially affected by this rule are those involved with the production, distribution, importation, and sale of conventional gasoline used in the Territory of American Samoa. Regulated categories and entities include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this rule. This table lists the types of entities we are now aware could potentially be affected by this rule. Other types of entities not listed could also be affected by this rule. To determine whether you are affected by this rule, you should carefully examine the applicability requirements in §§ 80.90 and 80.125, Subparts E and F of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
EPA views this rule as a noncontroversial amendment to the gasoline anti-dumping regulations and anticipates no adverse comment. American Samoa is in attainment with the air quality standards. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
On March 9, 1999, the Honorable Tauese P.F. Sunia, Governor of the Territory of American Samoa, petitioned the Agency for an exemption from the requirements of regulations in 40 CFR Part 80 that require conventional gasoline meet certain anti-dumping specifications. Specifically, the petition requested “* * * exemption from the regulations of 40 CFR Part 80 Subparts E and F for the Anti-Dumping of Fuel.”
In 1993, EPA promulgated regulations on the production and sale of reformulated gasoline and gasoline that is not required to be reformulated, or “conventional” gasoline. For conventional gasoline, the gasoline produced by a refiner or importer must not be more polluting or cause more motor vehicle emissions than gasoline produced by that refiner or importer in 1990. In the production of reformulated gasoline (a gasoline that has been further processed and refined to reduce components that contribute most to pollution), a refiner cannot “dump” into its conventional gasoline pool those polluting components removed from the refiner's reformulated gasoline. This is commonly called the “anti-dumping” gasoline program, and these requirements apply to all gasoline produced, imported, and consumed in the United States and its territories.
Section 211(k) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA” or the “Act”) requires that gasoline be reformulated to reduce motor vehicle emissions of toxic and tropospheric ozone-forming compounds, and that this reformulated gasoline be sold in the largest metropolitan areas with the most severe summertime ozone levels and in other ozone nonattainment areas that opt into the program. Section 211(k)(8) prohibits conventional gasoline sold in the rest of the country from becoming any more polluting than it was in 1990, thereby ensuring that refiners do not dump fuel components into conventional gasoline causing environmentally harmful emissions restricted in reformulated gasoline. Regulations were promulgated December 15, 1993, and are codified in 40 CFR Part 80.
Section 325 of the Clean Air Act provides that, upon petition by the Governor of Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Administrator may exempt any person or source in such territory from various requirements of the Act. It states that “* * * such exemption may be granted if the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is not feasible or is unreasonable due to unique, geographical, meteorological, or economic factors of such territory, or such other local factors as the Administrator deems significant.”
American Samoa is a group of five volcanic islands and two coral atolls, located in Polynesia, approximately 2,300 miles southwest of Hawaii and 1,600 miles northeast of New Zealand. American Samoa contains approximately 76 square miles, about two-thirds of which are mountainous with steep slopes that make it virtually inaccessible. The largest island is Tutuila which is approximately 53 square miles. The small island of Aunu'u lies near the east end of Tutuila. The other inhabited islands are Tau, Ofu, Olesaga and Swain's Island. Rose Atoll is uninhabited. The population was estimated to be 52,400 in 1993—over 96% of which live on the island of Tutuila.
American Samoa has a tropical, maritime climate, with abundant rainfall, winds, and warm, humid days and nights. The mean annual temperature is about 80 degrees. Rainfall is about 125 inches a year near the airport, but varies greatly over small distances because of the mountainous topography. Pago Pago (the major city) which is less than 4 miles north of the airport and at the head of a hill-encircled harbor is open to the prevailing winds and receives nearly 200 inches of rainfall a year. The crest of the mountain range receives over 250 inches each year. American Samoa's petition states that due to the prevailing easterly trade winds throughout the year, its tropical climate, remoteness, and low population, the air quality in the territory is generally pristine. It is in attainment with the air quality standards including the National Ambient Air Quality (“NAAQS”) standard for ozone.
Because of its remoteness from the mainland, American Samoa has imported its fuel from refineries in Hawaii and the Far East. American Samoa's March 9, 1999 petition stated that at the time the petition was filed, almost all of their motor vehicle
American Samoa's petition states that in 1990, American Samoa's annual per capita income was $3,039. The U.S. median income is about $21,120.
There are 5,126 registered motor vehicles in American Samoa. The motor gasoline market is small compared to the diesel market. The American Samoan government owns its own fuel terminal and fuel dock and selects a terminal operator to manage the facilities. A U.S. District Court (for California) determined in 1973 that one oil marketer had violated the Sherman Act by attempting to monopolize the distribution and sale of petroleum products in American Samoa. Subsequently, the Court issued a “Court Plan,” the goal of which was to assure an equal competitive position to all suppliers of petroleum products in American Samoa, including the opportunity to use the tank farm for storage on a shared basis. The American Samoa government's aim was to assure that American Samoans receive the benefits of competition by having a choice of products at the lowest prices.
Tesoro has supplied American Samoa with complying gasoline from 1995 through 1999. During this time, Tesoro also operated the fuel terminal in its capacity as terminal operator.
Since the petition was filed, EPA learned in November 1999, that Tesoro was withdrawing from the American Samoan gasoline market effective January 1, 2000.
Negotiations with BP South West Pacific Limited (“BP”) have concluded in BP's taking over the gasoline supply commitments formerly held by Tesoro, beginning January 1, 2000. They estimate that “huge costs” will result if they are required to comply with the anti-dumping requirements, with as much as 14 to 18 cents more per gallon being charged the American Samoan consumer. Since a gallon of gasoline on the islands is already 20 cents more per gallon than on the U.S. mainland, the cost to the American Samoan citizen for a gallon of complying gasoline could be as much as 38 cents more per gallon. Consequently, American Samoa petitioned EPA on December 30, 1999, for “* * * enforcement discretion by declining to enforce the gasoline anti-dumping regulations pending the effectiveness of the anticipated rule.”
The end result of the November 1999 notification of Tesoro's withdrawing from the American Samoan market is that American Samoa is left with two importers (Mobil and BP) that are willing to supply American Samoa with gasoline. The cost of the gasoline supplied will be significantly lower if they are not required to comply with the gasoline anti-dumping regulations.
Compliance is measured by comparing emissions of a refiner's or importer's conventional gasoline against those of a baseline gasoline—either a baseline based on the quality of the refiner's or importer's 1990 gasoline or on a statutory baseline specified by the Clean Air Act. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subparts E and F require a refiner or importer that establishes a baseline to hire an independent auditor to verify its baseline parameters. They also require that each refiner or importer maintain records and report to EPA certain information pertaining to production of conventional gasoline, beginning in February 1996, and every subsequent year.
Section 211(k)(8) requires that average per gallon emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides ( NO
Pursuant to section 211(k)(8) of the Act, EPA adopted the regulations in subpart E to address exhaust benzene, total exhaust toxics and NO
Due to the distance from the U.S. mainland, American Samoa has been supplied with most of its gasoline by Tesoro Corporation's Hawaii refinery. There is another company operating a refinery in Hawaii; however, since 1991, only the Tesoro refinery has been
Tesoro was also selected to operate the petroleum terminals on the islands in a 1998 request for proposals issued by the American Samoan government. American Samoa's petition states that a virtual monopoly situation exists by this one company by their controlling the operation of the terminals as well as almost all of the gasoline supply. The petition states that this is one reason why other companies have been discouraged from entering the gasoline market in American Samoa.
The Court Plan mentioned previously was modified in 1994 retaining the Court's jurisdiction over the terminal facilities and preserving the ability of potential new suppliers to use the facilities on a shared-cost basis. The supporting material presented to the court included a permit and agreement between American Samoa and the terminal operator which contained a modified maximum allowable price formula as a safeguard against excessive monopoly pricing by the terminal operator. American Samoa's petition states that because of this dual responsibility by Tesoro and the fact that only Tesoro was capable of supplying complying gasoline on a full time basis, a monopoly situation has existed and, therefore, competition was discouraged.
Two other companies—Mobil and BP—entered the fuel market in 1998, and mainly import diesel fuel to the islands. They have not been able to import gasoline that meets the anti-dumping regulations (except for a small amount of “special order” gasoline imported from Australia by Mobil that is offered at a much higher price than that offered by Tesoro). Mobil and BP operate refineries in Australia and Singapore. As previously stated, Mobil operates a refinery in Melbourne, Australia that makes some gasoline which complies with the anti-dumping regulations. However, because this gasoline is “specially ordered,” it costs the American Samoan consumer about 10 cents more per gallon above the normal prices, and Mobil cannot assure a continuous supply. Also, Mobil does not always supply the American Samoan fuel market out of their Melbourne refinery. Some cargoes (containing mostly diesel fuel) come from their refineries in Singapore which do not make the “special-order” gasoline.
Mobil and BP have indicated an interest in supplying the American Samoa market by agreeing to take over the marketing commitments formerly held by Tesoro after that company withdrew in January 2000.
After the expiration of the interim period and if the exemption is not granted, Mobil and BP would be required to supply American Samoa with gasoline that does not exceed the statutory baseline emissions for exhaust toxics and NO
Because of these differences in fuel quality, and because of the requirement that American Samoa gasoline be evaluated using the winter version of the Complex Model, EPA believes the Far Eastern gasoline that would be available to American Samoa cannot consistently satisfy the anti-dumping requirements when compared to statutory baseline gasoline. Additionally, EPA believes that consistent compliance with either the winter or summer statutory baseline
EPA has decided to grant a petition by the Territory of American Samoa and exempt the Territory of American Samoa from compliance with the anti-dumping standards for conventional gasoline under section 211(k)(8). The Agency believes that compliance with the gasoline anti-dumping requirements is unreasonable given the significantly increased costs to consumers in American Samoa in achieving compliance. These increased costs are directly attributable to American Samoa's location and resulting inability of importers to comply with the anti-dumping requirements without significantly greater costs than those expected for importers in the U.S. mainland. Gasoline price increases of the magnitude expected to result from compliance with the conventional gasoline anti-dumping regulations at 40 CFR part 80, subparts E and F could be especially burdensome for the many citizens of American Samoa.
In addition, despite its geographic remoteness from the mainland, compliance with the anti-dumping provisions might require that American Samoa import conventional gasoline from the U.S. mainland, greatly increasing the cost of conventional gasoline for the American Samoans. EPA finds that these economic factors are unique to the Territory of American Samoa.
This exemption applies to all importers and suppliers of gasoline in American Samoa. EPA will review and reopen this exemption in the future if conditions change to warrant such an action.
Under Executive Order 12866, the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866.
This action does not add any information collection requirements or increase burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives that achieve the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Today's rule imposes no enforceable duty or mandate on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Rather, today's rule removes enforceable duties and mandates on these entities.
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by 12866, and it does not address an environmental health or safety risk that would have a disproportionate effect on children.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” as defined in the Executive Order include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of the extent of EPA's consultation with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their concerns and EPA's position supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, it must include a certification from EPA's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
This rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or local governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government as specified in Executive Order 13132. This rule, by exempting the gasoline anti-dumping requirements in American Samoa, removes the federal role of mandating and enforcing these gasoline requirements.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
After considering the economic impacts of today's direct final rule, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any significant
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless, the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns and statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting
Today's rule does not create any mandates or impose any obligations on State, Local, or Tribal governments, and thus does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
A copy of this action is available on the Internet at
Authority for the action described in this notice is in section 325(a)(1) (42 U.S.C. 7625-1(a)(1)) of the Clean Air Act as amended.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission, at the jointly filed request of Salt Broadcasting, LLC and Americom Las Vegas Limited Partnership substitutes Channel 261C1 for Channel 261C2 and reallots Channel 261C1 from Incline Village, Nevada to Dayton, Nevada, as the community's first local commercial FM service and reallots Channel 295C from Reno to Incline Village in order for the community to retain a first local aural service.
Effective January 2, 2001.
Arthur D. Scrutchins, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-229, adopted November 8, 2000, and released November 17, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 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.
Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-10 series airplanes. This proposal would require an inspection of the one phase remote control circuit breakers (RCCB) in the main avionics compartment and center accessory compartment to determine their part numbers and serial numbers, and replacement of RCCB's with certain RCCB's, if necessary. This action is necessary to ensure that defective braze joints of certain latch assemblies of the RCCB are not installed on the airplane. Defective braze joints could fail and prevent the RCCB from tripping during an overload condition, which could result in a fire and smoke in certain wire bundles that are routed to and from the main avionics compartment or center accessory compartment. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by January 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-149-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. 2000-NM-149-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 Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
Natalie Phan-Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5343; fax (562) 627-5210.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-149-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-149-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
As part of its practice of re-examining all aspects of the service experience of a particular aircraft whenever an accident occurs, the FAA has been informed by the airplane manufacturer that certain latch assemblies of the one phase remote control circuit breakers (RCCB) were manufactured with defective braze joints. These defective braze joints are installed on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 and MD-10 series airplanes. The defective braze joints that are located between the bimetal assembly and the latch are limited to two lots with specific part numbers and serial numbers. Defective braze joints could fail and prevent the RCCB from tripping during an overload condition, which could result in a fire and smoke in certain wire bundles that are routed to and from the main avionics compartment or center accessory compartment.
The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of Model DC-10 and MD-10 series airplanes, is continuing to review all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to identify potential
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A164, dated June 22, 2000. The service bulletin describes procedures for a one-time general visual inspection of the one phase RCCB's in the main avionics compartment and center accessory compartment to determine their part numbers and serial numbers, and replacement of the RCCB's with RCCB's having the same part number with a certain serial number, if necessary. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
There are approximately 446 Model DC-10 and MD-10 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 312 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 6 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $112,320, or $360 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
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 fire and smoke in certain wire bundles that are routed to and from the main avionics compartment or center accessory compartment, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time general visual inspection of the one phase remote control circuit breakers (RCCB) in the main avionics compartment and center accessory compartment to determine the part numbers and serial numbers (identified in Table 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin), in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A164, dated June 22, 2000.
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.”
(1) If any RCCB has a part number listed in Table 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin and the corresponding serial number is NOT identified in that table, no further action is required by this AD.
(2) If any RCCB has a part number listed in Table 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin and the corresponding serial number is identified in that table, before further flight, replace the RCCB with a RCCB having the same part number with a serial number that is NOT identified in Table 2, in accordance with the service bulletin.
(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, Los Angeles 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, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles 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.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes. This proposal would require a general visual inspection to detect chafing or damage of the feeder cables of the external ground power in the forward cargo compartment between certain fuselage stations; and repair, if necessary. This proposal also would require installation of spiral wrap on the feeder cables of the external ground power. This action is necessary to prevent chafing of the feeder cables during removal of the sump panels of the cargo floor, which could result in electrical arcing and damage to adjacent structure, and consequent smoke and/or fire in the forward cargo compartment. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by January 16, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-148-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-148-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 Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
Natalie Phan-Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5343; fax (562) 627-5210.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-148-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-148-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
As part of its practice of re-examining all aspects of the service experience of a particular aircraft whenever an accident occurs, the FAA has become aware that the feeder cable of the external ground power failed on McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes. The cause of this failure is attributed to cables being chafed during prior removal of the sump panels of the cargo floor, which resulted in electrical arcing and damage to adjacent structure. These conditions, if not corrected, could result in smoke and/or fire in the forward cargo compartment.
The FAA, in conjunction with Boeing and operators of Model DC-10 series airplanes, is continuing to review all aspects of the service history of those airplanes to identify potential unsafe conditions and to take appropriate corrective actions. This proposed AD is one of a series of actions identified during that process. The process is continuing and the FAA may consider additional rulemaking actions as further results of the review become available.
The FAA has reviewed and approved McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A147, Revision 02, dated March 6, 2000. The service bulletin describes procedures for a general visual inspection to detect chafing or damage of the feeder cables of the external ground power in the forward cargo compartment between fuselage stations Y=879.000 and Y=1019.000 left of centerline; and repair, if necessary. The service bulletin also describes procedures for installation of spiral wrap on the feeder cables of the external ground power. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
There are approximately 260 Model DC-10 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 171 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
For Groups 1, 2, and 3 airplanes, it would take approximately 5 work hours per airplane (including gaining and closing access) to accomplish the proposed inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed inspection AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $300 per airplane.
For Group 1 airplanes, it would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane (including gaining and closing access) to accomplish the proposed installation, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $140 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed installation AD on U.S. operators of Group 1 airplanes is estimated to be $260 per airplane.
For Group 2 airplanes, it would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane (including gaining and closing access) to accomplish the proposed installation, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $140 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed installation AD on U.S. operators of Group 2 airplanes is estimated to be $320 per airplane.
For Group 3 airplanes, it would take approximately 4 work hours per airplane (including gaining and closing access) to accomplish the proposed installation, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $140 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed installation AD on U.S. operators of Group 3 airplanes is estimated to be $380 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
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 chafing of the feeder cables during removal of the sump panels of the cargo floor, which could result in electrical arcing and damage to adjacent structure, and consequent smoke and/or fire in the forward cargo compartment, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD per McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A147, Revision 02, dated March 6, 2000.
(1) Do a general visual inspection to detect chafing or damage of the feeder cables of the external ground power in the forward cargo compartment between fuselage stations Y=879.000 and Y=1019.000 left of centerline. If any chafing or damage is detected, before further flight, repair the feeder cables of the external ground power and adjacent structure.
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.”
(2) Install spiral wrap on the feeder cables of the external ground power.
(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, Los Angeles 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, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angles 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.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking.
This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed rulemaking relating to the treatment of a controlled foreign corporation's (CFC's) distributive share of partnership income.
The public hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, December 5, 2000, at 10 a.m., is canceled.
Treena Garrett of the Regulations Unit, Office of Special Counsel (Modernization and Strategic Planning), at 622-7180 (not a toll-free number).
A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing that appeared in the
The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of November 21, 2000, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for December 5, 2000, is canceled.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to redesignate the Nashua, New Hampshire nonattainment area to attainment for the carbon monoxide (CO) air quality standard and is proposing to approve a Maintenance Plan that will insure that the Nashua area remains in attainment. The EPA is also proposing to redesignate the Manchester, New Hampshire nonattainment area to attainment for the CO air quality standard and is proposing to approve a maintenance plan that will insure that the Manchester area remains in attainment. Under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the CAA), designations can be revised if sufficient data are available to warrant such revisions and the request to redesignate shows that all of the requirements of section 107(d)(E)(3) of the CAA have been met. EPA is proposing to approve the New Hampshire maintenance plans and other redesignation submittals because they meet the maintenance plan and redesignation requirements, and will ensure that the two areas remain in attainment. The approved maintenance plans will become a federally enforceable part of the New Hampshire State Implementation Plan (SIP). In this action, EPA is also proposing to approve the New Hampshire 1990 baseline emission inventories for both of these areas, transportation conformity budgets for both areas and a revision to the inspection and maintenance (I/M) SIP approved for the Nashua area.
In the Final Rules Section of this
Written comments must be received on or before December 29, 2000.
Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Copies of the State submittal and EPA's technical support document are available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England office, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA and Air Resources Division, Department of Environmental Services, 6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095.
Jeffrey S. Butensky, Environmental Planner, Air Quality Planning Unit of the Office of Ecosystem Protection (mail code CAQ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, New England office, One Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1665 or at butensky.jeff@epa.gov.
For additional information, see the direct
Environmental Protection Agency.
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “the Agency”) is proposing to grant a petition by the Territory of American Samoa for exemption from the anti-dumping requirements for gasoline sold in the United States after 1995. This action is being taken because compliance with the anti-dumping requirements is not feasible or is unreasonable due to American Samoa's unique geographic location and economic factors. If the gasoline anti-dumping exemption were not granted, American Samoa would be required to import gasoline from suppliers meeting the anti-dumping requirements, adding a considerable expense to gasoline purchased by the American Samoa consumer. American Samoa is in full attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for ozone. This action is not expected to cause harmful environmental effects to the citizens of American Samoa.
Comments on this proposed final decision must be received in writing by December 29, 2000.
Materials relevant to this petition are available for inspection in public docket A-99-17 at the Air Docket Office of the EPA, Room M-1500, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 10460, (202) 260-7548, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A duplicate public docket A-91-40 has been established at U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (Mail Code: A-2-1), 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1225, and is available between the hours of 8:30 a.m. to noon, and from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. As provided in 40 CFR part 2, a reasonable fee may be charged for copying services.
Marilyn Winstead McCall at (202) 564-9029, facsimile: (202) 565-2085, e-mail address:
For more detailed information on this proposal, please see EPA's Direct Final Rule published in the Final Rules section of this
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises, licensee of station KHSD-TV, NTSC Channel 11, Lead, South Dakota, requesting the substitution DTV channel 10 for station KHSD-TV's assigned DTV channel 30. DTV Channel 10 can be allotted to Lead, South Dakota, in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (44-19-36 N. and 103-50-12 W.). As requested, we propose to allot DTV Channel 10 to Lead with a power of 34.8 and a height above average terrain (HAAT) of 576 meters.
Comments must be filed on or before January 16, 2001, and reply comments on or before January 31, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., 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: Colette M. Capretz, Shaw Pittman, 2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037-1128 (Counsel for Duhamel Broadcasting Enterprises).
Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-235, adopted November 22, 2000, and released November 24, 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, S.W., 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.
Television, Digital television broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.
2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under South Dakota is amended by removing DTV Channel 30 and adding DTV Channel 10 at Lead.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Broadcast Development Corporation, licensee of station KAME-TV, NTSC channel 21, Reno, Nevada, requesting the substitution of DTV channel 20 for station KAME-TV's assigned DTV channel 22. DTV Channel 20 can be allotted to Reno, Nevada, in compliance with the principle community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference coordinates (39-35-04 N. and 119-47-51 W.). As requested, we propose to allot DTV channel 20 to Reno with a power of 50 and a height above average terrain (HAAT) of 189 meters.
Comments must be filed on or before January 16, 2001, and reply comments on or before January 31, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., 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: Joseph A. Godles, W. Kenneth Ferree, Goldberg, Godles, Wiener & Wright, 1229 Nineteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 (Counsel for Broadcast Development Corporation)
Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-1600.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-234, adopted November 22, 2000, and released November 24, 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, S.W., 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.
Television, Digital television broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.
2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments under Nevada is amended by removing DTV Channel 22 and adding DTV Channel 20 at Reno.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Western Indian Ministries, Inc., licensee of Station KWIM, Channel 274C3, Window Rock, Arizona, requesting the substitution of Channel 285C2 for Channel 274C3 and modification of its license accordingly to provide an expanded coverage area FM service to that community. Additionally, in accordance with the requirements of Section 1.420(g)(2) of the Commission's Rules, if another interest is expressed in the proposed Class C2 allotment, equivalent Channel 251C2 is also available for allotment at Window Rock. Coordinates used for Channel 285C2 at Window Rock are those of the presently licensed site of Station KWIM, at coordinates 35-39-19 NL and 109-01-59 WL.
Comments must be filed on or before January 8, 2001, and reply comments on or before January 23, 2001.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Western Indian Ministries, Inc., c/o Timothy C. Cutforth, P.E., 965 S. Irving Street, Denver, CO 80219.
Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed RuleMaking, MM Docket No. 00-237, adopted November 8, 2000, and released November 17, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 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.
Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Arizona, is amended by removing Channel 274C3 and adding Channel 285C2 at Window Rock, Arizona.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission, in response to the counterproposal of Madras Broadcasting requesting the allotment of Channel 251C1 to Madras, OR, as the community's first local aural service, issues an Order to Show Cause to the licensee of Station KTWS(FM), Channel 252C3, Bend, OR, as to why its license should not be modified to specify operation on Channel 253C3. The counterproposal was filed in response to the proposed allotment of Channel 251C3 to Brightwood, OR. See 65 FR 34997, June 1, 2000. See
Comments must be filed on or before January 8, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.
Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Order to Show Cause, MM Docket No. 00-87, adopted November 8, 2000, and released November 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. The Commission proposes the following channel changes to accommodate the allotment of Channel 251C1 to Madras, OR, at coordinates 44-50-02 NL; 120-45-55 WL: (1) the substitution of Channel 253C3 for Channel 252C3 at Bend, OR, at coordinates 44-04-41 NL; 121-19-57 WL, and the modification of Station KTWS(FM)'s license accordingly; (2) the substitution of Channel 255C3 for unoccupied and unapplied-for Channel 254C3 at Prineville, OR, at coordinates 44-13-30 NL; 120-46-30 WL.
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.
Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Oregon, is amended by adding Madras, Channel 251C1, by adding Channel 253C3 and removing Channel 252C3 at Bend, and adding Channel 255C3 and removing Channel 254C3 at Prineville.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes to amend the neck lateral calibration specifications for the SID/HIII dummy. This dummy is employed in side impact pole tests which assess the effectiveness of dynamically deployed head impact protection systems. In these tests, the subject vehicle is towed sideways into a pole in such a way that the vehicle impacts the pole at a point corresponding to the center of gravity of the head of a seated SID/HIII dummy. Data collected from these tests are used to evaluate the performance of the head impact protection system.
This document responds to a petition for rulemaking filed by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. That petition indicates that the current neck lateral bending calibration corridor specified for the SID/HIII dummy is incorrectly defined. After reviewing the petition and various data, the agency is proposing that the corridor specifications be revised.
You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
You should mention the docket number of this document in your comments and submit your comments in writing to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20590.
You may call Docket Management at 202-366-9324. You may visit the Docket from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
For non-legal issues, you may call Stan Backaitis, Office of Crashworthiness Standards at 202-366-4912.
For legal issues, you may call Otto Matheke, Office of the Chief Counsel, at 202-366-2992.
You may send mail to both of these officials at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC, 20590.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 201, Head Impact Protection, provides a number of alternative performance requirements for manufacturers of vehicles with dynamically deployed interior head protection systems. One of these alternatives uses a test in which a vehicle is propelled sideways at a speed of 29 km/h (18 mph) into a 254 mm (10 inch) diameter rigid pole. A Part 572 Subpart M anthropomorphic test dummy is placed in the outboard front seat on the struck side of the vehicle.
The specifications for the Subpart M dummy, known as SID/HIII, were established by a final rule published in the
As the performance of the dummy is critical in any test, the specifications for the SID/HIII include calibration tests used to validate the characteristics of the individual device. One of these tests is the neck lateral bending corridor. It establishes maximum and minimum values for the dummy neck that it must meet when subjected to a calibration test in lateral impact direction.
On July 28, 1999, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (Alliance) submitted a Petition for Technical Correction indicating that the specified lateral impact neck corridor for the SID/HIII dummy does not reflect the neck stiffness of the Hybrid III dummy as originally specified by the SAE Side Impact Dummy Task Force (SIDTF) in the minutes of the Task Force meeting of April 15, 1989. According to the Alliance, subsequent to the April 5, 1989 meeting, the SIDTF made a transcription error when it drew up lateral calibration specifications for the Hybrid III neck. The Alliance stated that the erroneous calibration specifications were carried forward and incorporated by the SAE in the BioSID user manual in 1989. As the BioSid neck and the Hybrid III neck are identical and the BioSid user manual was the only publication available to the public containing the lateral neck calibration values, the erroneous values were used by NHTSA in rulemaking for the SID/HIII dummy.
The agency proposed the SID/HIII dummy on December 8, 1997 and adopted it into Part 572 as Subpart M on August 4, 1998. The SID/HIII dummy incorporated the erroneous neck specifications that were contained in the BioSID user manual. As a result of this error, the lateral calibration corridor specified a neck that was stiffer in bending in the lateral direction than in the flexion and extension directions. Existing biomechanical data indicates that the human neck is not stiffer in the lateral direction but actually has similar bending stiffness in both directions. The Alliance petition of July 28, 1999, based on recommendations from the SAE Dummy Test and Equipment Subcommittee (DTES), suggested that the lateral neck calibration corridor be revised so the allowable neck bending stiffness moment for the SID/HIII in the lateral direction would be limited to a range between 73 N-m (54 ft-lbs) and 97 N-m (72 ft-lbs).
After receiving the Alliance petition, the agency reviewed the data and methodology used by that organization to determine the adequacy of the recommended change to the lateral neck calibration corridor. NHTSA's analysis of the corridor, suggested by the Alliance, revealed inconsistencies between the Alliance proposed corridor and the corridor specifications recommended by the DTES after the DTES discovered and revised the earlier error. The agency found that the corridor suggested by the Alliance was broader than could be justified by biomechanical data and would result in necks that are likely to be too stiff as well as having a wide degree of variability. Following discussions between agency representatives and the Alliance regarding these problems, the Alliance submitted a letter to the agency on January 12, 2000, indicating that it wished to revise its petition of July 28, 1999, and substitute new corridor specifications. The specifications suggested by the Alliance on January 12, 2000, and the current specifications for the SID/HIII are presented below:
After careful consideration of the Alliance petition and the revised specifications suggested by the Alliance on January 12, 2000, HTSA is proposing to amend the lateral neck calibration corridor for the SID/HIII dummy. The agency's proposal adopts the recommendations submitted by the Alliance in its January 12, 2000 letter with the exception of (1) the decay time from maximum rotation to zero rotation and (2) the time between maximum moment and maximum rotation.
The agency proposal is based on the review of the calibration data submitted by the Alliance and the agency's own calibration tests on a number of Hybrid III necks. NHTSA's own test program
The agency notes that the SID/HIII is currently being used to test the compliance of dynamic head protection systems that are both in production vehicles and under development. Existing data indicate that the current neck lateral calibration corridor is inappropriate and results in a dummy that is not as biofidelic as one that is calibrated using the proposed corridor. NHTSA believes that the proposed calibration corridor, as a correction of a corridor that was developed in error, should be adopted as soon as possible. Similarly, the agency also believes that the changes it is now proposing will be generally accepted as valid and should not generate significant comment or controversy. We have therefore decided that in the interest of expediting this rulemaking action, that any and all comments should be submitted within 30 days of the publication on this proposal.
NHTSA has considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” The rulemaking action has been determined not to be significant under the Department's regulatory policies and procedures.
This document proposes to amend 49 CFR part 572 by modifying the existing specifications for calibrating the dummy's neck to ensure that accurate and reliable data are generated in testing. If this proposed rule becomes final, it would affect only those businesses that choose to manufacture or test with the dummy. It does not impose any requirements on anyone.
We believe that the economic impacts of this proposal, if any, would be limited to the costs of recalibrating and perhaps modifying existing dummy necks. We estimate that these costs, if they arise, would be limited to less than $100 per dummy.
Because the economic impacts of this proposal are so minimal, no further regulatory evaluation is necessary.
NHTSA has considered the effects of this rulemaking action under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
For these reasons, NHTSA believes that this final rule does not have a significant impact on any small business.
NHTSA has analyzed this proposed amendment for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act and determined that it would not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 and has determined that it does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The final rule has no substantial effects on the States, or on the current Federal-State relationship, or on the current distribution of power and responsibilities among the various local officials.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 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 (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This proposal does not meet the definition of a Federal mandate because it does not impose requirements on anyone. In addition, annual
This proposed rule would not have any retroactive effect. Under 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.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-511), there are no requirements for information collection associated with this proposed rule.
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272) directs us to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when we decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
The neck lateral calibration corridor that is the subject of this document was developed under the auspices of the SAE Dummy Test and Equipment Subcommittee. The following voluntary consensus standards have been used in developing the proposed neck lateral calibration corridor: SAE J211 Recommended Practice for Crash Tests Instrumentation, SAE J1460 Human Mechanical Response Characteristics, and ISO/TR 9790-2 -Road Vehicles-Anthropomorphic Side Impact Dummy-Part 2: Lateral Neck Impact Response Requirements to Assess Biofidelity of Dummy.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental, health or safety risk that NHTSA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, we must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by us.
This proposal is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in E.O. 12866, and does not have a disproportionate effect on children. The proposed rule seeks to change the calibration values for a test dummy neck. Other than ensuring that the test dummy more accurately replicates the adult human neck in side impacts, the proposed rule has no impact on children.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. (49 CFR 553.21). We established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
Please submit two copies of your comments, including the attachments, to Docket Management at the address given above under
If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.
If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given above under
We will consider all comments that Docket Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by Docket Management at the address given above under
You may also see the comments on the Internet. To read the comments on the Internet, take the following steps:
1. Go to the Docket Management System (DMS) Web page of the Department of Transportation (
2. On that page, click on “search.”
3. On the next page (http://dms.dot.gov/search/), type in the four-digit docket number shown at the beginning of this document. Example: If the docket number were “NHTSA-1998-1234,” you would type “1234.” After typing the docket number, click on “search.”
4. On the next page, which contains docket summary information for the docket you selected, click on the desired comments. You may word search the Adobe pdf version of a comment by
Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly, we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.
Motor vehicle safety.
In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA proposes to amend 49 CFR Part 572 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 572 would continue to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 332, 30111, 30115, 30117; and 30166 delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
2. 49 CFR Part 572 would be amended by revising § 572.113(b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) The maximum rotation of the midsagittal plane of the head shall be 66 to 82 degrees with respect to the pendulum's longitudinal centerline. The decaying head rotation vs. time curve shall cross the zero angle between 58 to 67 ms after reaching its peak value.
(3) The moment about the x-axis which coincides with the midsagittal plane of the head at the level of the occipital condyles shall have a maximum value between 73 and 88 Nm. The decaying moment vs. time curve shall first cross zero moment between 49 and 64 ms after reaching its peak value. The following formula is to be used to calculate the moment about the occipital condyles when using the six-axis neck transducer:
(4) The maximum rotation of the head with respect to the pendulum's longitudinal centerline shall occur between 2 and 16 ms after peak moment.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Postponement of public meeting.
NMFS announces the postponement of the technical gear workshop previously scheduled to discuss potential gear modifications and configurations for the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery.
Margo Schulze-Haugen or Tyson Kade at (301) 713-2347.
On November 21, 2000 (65 FR 69898), NMFS announced that it would conduct a workshop on December 12-13, 2000, at NMFS, Building 4 - Science Center, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. The purpose of the workshop is to allow fishermen, gear experts, sea turtle experts, and fishery managers to discuss possible measures, including gear and fishing method modifications, to reduce the incidental take and mortality of sea turtles in the Atlantic pelagic longline fishery. After announcing the workshop, NMFS received comment from fishermen that the scheduled dates posed a conflict with the active fishing period associated with the full moon. As participation by fishing vessel captains is an important aspect of this meeting, NMFS has agreed to reschedule the workshop. NMFS will announce a future date for this workshop in the
16 U.S.C. 971
Forest Service, USDA; Bureau of Land Management, USDI.
Amended notice of intent to conduct planning and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Notification regarding the process to follow to request administrative review of the proposed decision for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP).
The Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service are jointly engaged in a land use plan amendment process, developing a management strategy for lands they administer. Both agencies' regulations provide for administrative review of the proposed decision before it is recorded. The responsible officials for both agencies have agreed to use one administrative review process in order to simplify the process for the public and for the agencies. The responsible officials further decided to use, as the single review process, the Bureau of Land Management's protest process. Using this single process allows the public to seek review from both agency heads with one request.
Protests of the ICBEMP proposed decision must be filed within 30 days of the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of receipt of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the ICBEMP.
Protests of the ICBEMP proposed decision must be sent to the address that will be provided with the distribution of the final EIS and proposed decision. The final EIS and proposed decision will be sent to everyone who received or commented on the supplemental draft EIS, unless they ask to be removed from the mailing list. The final EIS and proposed decision will also be available via the internet (http://www.icbemp.gov).
Susan Giannettino, Project Manager, 304 North 8th St., Room 250, Boise, Idaho 83702, phone (208) 334-1770; or Geoff Middaugh, Deputy Project Manager, P.O. Box 2295, Walla Walla, Washington 99362, phone (509) 522-4033.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have been engaged in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project—a land use plan amendment process—since 1994. The Bureau of Land Management planning regulations (43 CFR 1610) and the Forest Service planning regulations (36 CFR 219) both provide the public with the opportunity to request administrative review of a proposed land use plan decision. The Bureau of Land Management regulations describe a protest process (43 CFR 1610.5-2):
The Forest Service regulations provide that (36 CFR 219.32(e)):
The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service are participating in a multi-agency decision. The responsible officials of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have agreed to provide a joint response to those who file for administrative review of the proposed decision, which is scheduled to be distributed to the public in mid-December, along with the final EIS for the ICBEMP. The responsible officials of the Forest Service (the Regional Foresters of the Northern, Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest Regions) and the reviewing officer (the Chief of the Forest Service) waive the objection procedures under part 219.32 to adopt the administrative review procedure of the Bureau of Land Management. The reasons for this decision are as follows:
• The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management jointly share the lead for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project.
• The two agencies have gone jointly to the public for scoping, information-gathering, and review since the inception of the Project.
• Using one administrative review procedure lets the public request review from both agencies at one time, rather than having to make two separate, potentially redundant requests.
• Using two separate administrative review procedures, including potential changes in the proposed Project decision, could result in the two agencies' recording two different decisions. This result would fail to meet the original purpose of this action, which was to develop and analyze a strategy for management of lands administered by both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.
To request administrative review of the proposed decision for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project use the following procedure:
• Put the protest in writing and file it with the Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Chief of the Forest Service at the address that will be provided with the final EIS and proposed decision.
• The protest shall be filed within 30 days of the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of receipt of the final environmental impact statement in the
• The protest shall contain:
The name, mailing address, telephone number and interest of the person filing the protest.
A statement of the issue or issues being protested;
A statement of the part or parts of the amendment being protested;
A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the record; and
A concise statement explaining why the responsible officials' decision is believed to be wrong.
The BLM Director and Forest Service Chief will promptly render a joint decision on the protest. The decision will be in writing and will set forth the reasons for the decision. The decision will be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested.
The joint decision of the Director and Chief shall be the final decision of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. Reviewers who do not request administrative review of the proposed decision may not preserve their standing to litigate the final decision.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to conduct an administrative study on 1,880 acres of National Forest System land (Matrix land allocation only) in the Salmon River watershed near the towns of Sawyers Bar and Forks of Salmon in Siskiyou County, California. The purpose of the proposal is to conduct the Comet Administrative Study that will examine the cause and effect of Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) modeled silvicultural prescriptions and associated harvest techniques on presence and relative abundance of Survey and Manage (SM) mollusks (special survey and manage requirements for species that are rare or uncommon).
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received on or before December 29, 2000.
Send written comments to Jan Ford, Acting District Ranger, Salmon River Ranger District, 11263 N. Highway 3, Fort Jones, CA 96032. Electronic mail may be sent to r5_klamath_Comment@fs.fed.us. See the
Sue Stresser, EIS Team Leader, (530) 468-5351.
This Administrative Study will be accomplished through the following actions:
1. Collect pre-treatment information and data on mollusks using the approved survey strategy for the study.
2. Test stand treatments as follows:
(a) Green Tree Retention Prescription (GTR): Thirty-two stands with an average size of 15 acres have been chosen. The range of stand sizes varies from 4 to 32 acres. Half of these are north facing aspects (cool/moist). The remainder are south facing stands (warmer/drier). The treatments will be randomly applied with equal frequency (four treated and four as control for north aspects and the same for south aspects).
(b) Commercial Thin Prescription: Thirty-two stands with an average size of 18 acres have been chosen. The range of stand sizes varies from 6 to 69 acres. Half of these are north facing aspects (cool/moist). The remainder are south facing stands (warmer/drier). The treatments will be randomly applied with equal frequency (four treated and four as control for north aspects and the same for south aspects).
(c) Group Selection Prescription: Thirty-two stands with an average size of 26 acres have been chosen. The range of stand sizes varies from 8 to 50 acres. Half of these will be north facing aspects (cool/moist). The remainder will be south facing stands (warmer/drier). The treatments will be randomly applied with equal frequency (four treated and four as control for north aspects and the same for south aspects).
(d) No treatments will occur in control stands. Control stands will remain untreated through the life of the project (up to 10 years).
3. Apply logging systems to treatment stands in Item 2 above (see Table 1) as follows:
a. Conventional cable systems on half of the stands (24 total omitting the controls), including an equal number of group selection, GTR, and commercial thinning stands (half of each on north slopes and half on south slopes); and
b. Helicopter systems on the other half of the stands (24 total omitting controls), including an equal number of group selection, GTR, and commercial thinning stands (half of each on north slopes and half on south slopes).
4. Apply fuels treatment/site preparation methods to treatment stands in Item 2 above, using a combination of the following: hand pile and burn, lop/scatter, yard unutilized material, jackpot (burning concentrations of slash), and underburn.
5. Implement a combination of reforestation treatments, including planting, gopher baiting, and manual release.
6. Pre-commercial thin natural regeneration within treatment stands.
7. Implement the following transportation system improvements, including construction of temporary spur roads and landings, reconstruct portions of existing roads, and conduct road maintenance on existing system roads, as necessary for this administrative study.
8. Collect information and data on presence and relative abundance of SM mollusk species post-project, and for up to ten years after the completion of the project, according to the approved survey strategy.
9. Report findings after analysis is completed for each data collection.
This Administrative Study will include a one-time, site-specific Forest Plan amendment. Management Recommendations for SM mollusks and Del Norte Salamander will be waived in order to examine the effects of stand treatments, as described above, on mollusk species.
An important component of the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD, 1994) is the facilitation of research activities to gather information and test hypotheses in a range of environmental conditions. Where appropriate, some research activities were expected to be exempted from the Standards and Guidelines of the ROD (ROD, page 15). The Northwest Forest Plan requires, through Standards
The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of implementing Forest Plan modeled silvicultural prescriptions and associated harvest techniques on existing mollusk populations. It will also analyze long-term impacts, if any, and will study the recovery rate of these species if impacts are caused by treatments.
Many SM mollusks have been found in the Salmon River Watershed on the Klamath National Forest as a result of recent project-level and strategic surveys. These forested areas have experienced varying levels of human and natural disturbance (
Whether the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest will implement this project as proposed, including a project-specific amendment to the Forest Plan.
Margaret Boland, Forest Supervisor, USDA Forest Service, 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, California 96097 is the Responsible Official for making the recommendation whether to implement this administrative study or not. She will document her decision and rationale in a Record of Decision.
In October 2000, this administrative study was included in the Klamath National Forest's Fall 2000 Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), which was posted on the Klamath National Forest's internet website and mailed to the SOPA mailing list. In November 2000, a scoping letter of the proposed administrative study was sent to potentially affected individuals and anyone who expressed interest in this study. This notice will invite public comment for a period of 90 days. Comments received will be included in the documentation for the EIS. The public is encouraged to take part in the process and is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in, or affected by, the proposed administrative study.
While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 45 days of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the Draft EIS. A public meeting associated with the project will be held to gain a better understanding of public issues and concerns. This meeting will be held in the late spring of 2001.
Information from the meetings will be used in preparation of the draft and final EIS. The scoping process will include identifying: potential issues, significant issues to be analyzed in depth, alternatives to the proposed action, and potential environmental effects of the proposal and alternatives.
Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to r5_klamath_Comment@fs.fed.us. Please reference the Comet Administrative Study on the subject line. Also, include your name and mailing address with your comments so documents pertaining to this project may be mailed to you.
The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by November 2001. At that time, EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the
The Final EIS is scheduled to be completed by February 2002. In the Final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal.
The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice, at this early stage, of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of Draft EISs must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the Draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent.
The Forest Service intends to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze and disclose the environmental effects of implementing resource management activities that include fuelbreak construction consisting of a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs), group selection harvests, and riparian restoration projects on the Almanor Ranger District in the Lassen National Forest. These activities are part
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received in writing on or before December 29, 2000.
Send written comments to Susan Jeheber-Matthews, Almanor District Ranger, P.O. Box 767, Chester, CA, 96020.
Mary Lou Mini, Interdisciplinary Team Leader or Judy Welles, Interdisciplinary Team Silviculturist, telephone: (530) 258-2141.
To accomplish the purpose of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act, resource management activities included in the proposed Mineral Forest Recovery project and DFPZ construction, group selection harvests, and riparian restoration projects. The proposed project is located in Tehama County, California, within the Almanor Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest in all or portions of Sections 1-3, T.28N., R.3E., Sections 1-4, 9-15, 22-26, 33-36, T.29N., R.3E., Sections 3, 4, 6-10, 15-21, 28, 29, 31-33, T.29N., R.4E., Sections 26, 27, 34-36, T.30N., R.3E., and Section 31, T.30N., R.4E., MDM.
The Mineral Forest Recovery Project area is one of five sub networks established to implement a DFPZ network on the District. The purpose of DFPZs in this area is to reduce the number of acres that would be burned by high-intensity stand-replacing fires. DFPZs are needed in this area in order to improve suppression efficiency by creating an environment where wildfires would burn at lower intensities and where fire fighting production rates would be increased. DFPZs are strategically located strips of land on which forest fuels, both living and dead, have been modified in order to reduce the potential for a sustained crown fire and to allow fire suppression personnel a safer location from which to take action against a wildfire. Fuels treatment strategies would focus on the alteration or reduction of surface fuels, ladder fuels, and canopy closure in order to effectively alter fire behavior and severity. Treatment methods will include thinning timbered stands, hand or machine piling of excessive forest fuels, and prescribed fire. The Mineral Forest Recovery Project proposes to construct 3,700 acres of DFPZ's in the Mineral project area including an estimated 2,700 acres that would be thinned.
Group selection harvests would be implemented to promote diversity in stand age and structure. Root disease centers of dwarf mistletoe infected areas would be targeted for group selection, as well as those stands that are even-aged in structure. Some understocked areas would also be regenerated using the group selection prescription. Group selection would be implemented on an estimated 550 acres within the Mineral Forest Recovery Project area. Fuels treatment would occur on 460 acres within group selections.
New construction of permanent and temporary roads would be needed to economically access stands requiring treatment for DFPZ and group selection harvest. Within the project area, 5.9 miles of permanent new road construction and 5.6 miles of temporary road construction would be implemented for this purpose. New construction of permanent roads would be added to the Forest transportation system. Temporary roads would be obliterated upon completion of use.
Riparian restoration projects would include erosion control treatment on existing landings and skidtrails, and on eroding streambanks that are contributing sediment to the streams. Treatment of existing roads would be implemented as part of an overall riparian restoration strategy to reduce impacts caused by roads. Impacts include erosion and increased runoff from inadequately or poorly drained roads, especially those located close to streams and with poorly designed drainage structures and stream crossings. Road treatments would include road relocation (1.6 miles of new construction, all of which is included in the new construction mentioned above), reconstruction (9.8 miles of existing roads for DFPZ and group selection access), and decommissioning (12.2 miles). Reconstruction activities would also include improvement or relocation of three existing in-channel water sources.
The decision to be made is whether to implement the proposed action as described above, to meet the purpose and need for action through some other combination of activities, or to take no action at this time.
The USDA Forest Service is the lead agency for this proposal. District Ranger Susan Jeheber-Matthews is the responsible official.
An anticipated public issue with the Mineral Forest Recovery Project is the proposal to implement resource management activities within suitable California spotted owl habitat. In order to fully test the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act on the Almanor Ranger District (
The Record of Decision for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act FEIS stated that California spotted owl habitat would be avoided at the site-specific project level until a new California spotted owl habitat management strategy is released. The decision to implement resource management activities within suitable owl habitat in the Mineral Forest Recovery Project area will be based upon one or more of the following three actions:
(1) A decision is made on the Sierra Nevada Conservation Framework (that would amend the Lassen NF Land and Resource Management Plan) that defines a new owl strategy and allows the implementation of resource management activities as outlined in the Act, or;
(2) A new California spotted owl viability assessment is completed providing direction encompassing the species' range and the Lassen NF Land and Resource Management Plan is amended to include the new owl strategy, or;
(3) A site-specific California spotted owl strategy would be developed and implemented for this project resulting in
Alternatives currently being considered for the Mineral Forest Recovery Project include: (a) No action; (b) the proposed action as outlined above, and; (c) an alternative, based on the proposed action, that does not enter into suitable California spotted owl habitat.
Comments from the public and other agencies will be used in preparation of the draft EIS. The scoping process will be used to identify questions and issues regarding the proposed action. An issue is defined as a point of dispute, debate, or disagreement relating to a specific proposed action based on its anticipated effects. Significant issues brought to our attention are used during an environmental analysis to develop alternatives to the proposed action. Some issues raised in scoping may be considered non-significant because they are: (1) Beyond the scope of the proposed action and its purpose and need; (2) already decided by law, regulation, or the Land and Resource Management Plan; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence.
While public participation in this analysis is welcome at any time, comments received within 30 days of the publication of this notice will be especially useful in the preparation of the draft EIS.
No permits or licenses have been identified to implement the proposed action.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency and available for public review in March 2001. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date of the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability of the draft EIS in the
The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulation of implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice announces the intent of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request approval for a new information collection, the 2002 Census of Agriculture Screening.
Comments on this notice must be received by February 3, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Contact Rich Allen, Associate Administrator, National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 4117 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-2001, (202) 720-4333.
Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained
November 14, 2000, 1:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.; November 15, 2000, 8 a.m.-2 p.m.
Cohen Building, Room 3321, 330 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20237.
The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) will meet in closed session to review and discuss a number of issues relating to U.S. Government-funded non-military international broadcasting. They will address internal procedural, budgetary, and personnel issues, as well as sensitive foreign policy issues relating to potential options in the U.S. international broadcasting field. This meeting is closed because if open it likely would either disclose matters that would be properly classified to be kept secret in the interest of foreign policy under the appropriate executive order (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(1)) or would disclose information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of a proposed agency action. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(9)(B)) In addition, part of the discussion will relate solely to the internal personnel and organizational issues of the BBG or the International Broadcasting Bureau. (5 U.S.C. 552b.(c)(2) and (6))
Persons interested in obtaining more information should contact either Brenda Hardnett or John Lindburg at (202) 401-3736.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Executive Committee, Law Enforcement Committee, and Demersal Species Committee meeting as a Council Committee of the Whole, together with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Board will hold public meetings.
The meetings will be held on Tuesday, December 12, to Thursday, December 14, 2000.
The meetings will be held at the Trump Plaza Hotel, The Boardwalk and Mississippi Avenue, Atlantic City, NJ; telephone: 609-441-2708.
Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: 302-674-2331, ext. 19.
Agenda items for this meeting are: Review and discuss Monitoring Committee recommendations and approve recreational management measures for 2001 for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass recreational fisheries; review public comments, review and discuss Framework 2 management measures regarding conservation equivalency (Meeting 1), discuss and prioritize 2001 fishery management plan (FMP) actions for the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries; review and discuss Joint Monkfish Committee's recommendations on monkfish management measures, develop and approve management measures for 2001/02 monkfish fishery; review and evaluate position paper for Amendment 9 to the Squid, Mackerel, Butterfish FMP; review and discuss Joint Dogfish Committee's recommendations on spiny dogfish management measures, develop and approve management measures for 2001/01 spiny dogfish fishery; review and discuss the New England Council's request for opportunity to comment on the Council's annual specifications, review 2001 grant application, review 2001 Annual Work Plan; review Coast Guard/Law Enforcement Awards Program actions; review and approve proposed quota set-aside action; hear organizational and committee reports, and if available, comment on NMFS proposed rule regarding regulations impacting the summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries in 2001. During the Regional Administrator's Report there will be time to take public comment on Rutgers University's Exempted Fishing Permits application,
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee and Scientific and Statistical Committee in December, 2000 to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from these groups will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
The meetings will held between Monday, December 18 and Tuesday, December 19, 2000. See
The meetings will be held in Newburyport, MA and Portland, ME. See
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; (978)465-0492.
Location: Holiday Inn By the Bay, 88 Spring Street, Portland, ME 04101; telephone: (207) 775-2311.
The Groundfish Oversight Committee will continue developing its recommendations for management alternatives for Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This will include recommendations on rebuilding programs, measures to address capacity issues, and the four broad approaches to management that are under consideration (status quo, adjustments to the status quo, area management, and sector allocation). The committees' recommendations will be reviewed by the Council at a future date. After approval by the Council, the proposed alternatives will be analyzed and a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and public hearing document will be prepared. The Committee will meet in a closed session to review advisory panel applications.
The Committee will also identify management alternatives for a framework adjustment to reduced discards of Gulf of Maine cod and ensure mortality objectives are met. The initial meeting for this framework adjustment will be the January 23-25, 2000 Council meeting. The final meeting will not be scheduled until after receipt of an updated Gulf of Maine cod assessment in summer, 2001. Finally, the committee will receive a report from the state of Maine on an experimental halibut fishery.
Location: New England Fishery Management Council office, 50 Water Street, Mill #2, Newburyport, MA 01960; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
Develop priorities in terms of how the committee might consider or handle the following issues or questions in the next year: review management reference points for monkfish; review management reference points for selected groundfish species; identify scallop assessment, science and management issues that should be addressed in the Council’s management of scallops; review of skate overfishing definitions (to be developed); discuss biological-toxin issues such as questions about whether chemical contaminants affect the reproductive potential, survivability, and recruitment of Council-managed species; discuss questions about whether the ecosystem can support all stocks at B
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of modifications to existing permits (1113).
Notice is hereby given of the following actions regarding permits for takes of endangered and threatened species for the purposes of scientific research and/or enhancement: NMFS has issued modifications to scientific research permits to: Dr. Cheryl Woodley, NOS-Marine Forensics Laboratory - Charleston, SC (1113).
For permit 1113: Endangered Species Division, Office of
Terri Jordan, Silver Spring, MD (ph: 301-713-1401, fax: 301-713-0376, e-mail: Terri.Jordan@noaa.gov).
Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NMFS regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).
The following species and evolutionarily significant units (ESU's) are covered in this notice:
Green turtle (
All listed ESUs of Chinook salmon (
NMFS received an application from Dr. Cheryl Woodley, of NOS - Marine Forensics Laboratory to modify research permit #1113 on August 23, 2000. The applicant currently possesses a permit authorizing the possession of tissue samples from ESA-listed non-marine mammal and non-reptilian species under NMFS jurisdiction associated with genetic research studies and support of law enforcement actions. Law enforcement personnel have an ongoing need for scientific assistance in cases concerning endangered, protected, and managed marine species. The Marine Forensics Center provides technical/scientific assistance to a variety of law enforcement agencies including NMFS Enforcement, U.S. Customs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and state wildlife enforcement agencies. Forensics analyses generally involve a biochemical or genetic test when a comparison is made between evidence and voucher samples. Voucher samples which are used in a forensics analysis are collected and maintained under strict criteria that includes documentation (species identification form) from the expert who has authenticated the samples; a chain of custody which originates with the sample collection; and storage under secure conditions. The research will provide species identifications and is expected to extend to addressing other critical genetics information needs that will allow monitoring of recovery, characterization of genetic stocks and various aspects of genetic health for the species.
The applicant is not to conduct any field collection exercises to obtain the samples. All of the samples must be obtained from other previously authorized activities (permitted scientific research activities, or specimens confiscated by law enforcement authorities) and documented as described above.
Although the activities proposed by the applicant will not result in the take of a listed species, NOS - Forensics center has requested a permit to allow them to maintain tissues of species that were taken in violation of the ESA that may be given to them by law enforcement authorities.
Modification #1 requests that marine reptile species under NMFS jurisdiction be added to the authorized species covered under this permit. NMFS has also added newly listed ESUs of Pacific Salmon to the permit per permit special condition 2.e. Modification #1 to Permit 1113 was issued on November 9, 2000, authorizing take of listed species. Permit expires December 31, 2003.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the commissioner of customs adjusting limits.
November 29, 2000.
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for swing and carryover.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on October 21, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in Brazil and exported during the twelve-month period which began on
Effective on November 29, 2000., you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Delaware River Basin Commission.
The Delaware River Basin Commission (“Commission”) will hold a public hearing to receive comments on proposed amendments to its Water Code and Comprehensive Plan to establish water usage reporting requirements for source water withdrawals and water service. The Commission established source metering, recording, and reporting requirements in 1986 for withdrawals of surface or ground water in excess of an average of 100,000 gallons per day over a 30-day period, but it did not specify the types of information to be reported. The Commission established service metering and recording requirements in 1987 for purveyors meeting the same volume threshold, but it did not require them to report service by use category. Thus, key pieces of information are missing and reported data are inconsistent among the states, impeding the Commission's ability to perform critical water use analyses. The Commission now proposes to amend its regulations to institute reporting requirements that ensure it has the source and service information needed to evaluate how and where water is being used in the basin. Much of the data proposed to be collected already are being collected by the states. The proposed amendment addresses the existing data gaps and will greatly facilitate the Commission's water use evaluations.
The existing regulations (DRBC Water Code Sections 2.50.1 and 2.50.2), the proposed amendment (proposed Water Code Section 2.50.3), and supplemental information are posted on the Delaware River Basin Commission web site at
The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 9, 2001 during the Commission's regular business meeting. The meeting will begin at 1:00 p.m. and continue until all those present who wish to testify are afforded an opportunity to do so. Persons wishing to testify at the hearing are asked to register in advance with the Commission Secretary.
The deadline for submission of written comments will be December 20, 2000.
The public hearing will be held at the Sykes Student Union, Rosedale Avenue, West Chester University, West Chester, Pennsylvania. Directions to that location will be posted on the Commission's web site,
Please contact Esther Siskind at 609-883-9500 ext. 202 with questions about the proposed amendment, and Pamela M. Bush at ext. 203 with questions about the rulemaking process.
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
Sempra Energy Trading Corp. (SET) has applied for renewal of its authority to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before December 29, 2000.
Comments, protests or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Power Im/Ex (FE-27), Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0350 (FAX 202-287-5736).
Steven Mintz (Program Office) 202-586-9506 or Michael Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793.
Exports of electricity from the United States to a foreign country are regulated and require authorization under section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).
On November 10, 1998, the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) issued Order No. EA-191 authorizing SET to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer using the international electric transmission facilities owned and operated by Basin Electric Power Cooperative, Bonneville Power Administration, Citizens Utilities, Detroit Edison, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Joint Owners of the Highgate Project, Inc., Maine Electric Power Company, Maine Public Service Company, Minnesota Power and Light Co., Inc., Minnkota Power, New York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., Northern States Power, and Vermont Electric Transmission Company. That two-year authorization expired on November 10, 2000.
On October 30, 2000, SET filed an application with FE for renewal of this export authority and requested that the authorization be granted for a five-year term and that the international transmission lines owned by Long Sault, Inc. be added to the list of authorized export points.
Comments on the SET request to export to Canada should be clearly marked with Docket EA-191-A. Additional copies are to be filed directly with Michael A. Goldstein, Esq., Senior
DOE notes that the circumstances described in this application are virtually identical to those for which export authority had previously been granted in FE Order No. EA-191. Consequently, DOE believes that it has adequately satisfied its responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 through the documentation of a categorical exclusion in the FE Docket EA-191 proceeding.
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above or by accessing the Fossil Energy Home Page at http://www.fe.doe.gov. Upon reaching the Fossil Energy Home page, select “Electricity,” from the Regulatory Info menu, and then “Pending Proceedings” from the options menus.
Idaho Operations Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of availability of solicitation—biobased products industry education initiative.
The U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies, is seeking applications from private and public institutions of higher learning to promote multidisciplinary education and training programs for graduate students at the Masters or Ph.D. levels in the area of biobased products.
The emerging biobased products industry uses crops, trees, residues, and wastes to make chemicals and a large range of everyday consumer goods, like plastics, paints and adhesives. Contributions to this new industry would come from a wide range of traditional academic programs including: biology, molecular and micro-biology, genomics, plant physiology, fermentation sciences, agronomy, crop production, forestry, chemistry, chemical engineering and other engineering disciplines, and polymer and material science. These examples are cited for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to limit the academic programs to just those listed. This solicitation seeks to encourage the widest possible range of creative approaches.
The deadline for receipt of applications is 3 p.m. MDT January 17, 2001.
Applications should be submitted to: Procurement Services Division, U.S. Department of Energy, Idaho Operations Office, Attention: Marshall Garr [DE-PS07-00ID13962], 850 Energy Drive, MS 1221, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83401-1563.
Marshall Garr, Contract Specialist, at
The objective of this new education initiative is to produce graduates who can enter the complex biobased products industry and effectively integrate knowledge from the wide range of technologies that are necessary for this industry to grow. U.S. universities and colleges are encouraged to design a comprehensive, multidisciplinary curriculum to achieve such a goal from an educational perspective and simultaneously allow the student to gain a hands-on experience through the implementation of an individual relevant research program. It is expected that the student, under the major professor's tutelage will conduct a research program that will make substantive contributions to the biobased products industry. It is encouraged for the students to interact with industry in their academic and research program.
Graduates will eventually be expected to contribute to improving the efficient utilization of energy in this new industry and enhancing the environmental quality of the surrounding land, air and water.
The statutory authority for this program is the Federal Non-Nuclear Energy Research & Development Act of 1974 (Pub L. 93-577). DOE anticipates approximately 4-5 grant awards will be made for up to $125,000 each a year for a maximum of three years in duration. These grants will cover both the costs for establishing a new cross-cutting academic and research program in this field as well as full stipends for 2 or so deserving graduate students at the Masters or Ph.D. level. The awards will be used for the academic year starting in the fall of 2001.
The issuance date of Solicitation No. DE-PS07-01ID14037 will be November 27, 2000. The solicitation will be available in full text via the Internet at the following address:
Idaho Operations Office, DOE.
Notice of availability of financial assistance solicitation.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Idaho Operations Office (ID) is seeking applications for cost-shared research and development of technologies which will reduce energy consumption, reduce environmental impacts and enhance economic competitiveness of two or more of the following Industry of the Future Sectors: Aluminum, Steel, Forest Products, Glass, Agriculture, Chemicals, Metal Casting, Mining, and Petroleum Refining. The research is to address research priorities identified in Technology Roadmaps developed for the following Supporting Industries: Heat Treating, Forging, Welding, Industrial Process Heating and Advanced Ceramics.
The issuance date of Solicitation Number DE-PS07-01ID14026 will be on or about November 20, 2000. The deadline for receipt of applications will be approximately on February 7, 2001.
The solicitation in its full text will be available on the Internet at the following URL address:
Seb Klein, Contract Specialist, kleinsm@id.doe gov.
The statutory authority for the program is the Federal Non-Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974
Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Arkansas Western Pipeline, L.L.C. (AWP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 28, Substitute Original Sheet No. 28A, and Substitute Original Sheet No. 60B, to be effective November 1, 2000.
AWP asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's order issued October 27, 2000, in Docket No. RP01-11-000.
AWP states that it is filing to remove from its tariff provisions providing for the imposition of transportation charges for imbalance netting and trading pursuant to the directive of the Commission's order in this proceeding.
AWP further states that it has served copies of this filing upon the company's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 16, 2000, Carnegie Interstate Pipeline Company (CIPCO) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet to become effective October 1, 2000:
CIPCO states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's Order issued on October 26, 2000. This sheet was inadvertently not included in the November 13, 2000 filing.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Chandeleur Pipe Line Company tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective December 20, 2000:
Chandeleur Pipe Line Company asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's Order No. 587-L, Docket No. RM96-1, et al. issued June 30, 2000, 91 FERC ¶ 63,350, and the Commission's Order issued October 27, 2000, Docket No. RM96-1-014 et al., 93 FERC ¶ 61,093.
Chandeleur is filing tariff sheets implementing Imbalance Netting and Trading tariff provisions per 18 CFR 284.12(c)(2)(ii) adopted in Commission Order No. 587-G, issued April 16, 1998, 83 FERC ¶ 61,029.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 9, 2000, Consumers Energy Company (Consumers) tendered for filing a Facilities Agreement between Consumers and SEI Michigan, L.L.C. [SEI] (Agreement). Under the Agreement, Consumers is to provide electrical connection facilities between a generating plant to be built by SEI and Consumers transmission system. Consumers requested that the Agreement be allowed to become effective October 4, 2000.
Copies of the filing were served upon SEI and the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before November 30, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 14, 2000, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, effective December 1, 2000:
FGT states that on June 5, 1999 FGT filed revised tariff sheets to reflect the certification of the Data Verification Committee (DVC) of the “Index of Requirements by End Use Priority for the 12 Month Period Ending June 30, 1998.” The DVC certification is pursuant to Section 17.A.4 of the General Terms and Conditions of the FGT FERC Gas Tariff, which requires (i) that shippers submit data showing usage of Priority 1 and/or Priority 2 Exempt Uses for a one-year period ending every third July 31 and (ii) that the DVC certify the volumes which qualify as Priority 1 or Priority 2 Exempt Uses. On July 7, 1997 Coronet Industries, Inc. (Coronet) and U.S. Agri-Chemicals Corporation (US Agri-Chem) jointly filed a protest objecting to the DVC's reading of the tariff to exclude agricultural uses having alternative fuel capability on August 29, 1979 and requesting that their entire usage be included as a Priority 2 Exempt Use. Coronet and US Agri-Chem also objected to the DVC decision to allow shippers having no growth to use existing Exempt Use data collected for the period for July 1, 1994 to June 31, 1995 in lieu of resubmitting actual daily average gas usage for the period July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998. On July 16, 1999 FGT filed a response to the Protest.
Also, FGT states that on July 23, 1999 the Commission issued its “Order Accepting and Suspending Tariff Sheets Subject to Refund and Establishing a Briefing Schedule.” Coronet/US Agri-Chem and FGT filed Initial Briefs on August 12, 1999 and Reply Briefs on August 23, 1999. On September 15, 2000 the Commission issued its “Order on Briefs.” The Commission determined that the DVC was correct in its decision to exclude agricultural uses with alternate fuel capability on August 29, 1979. However, the Commission determined that it was inappropriate to utilize Exempt Use data from the prior data collection. The Commission required the collection of actual data for the 12-month period ending in June 30, 1998.
And, FGT states that by letter dated September 27, 2000, FGT gave notice that customers were required to submit actual end use data pursuant to the Commission's September 15, 2000 Order. This data was submitted and on November 2, 2000 the DVC met to vote on the certification of requirements.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
On November 15, 2000, Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River), 295 Chipeta Way, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158, filed in Docket No. CP01-31-000 an application pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Commission's Rules and Regulations for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing Kern River to construct and operate
Kern River proposes to install the following facilities: (1) Three new compressor stations, the Elberta Compressor Station, in Utah County, Utah, the Veyo Compressor Station in Washington County, Utah, and the Daggett Compressor Station in San Bernardino County, California; (2) an additional compressor unit at the existing Muddy Creek Compressor Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming; (3) restaging of the compressor at the existing Fillmore Compressor in Millard County, Utah; and (4) upgrades of the existing Opal Meter Station in Lincoln County, Wyoming and the Wheeler Ridge Meter Station in Kern County, California. It is indicated that the proposed compression facilities will add a total of 49,500 horsepower to the Kern River system at a cost of approximately $80 million.
Kern River states that the proposed expansion facilities are designed to accommodate the 124,500 dt per day of commitments for new firm service from Wyoming to California under four long-term (10- and 15-year) agreements resulting from a recent open season. It is stated that Kern River in the open season solicited requests for capacity turnback, but received no offers to release capacity. Kern River also states that the expansion transportation agreements are subject to the applicable extended term (ET) rates under the ET rate program recently approved for future implementation on the Kern River system. Kern River estimates that the rolled-in effect of the proposed expansion will be an approximately 4 to 6 percent reduction in otherwise applicable rates for existing shippers, partially offset by an increase in fuel reimbursement obligations as a result of the added compression. It is indicated that, pursuant to a rate settlement obligation, Kern River will submit a timely compliance filing to adjust its rates effective with the in-service date of the expansion to reflect the beneficial impact of the expansion project.
It is also stated that the proposed California compressor station will have an electric motor-driven compressor unit. To ensure recovery of the associated actual electric fuel costs from its shippers flowing gas through that point, Kern River proposes an electric compressor fuel surcharge under its tariff. It is indicated that, based on the stated assumptions for electricity costs, the initial surcharge is $0.0051 per dt of service flowing through that station.
Kern River also states that the $800,000 estimated cost to restage the existing compressor unit at the Fillmore Compressor Station will be expensed consistent with the FERC's Gas Plant Instructions in Part 201 of the Commission's Regulations. Kern River requests approval to amortize the restaging expense over 15 years, consistent with the contract terms applicable to most of the expansion capacity. It is also indicated that use of the approved ET rate levelization methodology for the proposed roll-in results in the new regulatory depreciation rates shown in Exhibit O of the application. Kern River requests that, since the total debt-related depreciation expenses still will be recovered over the primary terms of the service agreements, it should be permitted to continue accounting for the differences between its book depreciation and its regulatory depreciation as a regulatory asset or liability, with amortization over the primary terms of the underlying service agreements.
Kern River avers that the expansion shippers require service by May 1, 2002, in order to serve the fuel requirements of new and existing electric power generation facilities in California, and that the new facilities will require seven months to construct.
Questions regarding the details of this proposed project should be directed to Gary Kotter, Manager, Certificates, at (801)-584-7117, or in writing to his attention at Kern River Gas Transmission Company, P.O. Box 58900, Salt Lake City, Utah 84158.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before December 13, 2000, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.
The Commission may issue a preliminary determination on non-environmental issues prior to the completion of its review of the environmental aspects of the project. This preliminary determination typically considers such issues as the need for the project and its economic effect on existing customers of the applicant, on other pipelines in the area, and on landowners and communities. For example, the Commission considers the extent to which the applicant may need to exercise eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way for the proposed
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a certificate will be issued.
Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission LLC, (KMIGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1-B, the following sheet, with an effective date of November 1, 2000:
KMIGT states that the filing is being filed in compliance with the Commission's Order dated October 25, 2000 in this docket.
KMIGT states that it has served copies of the filing upon the company's transportation service and storage customers.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas Tariffs, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets proposed to be effective on November 3, 2000:
Northern states that the above sheets represent cancellation of Rate Schedule T-44 from Northern's Original Volume No. 2 FERC Gas Tariff, and its associated deletion from the Table of Contents in Northern's Volume Nos. 1 and 2 tariffs.
Northern states that copies of the filing were served upon the company's customers and interested state Commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C. (Ozark) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, to be effective November 1, 2000:
Ozark asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Commission's order issued October 27, 2000, in Docket No. RP01-10-000.
Ozark states that it is filing to remove from its tariff provisions providing for the imposition of transportation charges for imbalance netting and trading pursuant to the directive of the Commission's order in this proceeding.
Ozark further states that it has served copies of this filing upon the company's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may
Take notice that on November 9, 2000, Southern California Edison Company (SCE), tendered for filing the Agreement for Interconnection Service (Agreement), between SCE and Harbor Cogeneration Company (Harbor).
The Agreement specifies the terms and conditions under which SCE will interconnect Harbor's 80,000 kW generating facility with SCE's Harborgen Substation pursuant to SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff.
Copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and all interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or November 30, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 13, 2000, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) tendered for filing the Agreement For Interconnection Service (Agreement), between SCE and Harbor Cogeneration Company (Harbor).
The Agreement specifies the terms and conditions under which SCE will interconnect Harbor's 80,000 kW generating facility with SCE's Harborgen Substation pursuant to SCE's Transmission Owner Tariff.
Copies of this filing were served upon the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California and all interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or December 4, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing Original Sheet No. 30G for inclusion in Tennessee's FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1. The filed tariff sheet reflects negotiated rate agreements between Tennessee and its Eastern Express Project 2000 shippers. Tennessee requests that the Commission approve the filed tariff sheet to be effective December 15, 2000.
Tennessee notes that in its October 29, 1999 “Order Issuing Certificate” in Tennessee Docket No. CP99-262-000, the Commission approved the negotiated rates for the Eastern Express Project 2000 shippers.
Tennessee also requests that the Commission make a determination whether the Gas Transportation Agreement between Tennessee and Milford Power Company (“Milford Agreement”) constitutes a non-conforming service agreement. In that regard, the Milford Agreement contains two provisions (Article VII and Section 12.3) on which Tennessee seeks a determination because they vary from the corresponding provisions in Tennessee's
Tennessee states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing an FT-A Agreement and three letter agreements (Negotiated Rate Arrangement). Tennessee requests that the Commission approve the Negotiated Rate Arrangement effective December 1, 2000.
Tennessee states that the Negotiated Rate Arrangement reflects a negotiated rate transaction between Tennessee and Eastman Chemical Company for transportation under Rate Schedule FT-A.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http//www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 21, 2000, Texas Gas Transmission Corporation (Texas Gas) tendered for filing, as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following pro forma tariff sheets to become effective January 14, 2000:
On November 29, 1999, Texas Gas filed proposed tariff sheets to establish a new Summer No-Notice Service (SNS). The Commission Order issued January 12, 2000, suspended the effective date of those tariff sheets until June 14, 2000, subject to refund, the conditions set forth within the Order, and the outcome of a technical conference. The pro forma tariff sheets submitted herein reflect changes to the SNS Rate Schedule, which Texas Gas agreed to as a result of the recent technical conference. Texas Gas also requests withdrawal of the tariff sheets that were filed on March 10, 2000, in Docket No. RP00-83-002 and noticed by the Commission on March 15, 2000. The pro forma tariff sheets will replace and reflect the identical revisions previously filed on March 10, 2000.
Texas Gas states that copies of the revised tariff sheets are being mailed to all parties on the Commission's official service list as well as to Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on November 16, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, proposed to become effective on November 16, 2000:
Transwestern states that the above sheet is being filed to implement a
Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, proposed to become effective on November 15, 2000:
Transwestern states that the above sheets are being filed to implement a specific negotiated rate transaction in accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.
Transwestern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 88 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that on November 13, 2000, Transwestern Pipeline Company (Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following sheets to be effective January 1, 2001:
Transwestern states that this filing is made to comply with the Commission's October 27, 2000 order which directed Transwestern to file tariff sheets to implement trading of operator imbalances.
Transwestern states that copies of the filing were served upon all parties listed on the official service list for this proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that on November 20, 2000, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with an effective date of December 21, 2000:
Williston Basin states that it is filing the proposed revision to its Tariff to facilitate compliance with Order No. 637 and the revised reporting requirements in Section 161.3(1)(2) of the Commission's Regulations.
Effective September 1, 2000, pipelines were required to identify operating personnel and facilities shared by the pipeline and its marketing affiliates on
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at
Take notice that on November 21, 2000, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a letter clarifying the nature of a proposed transaction transferring its Danskammer generating units to Dynegy Danskammer L.L.C., as described in a previous filing in the above referenced proceeding.
Central Hudson states that copies of these materials were sent to all parties appearing on the service list in the above referenced docket.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before December 1, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Naniwa Energy LLC (Applicant), 1585 Broadway, New York, NY 10036-8293, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Applicant, a Delaware limited liability company, intends to own and/or operate an eligible facility in Nevada. These facilities will consist of up to six natural gas-fired Westinghouse and Mitsubishi Model 501AA combustion turbines, each with approximately sixty megawatts capacity, as well as interconnecting transmission facilities necessary to effect sales of electric energy at wholesale.
Take notice that on November 16, 2000, Arizona Public Service Company (APS), tendered for filing a revision to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) in order to Standardized procedures for requesting interconnection service (Attachment M) and a pro forma Interconnection and Operating Agreement (Attachment N).
APS requests an effective date of November 17, 2000.
A copy of this filing has been served on the Arizona Corporation Commission, Panda Gila River, L.P., Pinnacle West Energy Company, Reliant Energy Desert Basin LLC, and AES. Copies of the filing can be viewed on APS' OASIS website, www.azpsoasis.com.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tendered for filing Thirty (30) signatory pages of parties to the Operating Agreement. PJM requests an effective date on the day after this Notice of Filing is received by FERC.
Take note that on November 17, 2000, American Transmission Systems, Inc. (ATSI), an Amendment to its October 31, 2000 filing in this case to conform the 1st Revised Service Agreement No. 214 for Network Integration Transmission Service provided by American Transmission Systems, Inc. to American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. (AMP-Ohio) on behalf of certain designated municipal electric systems in Ohio and Pennsylvania to the requirements of Order No. 614. The
American Transmission Systems, Inc. renews its request for an effective date of October 1, 2000 for the 1st Revised Service Agreement No. 214.
Copies of this filing have been served on the utility commissions in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on November 16, 2000, Miami Valley Lighting, Inc., (MVLT), a wholly owned subsidiary of DPL Inc., tendered for filing a rate schedule to engage in sales at market-based rates. MVLT included in its filing a proposed code of conduct.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) tendered for filing (1) the Sixty-Seventh Agreement Amending New England Power Pool Agreement, which changes the amortization and repayment methodology for certain expenses related to the restructuring of NEPOOL (the Restructuring Expense) incurred before May 1, 1999, and (2) the Sixty-Eighth Agreement Amending New England Power Pool Agreement, which changes the collection, amortization and repayment methodology for the Restructuring Expense incurred on and after January 1, 2000 and makes revisions related to alternative funding arrangements for certain portions of the Restructuring Expense.
A January 1, 2001 effective date is requested for these Agreements.
The NEPOOL Participants Committee states that copies of these materials were sent to the NEPOOL Participants and the New England state governors and regulatory commissions.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company (Allegheny Power), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation for Service Agreements with FPL Energy Services, Inc., (Customer) a customer under Allegheny Power's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff and Market Rate Tariff.
Allegheny Power has requested that the cancellations be effective as of November 14, 2000.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Customer, 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 November 15, 2000, Naniwa Energy LLC petitioned the Commission for acceptance of its Rate Schedule FERC No. 1, the granting of certain blanket approvals, including the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates, and the waiver of certain of the Commission's Regulations.
Take notice that on November 8, 2000, PECO Energy Company (PECO), tendered for filing under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. S 792
PECO requests an effective date of November 1, 2000 for the Agreement.
PECO states that copies of this filing have been supplied to Split Rock Energy LLC and to the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), tendered for filing executed Interconnection and Operation Agreement between Ohio Power Company and PSEG Waterford Energy, LLC. The agreement is pursuant to the AEP Companies' Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT) that has been designated as the Operating Companies of the American Electric Power System FERC Electric Tariff Revised Volume No. 6, effective June 15, 2000.
AEP requests an effective date of November 20, 2000.
A copy of the filing was served upon the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, UtiliCorp United Inc. (UtiliCorp), tendered for filing on behalf of its WestPlains Energy-Colorado operating division, a service agreement for sales of energy and capacity to UtiliCorp from The Pueblo Chieftain.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy), tendered for filing (1) a Notice of Letter of Acquisition of Merger of Citizens Power LLC into Edison Mission Marketing & Trading (2) a Notice of Name Changes from Amoco Energy Trading Corporation to BP Energy Company; (3) a Notice of Name Change from Williams Energy Services Company to Williams Energy Marketing & Trading Company; and (4) a Notice of Name Change from Engage Energy US, L.P. to Coastal Merchant Energy, L.P.
Cinergy respectfully requests waiver of any applicable regulation to the extent necessary to make the tariff changes effective as of the date of each of the listed name changes.
A copy of the filing was served upon the affected parties.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, SOWEGA Power LLC made a compliance filing consisting of amended and restated long-term service agreements with Grady Electric Membership Corporation and Three Notch Electric Membership Corporation pursuant to SOWEGA Power LLC's market-based tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Vol. No. 1. These amended and
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), tendered for filing revised Must-Run Service Agreements (RMR Agreements) between it and the California Independent System Operator Corporation (ISO). Under these agreements PG&E dispatches certain power plants designated as Reliability Must-Run by the ISO. Because the ISO has renewed these contracts for 2001, PG&E's filing proposes updates in accordance with contract terms to contract service limits, Target Available Hours, Availability rates and Pre-paid Start-up Charges. This filing also revises PG&E's RMR Agreements to conform with several changes to terms and conditions, in compliance with the Commission's approval of the August 14, 2000, settlement among the ISO, PG&E and various parties. In addition, this filing conforms PG&E's RMR Agreements to the requirements of Order No. 614.
Copies of this filing have been served upon the ISO, the California Electricity Oversight Board, and the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, Idaho Power Company (IPC) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a Service Agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between Idaho Power Company and Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.
Take notice that the Notice of Filing issued on November 17, 2000, in Docket No. ER01-414-000, should be rescinded.
Take notice that the Notice of Filing issued on November 17, 2000, in Docket No. ER01-410-000, should be rescinded.
Take notice that the Notice of Filing issued on November 17, 2000, in Docket No. ER01-411-000, should be rescinded.
Take notice that on November 15, 2000, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation (NYSEG), tendered for filing pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act and Section 35.13 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission) Regulations, an amendment to Rate Schedule 200 filed with FERC corresponding to an Agreement with the New York Power Authority (NYPA). The proposed amendment would initiate revenues of $117,881 for new facilities for the period from September 25, 2000 through August 31, 2001.
This rate filing is made pursuant to Paragraph 5.1 of the October 19, 1999 Facilities Agreement between NYSEG and NYPA, filed with FERC. The annual charges for routine operation and maintenance and general expenses, as well as property taxes, are revised based on data taken from NYSEG's Annual Report to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC Form 1) for the twelve month ended December 31, 1999. The revised facilities charge is levied on the cost of the 135 MVAR capacitor and associated equipment interconnected with NYSEG's Oakdale Substation, constructed by NYSEG for the sole use of NYPA.
NYSEG requests an effective date of September 1, 2000.
Copies of the filing were served upon the New York Power Authority and the Public Service Commission of the State of New York.
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).
Take notice that the following Settlement Agreement and Amendment of License has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m. Copies of the Settlement Agreement and amendment application are available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. This filing may be viewed on http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance) or at the address listed in item h above.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests, or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” “PROTEST,” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
On June 15, 2000, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia Gas) and Columbia Gulf Transmission Company (Columbia Gulf) submitted filings to comply with Order No. 637. Several parties have protested various aspects of Columbia Gas' filing and Columbia Gulf's filing.
Take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by Columbia Gulf's filing will commence on Wednesday, December 13, 2000, at 10:00 am.
Also take notice that a technical conference to discuss the various issues raised by Columbia Gas's filing will commence on Thursday, December 14, 2000, at 9:00 am.
The technical conferences will be held in a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Parties protesting aspects of Columbia Gas' filing and Columbia Gulf's filing should be prepared to discuss alternatives.
All interested persons and Staff are permitted to attend.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of two (2) proposed administrative settlements, entered into pursuant to section 122(h) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9622(h), for recovery of past response costs concerning the Barceloneta Landfill Superfund Site (“Site”) located in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico. These settlements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or the “Agency”) are each entered into with one party, one with Bristol-Myers Barceloneta, Inc. (“BMS”), and the second with Nycomed Puerto Rico, Inc. (“NYCOMED”). The settlements require BMS and NYCOMED to pay $225,000.00 and $125,000.00, respectively, to EPA, in reimbursement of past response costs incurred with respect to the Site. The settlements include a covenant not to sue the settling parties pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), for all costs that EPA or the U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of EPA, paid at or in connection with the Site through the date of execution of the
Comments must be submitted on or before December 29, 2000.
The proposed settlements are available for public inspection at the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. A copy of either of the proposed settlements may be obtained from James F. Doyle, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Comments should reference the Barceloneta Landfill Superfund Site located in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico. Requests for a copy of the BMS agreement should reference Docket No. CERCLA-02-2000-2012, and requests for a copy of the NYCOMED agreement should reference Docket No. CERCLA-02-2000-2011. Any comments or requests should be addressed to James F. Doyle, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 17th floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
James F. Doyle, Assistant Regional Counsel, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 17th Floor, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866. Telephone: 212-637-3165.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Georgia is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Georgia has adopted drinking water regulations requiring consumer confidence reports from all community water systems, defining analytical methods for radionuclides, removing prohibition of the use of point of use devices, requiring special monitoring for inorganic and organic contaminants and revising definitions for administrative penalty authority, public water system, and existing variance and exemption regulations. EPA has determined that these revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends on approving this State program revision.
All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by December 30, 2000 to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by December 30, 2000, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on December 30, 2000. Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: The name, address, and telephone number of the individual organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and a brief statement of the information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of a responsible official of the organization or other entity.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices:
Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, Water Resources Branch, 205 Bulter Street, S.E., Atlanta, GA 30334 or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Drinking Water Section, 61 Forsyth Street Southwest, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Lori Brown, EPA Region 4, Drinking Water Section at the Atlanta address given above or at telephone (404)562-9482.
(Section 1420 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR part 142 of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of tentative approval.
Notice is hereby given that the State of Tennessee is revising its approved Public Water System Supervision Program. Tennessee has adopted drinking water regulations establishing administrative penalty authority, and which revise the definition of a Public Water System. EPA has determined that the administrative penalty authority revisions meet all minimum federal requirements, and that the Public Water System definition revisions are no less stringent than the corresponding federal regulations. Therefore, EPA intends to approve these State program revisions.
All interested parties may request a public hearing. A request for a public hearing must be submitted by December 29, 2000 to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below. Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. However, if a substantial request for a public hearing is made by December 29, 2000, a public hearing will be held. If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received, and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on his own motion, this determination shall become final and effective on December 29, 2000. Any request for a public hearing shall
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices: Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Supply, 401 Church Street, L&C Tower, Sixth Floor, Nashville, Tennessee, 37219-5404, or at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Drinking Water Section, 61 Forsyth Street Southwest, Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
Fred Hunter, EPA Region 4, Drinking Water Section at the Atlanta address given above, or by telephone at (404) 562-9477.
Actions 1401 and 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended (1996), and 40 CFR parts 141 and 142.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the State of Arizona FEMA-1347-DR, dated November 8, 2000, and related determinations.
November 8, 2000.
Madge Dale, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3772.
Notice is hereby given that the incident period for this disaster is closed effective November 8, 2000.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
In accordance with FEMA Interim Rule, CFR Part 354, published in the
This user fee hourly rate is effective for FY 2001 (October 1, 2000, to September 30, 2001).
Mr. Russell Salter, Division Director, Chemical and Radiological Preparedness Division, Preparedness, Training and Exercises Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3030 (phone), or (email) russ.salter@fema.gov.
As authorized by Public Law 105-276, 112 Stat. 2461, we will charge an hourly user fee rate of $35.75 to NRC licensees of commercial nuclear power plants for all site-specific biennial exercise related services provided by FEMA personnel for FEMA's REP Program under 44 CFR Part 354. We will deposit funds that we collect under this rule in the REP Program Fund to offset the actual costs by FEMA for its REP Program.
We established the hourly rate on the basis of the methodology set forth in 44 CFR 354.4(b), “Determination of site-specific biennial exercise related component for FEMA personnel,” and will use the rate to assess and collect fees for site-specific biennial exercise related services rendered by FEMA personnel. This hourly rate only addresses charges to NRC licensees for services that FEMA personnel provide under the site-specific component, not charges for services FEMA personnel provide under the flat fee component referenced at 44 CFR 354.4(d), nor for services that FEMA contractors provide. We will charge for FEMA contractors' services in accordance with 44 CFR 354.4 (c) and (d) for the recovery of appropriated funds obligated for the Emergency Management Planning and Assistance (EMPA) portion of FEMA's REP Program budget.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Notice of existence and character of a new system of records.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (“FMCS”), under the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4), is hereby publishing a notice of a new system to be added to the FMCS systems of records. Title 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11) provides that the public be given 30 days to comment on the amended system of records. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has oversight responsibilities under the Privacy Act, requires 40 days to conclude its review of the amended system of records.
The proposed changes to FMCS' systems of records becomes effective January 8, 2001.
Comments should be addressed to Karen D. Kline, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 2100 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20427.
Karen D. Kline, (202) 606-5488.
FMCS has adopted a new system of records, FMCS/VI Roster of Data File, under the
Roster of Neutrals Data File.
Unclassified.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Washington, DC 20427.
Applicants for the roster of neutrals and neutrals who are on the roster.
The first category of records consists of applicant records, those not accepted, to the roster of neutrals. These records contain personal resumes, the personal data questionnaire listing education, professional background and experience, confidential and other recommendations as to acceptability, and correspondence pertaining to rejection from placement on the roster. The second category of records consists of the files of current neutrals (those currently on the roster) and contains the same information as in the applicant files. In addition, such files include: (1) Evaluation and rating of a neutral's experience; (2) competency for certain types of cases; (3) correspondence with a neutral concerning standard fees, interest in only certain cases, complaints, and other correspondence related to case handling procedures; and, (4) biographical sketches summarizing information contained in the personal data questionnaire.
Title II Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended.
To maintain applications containing personal resumes and other background information provided by neutrals for evaluation, credentialing and assignment to perform non-labor relations alternative dispute resolution work which FMCS may obtain.
Biographical sketches are furnished to the parties requesting non-labor relations alternative dispute resolution from FMCS. Data furnished by the applicant or neutral and other sources listed above is routinely disclosed to appropriate persons or organizations outside the agency in the course of verification or evaluation for the purpose of admittance to or retention on the roster. Data furnished by any source in the nature of a complaint or inquiry about the neutral's performance or qualifications are routinely referred to the appropriate person inside the agency in the course of investigating a neutral's eligibility for retention on the roster.
None.
These records are maintained in original/duplicate document form, electronic form and computer tape.
These records are retrieved by an individual name or identification number.
Presently, the files are stored in the FMCS Institute. Access is restricted to FMCS Institute personnel and Management Systems personnel on a limited basis only. These files are used for purposes of evaluating and rating the experience of the neutrals applying to be included on the roster of neutrals and for making appropriate referrals for non-labor management alternative dispute resolution.
Files on neutrals who are included on the roster are maintained as long as the individual is utilized for referral of alternative dispute resolution cases. The files of applicants to the roster are maintained for 2 years. After the two-year retention period, a separate listing of rejected neutral applicants is prepared and the file is destroyed.
Director, FMCS Institute, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 2100 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20427.
Individuals seeking knowledge of whether the system contains information about them should direct their inquiries in writing to the Director of Administration or Director of the FMCS Institute at the aforementioned address. All such inquiries should indicate name and any other information that may be helpful in locating the file.
Same as notification procedure above.
Same as notification procedure above.
The records contain information directly from the individual, information obtained by FMCS, or information prepared by FMCS.
None.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than December 12, 2000.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 22, 2000.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Betsy Buttrill White, Senior Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001:
1. Holland Bancorp, Inc., Holland, New York; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Bank of Holland, Holland, New York.
2. Lakeland Bancorp, Inc., Oak Ridge, New Jersey; to acquire 9.9 percent of the voting shares of Sussex Bancorp, Franklin, New Jersey, and thereby indirectly acquire Sussex County State Bank, Franklin, New Jersey.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (JoAnne F. Lewellen, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:
1.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than December 22, 2000.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia (Michael E. Collins, Senior Vice President) 100 North 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19105-1521:
1.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 29, 2000.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, C Street entrance between 20th and 21st Streets, N.W., Washington, DC 20551.
Open.
1. Publication for comment of proposed amendments to Regulation C
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
This meeting will be recorded for the benefit of those unable to attend. Cassettes will be available for listening in the Board's Freedom of Information Office, and copies may be ordered for $6 per cassette by calling 202-452-3684 or by writing to: Freedom of Information Office, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.
You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded announcement of this meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The Web site also includes procedural and other information about the open meeting.)
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Approximately 11:30 a.m., Wednesday, November 29, 2000, following a recess at the conclusion of the open meeting.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., 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.
Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is given of a meeting of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. This notice, which was published on November 27, 2000, appeared late because publication deadlines, outside of the control of the Commission, interfered with timely notice. The Commission will discuss its ongoing projects: (a) Draft report on ethical issues in international research and (b) ethical and policy issues in the oversight of human subjects research in the United States. Some Commission members may participate by telephone conference. The meeting is open to the public and opportunities for statements by the public will be provided on December 7 from 1:00-1:30 pm.
The President established the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) on October 3, 1999 by Executive Order 12975 as amended. The mission of the NBAC is to advise and make recommendations to the National Science and Technology Council, its Chair, the President, and other entities on bioethical issues arising from the research on human biology and behavior, and from the applications of that research.
The meeting is open to the public with attendance limited by the availability of space on a first come, first serve basis. Members of the public who wish to present oral statements should contact Ms. Jody Crank by telephone, fax machine, or mail as shown below as soon as possible, at least 4 days before the meeting. The Chair will reserve time for presentations by persons requesting to speak and asks that oral statements be limited to five minutes. The order of persons wanting to make a statement will be assigned in the order in which requests are received. Individuals unable to make oral presentations can mail or fax their written comments to the NBAC staff office at least five business days prior to the meeting for distribution to the Commission and inclusion in the public record. The Commission also accepts general comments at its website at bioethics.gov. Persons needing special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other special accommodations, should contact NBAC staff at the address or telephone number listed below as soon as possible.
Ms. Jody Crank, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Suite 700, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7979, telephone (301) 402-4242, fax number (301) 480-6900.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (section 3506(c)(2)(A) of Title 44, United States Code, as amended by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes periodic summaries of proposed projects being developed for submission to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-1129.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The Health Education Assistance Loan (HEAL) program provided federally-insured loans to students in schools of allopathic medicine, osteopathic medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, podiatric medicine, pharmacy, public health, allied health, or chiropractic, and graduate students in health administration or clinical psychology through September 30, 1998. Eligible lenders, such as banks, savings and loan associations, credit unions, pension funds, State agencies, HEAL schools, and insurance companies make new refinanced HEAL loans which are insured by the Federal Government against loss due to borrower's death, disability, bankruptcy, and default. The basic purpose of the program was to assure the availability of funds for loans to eligible students who needed to borrow money to pay for their educational loans. Currently, the program refinances previous HEAL loans, monitors the federal liability, and assists in default prevention activities. The HEAL borrower, the borrower's physician, and the holder of the loan completes the Physician's Certification form to certify that the HEAL borrower meets the total and permanent disability provisions.
The Department uses this form to obtain detailed information about disability claims which includes the following: (1) The borrower's consent to release medical records to the Department of Health and Human Services and to the holder of the borrower's HEAL loans, (2) pertinent information supplied by the certifying physician, (3) the physician's certification that the borrower is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity because of a medically determinable impairment that is expected to continue for a long and indefinite period of time or to result in death, and (4) information from the lender on the unpaid balance. Failure to submit the required documentation will result in disapproval of a disability claim.
The estimate of burden for the Physician's Certification form is as follows:
Send comments to Susan G. Queen, Ph.D., HRSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 14-33, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received before December 29, 2000.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice of a computer matching program between the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Pursuant to the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Guidance on the statute, HUD is updating its notice of a matching program involving comparisons between income data provided by applicants or participants in HUD's assisted housing programs and independent sources of income information. The matching program will be carried out to detect inappropriate (excessive or insufficient) housing assistance under the National Housing Act, the United States Housing Act of 1937, section 101 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1965, the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, and the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998. The program provides for the verification of the matching results and the initiation of appropriate administrative or legal actions, primarily through public housing agencies (HAs) and owners and agents (all collectively referred to as POAs). Indian tribes and tribally designated housing entities (TDHEs) are not a mandatory component of the computer matching program. Participation by Indian tribes and TDHEs is discretionary; however, they may receive and use social security and supplemental security income matching information provided by HUD. During 1999 the responsibilities for the computer matching program were transferred from the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) to the Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC).
This notice provides an overview of computer matching for HUD's assisted housing programs. Specifically, the notice describes HUD's program for computer matching of its tenant data to: (a) The Social Security Administration's (SSA) earned income and the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) unearned income data, (b) SSA's wage, social security, supplemental security income and special veterans benefits data, (c) State Wage Information Collection Agencies' (SWICAs') wage and unemployment benefit claim
Computer matching is expected to begin 30 days after publication of this notice unless comments are received which will result in a contrary determination, or 40 days from the date a computer matching agreement is signed, whichever is later.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
This notice supersedes a similar notice published in the
The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a) (the CMPP Act), the Office of Management and Budget's guidance on this statute entitled “Final Guidance Interpreting the Provisions of Public Law 100-503, the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988” (OMB Guidance), and OMB Circular No. A-130 requires publication of notices of computer matching programs. Appendix I to OMB's Revision of Circular No. A-130, “Transmittal 2, Management of Federal Information Resources,” prescribes Federal agency responsibilities for maintaining records about individuals. In accordance with the CMPP Act and Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, copies of this notice are being provided to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the Senate, and OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
This matching program is being conducted pursuant to sections 3003 and 13403 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66, approved August 10, 1993); section 542(b) of the 1998 Appropriations Act (Public Law 105-65); section 904 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C.3544); section 165 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 3543); the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701-1750g); the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437-1437o); section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 (12 U.S.C. 1701s); the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4101
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Budget Reconciliation Act) authorizes HUD to request from the SSA and the IRS Federal tax information as prescribed in section 6103(l)(7) of title 26 of the United States Code (Internal Revenue Code). Section 542(b) of HUD's 1998 Appropriation Act (Public Law 105-65; October 27, 1997) eliminated a September 30, 1998, sunset provision to 26 U.S.C. 6103(l)(7)(D)(ix) of the Internal Revenue Code effectively making permanent the authority for SSA and IRS disclosures of Federal tax information to HUD.
The Federal tax information that HUD receives includes income data that individuals receive from employers and financial institutions (
Section 3003 of the Budget Reconciliation Act requires that applicants and participants in assisted housing programs sign a consent form authorizing the Secretary of HUD to request that the Commissioner of Social Security and the Secretary of the Treasury release the Federal tax information. The final rule regarding participants' consent to the release of information was published by HUD in the
The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 authorizes HUD and HAs (but not private owners/management agents for subsidized multifamily projects) to request wage and claim information from State Wage Information Collection Agencies (SWICAs) responsible for administering State unemployment laws in order to undertake computer matching. This Act authorizes HUD to require applicants and participants to sign a consent form authorizing HUD or the HA to request wage and claim information from the SWICAs.
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987 authorizes HUD to require applicants and participants (as well as members of their households six years of age and older) in HUD-administered programs involving rental assistance to disclose to HUD their social security numbers (SSNs) as a condition of initial or continuing eligibility for participation in the programs.
The Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA), Section 508(d), 42 U.S.C. 1437a (1998) authorizes the Secretary of HUD to require disclosure by the tenant to the public housing agency of income information received by the tenant from HUD as part of income verification procedures of HUD. The QHWRA was amended by Public Law 106-74 which extended the disclosure requirements to participants in section 8, section 202, and section 811 assistance programs. The participants are required to disclose the HUD-provided income information to owners responsible for determining the participants' eligibility or level of benefits.
HUD's primary objective in implementing the computer matching program is to increase the availability of rental assistance to individuals who meet the requirements of the rental assistance programs. Other objectives include determining the appropriate level of rental assistance, and deterring and correcting abuses in assisted housing programs. In meeting these objectives HUD also is carrying out a responsibility under 42 U.S.C. 1437f(K) to ensure that income data provided to POAs by household members is complete and accurate. Using Federal tax information, HUD conducts a computer matching and income verification program annually for a random sample of households that received rental assistance. Based on the computer matching and subsequent HUD analysis of tenant-provided information, HUD develops nationwide estimates of the extent of excess rental assistance, and uses the estimates for financial statement reporting purposes. HUD implemented a large-scale computer matching project in Fiscal Year 2000 that used 1998 information from other Federal agencies. HUD sends letters to tenants and notices to POAs so that these parties may resolve the income discrepancies.
HUD's various assisted housing programs, available through POAs, require that applicants meet certain income and other criteria to be eligible for rental assistance. In addition, tenants generally are required to report the amounts and sources of their income at least annually. However, under the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998, public housing agencies may now offer tenants the option to pay a flat rent, or an income-based rent. Those tenants who select a flat rent will be required to recertify income at least every three years. In addition, the Changes to the Admissions and Occupancy Final Rule (65 FR 16692; March 29, 2000) specified that household composition must be recertified annually for tenants who select a flat rent or and income-based rentfy.
The matching program identifies tenants receiving inappropriate (excessive or insufficient) rental assistance resulting from under or over-reported household income. When excessive rental assistance amounts are identified, some tenants move out of assisted housing units; other tenants agree to repay excessive rental assistance. These actions may increase rental assistance or number of units available to serve other beneficiaries of HUD programs. When tenants continue to be eligible for rental assistance, but at a reduced level, the tenants will be required to increase their contributions toward rent.
Tribes and TDHEs set admission and eligibility requirements pursuant to the requirements contained in the native American housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996. They are not required to provide tenant data to the Department. Therefore, their participation is discretionary.
In this computer matching program, tenant-provided information included in HUD's automated files will be compared to data from the SSA and the IRS. HUD will normally request that the SSA conduct matching of earned income information, and that the IRS conduct matching of unearned income information, at least annually. The Federal tax information matching normally occurs in the first quarter of the Federal Fiscal Year which begins in October, and uses Federal tax information for the prior tax year.
HUD will also request SSA matching of social security, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits information monthly for residents due to be recertified in four months, and daily (on the receipt of new certifications) for residents. The daily process is currently used only for HUD's Office of Housing's Rental Assistance Programs and may be expanded to the Office of Public and Indian Housing's rental assistance programs. Indian Tribes and Tribally Designated Housing Entities may receive and use social security and supplemental security income matching information provided by HUD.
HUD may also request SWICA matching to supplement SSA and IRS matching and income verification. Public housing agencies, but not owners and management agents, may also request SWICA matching.
HUD will disclose to the SSA, IRS, and SWICAs only tenant personal identifiers,
HUD will then compare income data obtained from the sources cited above to tenant-reported income data included in HUD's system of records known as the Tenant Eligibility Verification Files (HUD/REAC-1) published at 65 FR 52777; August 30, 2000. HUD/REAC-1 receives tenant data from the Tenant Housing Assistance and Contract Verification Data (HUD/H-11), published at 62 FR 11909, March 13, 1997. The tenant income comparisons identify, based on criteria established by HUD, tenants whose incomes require further verification to determine if the tenants received appropriate levels of rental assistance.
HUD will normally request that POAs verify matching results as described below. However, under certain limited circumstances, HUD may verify tenant incomes with independent income sources. For example, such circumstances may include: (a) When HUD declares a public housing agency in breach of an annual contributions contract; or (b) when tenants fail to disclose SSA and IRS data, or the tenants commit other serious violations, and HUD's analysis of the data could support legal actions. HUD may send letters to employers to request income data, but HUD will not disclose tax data to POAs.
Since HUD cannot redisclose tax data directly to POAs, HUD will notify tenants of discrepancies between the tenant-reported income and the SSA and IRS data. HUD will supply the tenants with their income information taken directly from SSA and IRS data and request that the tenants provide this information to the POA. Concurrently, HUD will notify the POA that a discrepancy exists between information
Income information that tenants disclose to the POAs will be verified directly with the income source or with the tenant. HUD has determined that POAs may consider the Federal tax information that tenants disclose to the POAs as verified if the tenant does not contest the accuracy of this information when offered an opportunity to do so. If the tenant contests the Federal tax information, the POA must verify it with the entities that provided the information to the SSA or the IRS. An Income Discrepancy Resolution Guide (see Section III.B. of this Notice of Matching Program) issued by HUD describes in greater detail actions that POAs take in resolving income differences identified by the computer matching, and in reporting to HUD on actions taken.
The SSA and the IRS have advised HUD that the process described in the preceding paragraph is consistent with the intent of section 6103(l)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code, as the intent of the matching is to create a dialogue between the benefit recipient and the benefit provider.
Unlike the income information supplied by the SSA and the IRS for tax purposes, SSA's social security, supplemental security income and special veterans benefits data may be disclosed to POAs. (The Foster Care Independence Act of 1999; Public Law 106-169 provided a new Title VIII of the Social Security Act, which authorized special benefits for certain World War II veterans.) Therefore, after receiving this data from the SSA and comparing it to tenant-reported income, HUD will disclose the SSA social security, supplemental security income and special veterans benefits data to POAs. These disclosures will include information on monthly social security, supplemental security income, and special veterans benefits data and, where applicable, income discrepancy information between tenant-reported data, as reported by POAs, and the income amounts provided by the SSA. POAs will use this information in periodic verifications of tenant incomes that are required to determine program eligibility and rental assistance amounts. HUD has implemented secure electronic facilities for transmitting social security, supplemental security income and special veterans benefits data to all POAs.
HUD will disclose matching results for SWICAs wage and unemployment claim data directly to HAs. The comparison of SWICAs wage information and the tenant-reported data will reveal whether income verification is necessary. HAs must then obtain wage information directly from the tenants' employers, including information from prior years, when appropriate. The SWICAs unemployment claim data must be verified with the tenants. Verification of the income data with employers or the SWICAs would only be required if tenants dispute the SWICAs data.
HUD will disclose matching results for OPM personnel data to POAs. The OPM data, when compared to the tenant-reported data, provides an indicator that income verification is necessary. The POA may then obtain current or prior wage information directly from employers when appropriate.
Regarding all the matching described in this notice, HUD anticipates that POAs will take appropriate actions in consultation with tenants to: (1) Resolve income disparities between tenant-reported and independent income source data, and (2) use correct income amounts in determining rental assistance.
HUD developed a Calendar Year 1998 Income Discrepancy Resolution Guide that prescribes procedures for resolving and reporting on the POA's resolution of income discrepancies concerning Federal tax information matching. The Guide also contains information concerning grievance, informal hearing and review procedures to resolve any disputes between POAs and tenants. A copy of the Guide may be accessed at http://www.hud.gov/reac/products/tass/tass_guide_poa.html. HUD plans to modify this Guide periodically. POAs must compute the rent in full compliance with all applicable occupancy regulations. POAs must ensure that they use the correct income and correctly compute the rent.
The POAs may not suspend, terminate, reduce, or make a final denial of any housing assistance to any tenant as the result of information produced by this matching program until: (a) the tenant has received notice from the POA of its findings and informing the tenant of the opportunity to contest such findings and (b) either the notice period provided in applicable regulations of the program, or 30 days, whichever is later, has expired. In most cases, POAs will resolve income discrepancies in consultation with tenants.
The information collection requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned an OMB Approval Number 2507-003, with the expiration date of May 31, 2003.
SSA and IRS will conduct the matching of tenant SSNs and additional identifiers (such as surnames and dates of birth) to tenant data that HUD supplies from its system of records known as the Tenant Housing Assistance and Contract Verification Data (HUD/H-11). Within HUD, this system of records includes two automated systems known as the Multifamily Tenant Characteristics System (a system for programs under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing) and the Tenant Rental Assistance Certification System (a system for programs under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner). POAs provide HUD with the tenant data that is included in HUD/H-11.
The SSA will match the HUD/H-11 records to the SSA's Earnings Recording and Self-Employment Income System (HHS/SSA/OSR, 09-60-0059) (Earnings Record); Master Beneficiary Record (HHS/SSA/OSR, 09-60-0090) (MBR); and Supplemental Security Income Record (HHS/SSA/OSR, 09-60-0103) (SSR). The IRS will match the HUD/H-11 records to its Wage and Information Returns (IRP) Master File (Treas/IRS 22.061). The IRS also refers to this file as the Information Return Master File (IRMF).
HUD will place matching data into its system of records known as the Tenant Eligibility Verification Files (HUD/REAC-1). The HUD/REAC-1 records are specifically exempt from certain provisions of the Privacy Act, as described in notices published on February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9406) and March 30, 1994 (59 FR 14869).
HUD may also coordinate SWICAs income computer matches for its rental assistance programs using tenants' SSNs and surnames. SWICAs will match tenant records to machine-readable files of quarterly wage data and unemployment insurance benefit data.
In addition, tenants SSNs may be matched to the OPM's General Personnel Records (OPM/GOVT-1) and the Civil Service Retirement and Insurance Records System (OPM/Central-1). Tenant data may be matched to the SSA's Master Files of Social Security Number Holders (HHS/SSA/OSR, 09-60-0058) and Death Master Files for the purpose of validating SSNs contained in tenant records. These records will also be used to validate SSNs for all applicants, tenants, and household members who are six (6) years of age and over to identify noncompliance with program eligibility requirements. HUD will compare tenant SSNs provided by POAs to reveal duplicate SSNs and potential duplicate housing assistance.
The computer matching program will be conducted according to agreements between HUD and the SSA, IRS, OPM, and SWICAs. The computer matching agreements for the planned matches will terminate either when the purpose of the computer matching program is accomplished, or 18 months from the date the agreement is signed, whichever comes first.
The agreements may be extended for one 12-month period, with the mutual agreement of all involved parties, if the following conditions are met:
(1) Within 3 months of the expiration date, all Data Integrity Boards review the agreement, find that the program will be conducted without change, and find a continued favorable examination of benefit/cost results; and
(2) All parties certify that the program has been conducted in compliance with the agreement.
The agreement may be terminated, prior to accomplishment of the computer matching purpose or 18 months from the date the agreement is signed (whichever comes first), by the mutual agreement of all involved parties within 30 days of written notice.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice; request for comments.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is announcing its intention to request renewal of its existing approval to collect certain information from applicants who wish to obtain a permit or license to conduct activities under a number of wildlife conservation laws, treaties and regulations. We will submit the collection of information listed below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If you wish to obtain copies of the proposed information collection requirement, related forms, and explanatory materials, contact the Collection Clearance Officer at the address listed below.
You must submit comments on or before January 29, 2000.
Send your comments and suggestions on specific requirements to the Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203.
To request additional copies of the information collection request, explanatory information and related forms, contact Rebecca A. Mullin, Collection Clearance Officer at 703-358-2287, or electronically to: rmullin@fws.gov.
OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and record keeping activities [see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. We plan to submit a request to OMB to renew its approval of the collection of information for the Service's license/permit application form number 3-200-1 through 3-200-3 and 3-200-26. We are requesting a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity.
We modified the format of the first page of the application form so that the information fields in our Service-wide Permits Issuance and Tracking computer System. We also modified the format and content of the supplemental page(s) of the application forms for clarity and to be less burdensome to complete.
We invite comments concerning this renewal on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond. The information collections in this program are part of a system of record covered by the Privacy Act [5 U.S.C. 552(a)].
The information on the application and the attachments will be used by the Service to review permit applications and allow the Service to make an assessment according to criteria established in various Federal wildlife conservation laws, treaties and regulations, on the issuance, suspension, revocation or denial of permits.
Federal agencies 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 number for this collection of information is 1018-0092 which expires on 02/28/2001.
The information collection requirements in this submission implement the regulatory requirements of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1539), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (15 U.S.C. 704), the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C. 42-44), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), (27 UST 108), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407), and Wild Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916), and are contained in Service regulations in Chapter I, Subchapter B of Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Common permit application and record keeping requirements have been consolidated in 50 CFR 13, and unique requirements of the various statutes in the applicable part as described in the table.
*The total number of Annual Responses and Annual Burden Hours have been reduced because the 3-200-1 form is generally not used by itself, rather it is the first page of each of the other 3-200 License/Permit Application Forms. Therefore, there have been zero responses to the 3-200-1 form. The Annual Burden Hours to complete the first page of the 3-200 forms have already been accounted for in each of the other 3-200 License/Permit Application Forms.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the availability, for public review, of an Amendment to the Draft Recovery Plan for Gabbro Soil Plants of the Central Sierra Nevada Foothills. This amendment to the draft recovery plan covers four plants listed as endangered,
Comments on the amendment to the draft recovery plan must be received on or before January 29, 2001.
Copies of the amendment to the draft recovery plan are available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the following location: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605, Sacramento, California (telephone (916) 414-6600). Requests for copies of the amendment to the draft recovery plan and written comments and materials regarding this amendment should be addressed to Wayne S. White, Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, at the above address.
Diane Elam or Kirsten Tarp, Fish and Wildlife Biologists, at the above address.
Restoring endangered or threatened animals and plants to the point where they are again secure, self-sustaining members of their ecosystems is a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service is working to prepare recovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for the conservation of the species, establish criteria for downlisting or delisting listed species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The six species of plants covered in both the draft recovery plan and the amendment to the draft plan are primarily restricted to gabbro soils habitat in the central Sierra Nevada foothills of California. Conversion of habitat to urban uses has extirpated the listed species and species of concern
The objectives of this amendment are to: (1) Make available to the public a revised preserve recommendation for the Pine Hill formation of western El Dorado County and (2) correct mistakes in mapping of preserve areas that appeared in the draft plan. The amendment includes the revised preserve recommendation maps and portions of the recovery chapter, stepdown narrative, and implementation schedule that were changed to correspond to the revised recommendation. In this amendment we have not addressed the public comments that were previously submitted on the draft plan. Those comments will, however, be addressed in the final recovery plan.
The Service solicits written comments on the amendment described above. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of the final recovery plan. Comments that were submitted to us during the March 8 to July 7, 1999, public comment period on the draft plan do not need to be resubmitted. These comments, as well as comments received on the amendment, will be addressed in the final recovery plan.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Council will meet at 1 p.m., December 6, 2000, to select North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) proposals for recommendation to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. The meeting is open to the public.
December 6, 1 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the U.S. Department of the Interior, South Penthouse, 1849 C St., NW, Washington, DC 20240. The Council Coordinator is located at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 110, Arlington, Virginia, 22203.
David A. Smith, Council Coordinator, (703) 358-1784.
In accordance with NAWCA (Pub. L. 101-233, 103 Stat. 1968, December 13, 1989, as amended), the State-private-Federal Council meets to consider wetland acquisition, restoration, enhancement and management projects for recommendation to, and final funding approval by, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission. Proposals require a minimum of 50 percent non-Federal matching funds.
The proposed information collection 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 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.
All comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Arthur W. Allen, Wildlife Biologist, (970-226-9312), (Arthur_allan@usgs.gov), U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Social, Economic and Institutional Analysis Section, 4512 McMurry Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525-3400.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to prepare an Environmental Assessment and amend three Resource Management Plans (RMPs) to revoke withdrawals placed on BLM administered lands for the purpose of protecting the oil shale resource. The three RMPs are the White River RMP, Glenwood Springs RMP, and Grand Junction RMP; all in Colorado. Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), requires that BLM continually review existing withdrawals to determine if they are still needed for their original purpose. This proposed revocation only pertains to oil shale lands withdrawn under Executive Order 5327 dated April 15, 1930, as amended, and Public Land Order 4522 dated September 13, 1968, as amended, and involves approximately 600,000 acres in Colorado.
These oil shale withdrawals are no longer needed because existing regulations, policies and land use decisions provide adequate protection and conservation of oil shale resources.
The oil shale withdrawals proposed for revocation are within the jurisdictional boundaries of the White River BLM Field Office, Glenwood Springs BLM Field Office, and Grand Junction BLM Field Office, and are located in the following townships.
The public is invited to comment on this proposal and to contact the BLM should they desire further information. A 30 day period for receiving comments begins with publication of this notice in the
Address all comments concerning this notice to Larry Porter, Bureau of Land Management, 2815 H. Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Electronic mail can be sent to: Larry_Porter@co.blm.gov.
Larry Porter at (970) 244-3012.
This withdrawal revocation proposal does not apply to the Naval Oil Shale Reserve #1 and #3 lands that were recently transferred from the U.S. Department of Energy to the BLM. Management decisions for these lands will be made through a separate planning process.
There are several public land orders and executive orders which relate to the withdrawal of oil shale land. Some of the orders identify how the withdrawals will be administered and their relationship to development of other minerals. This proposed revocation only pertains to oil shale values in lands withdrawn under Executive Order 5327 dated April 15, 1930, as amended, and Public Land Order 4522 dated September 13, 1968, as amended. Oil Shale and associated minerals have been classified as leasable, and as such they are managed with well defined procedures. The oil shale values in these withdrawn lands are adequately protected and administered through existing BLM regulations, planning decisions, and policy. The withdrawals are no longer needed for their original purpose and intent, and should be revoked in their entirety.
This is to amend the meeting place address listed in the notice that was already published.
Thursday and Friday, November 30-December 1, 2000.
BLM California State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
Larry Mercer, Public Affairs Officer, Bureau of Land Management, 3801 Pegasus Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93308, telephone 661-391-6012.
Minerals Management Service, Interior.
Availability of the proposed notice of sale, and notice of intent to hold two workshops to discuss several new provisions in the proposed notice
Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Notice of Availability of the proposed Notice of Sale for proposed Oil and Gas Lease Sale 178 in the Central Gulf of Mexico. This Notice is published pursuant to 30 CFR 256.29(c) as a matter of information to the public.
With regard to oil and gas leasing on the OCS, the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to section 19 of the OCS Lands Act, as amended, provides the affected States the opportunity to review the proposed Notice. The proposed Notice sets forth the proposed terms and conditions of the sale, including minimum bids, royalty rates, and rentals.
The proposed Notice of Sale for Sale 178 and a “Proposed Sale Notice Package” containing information essential to potential bidders may be obtained from the Public Information Unit, Gulf of Mexico Region, Minerals Management Service, 1201 Elmwood
The final Notice of Sale will be published in the
The MMS will hold two workshops to discuss with interested parties a number of new provisions being considered for proposed Lease Sale 178 in the Central Gulf of Mexico:
• deepwater royalty relief for leases in 800 meters water depth and greater;
• shallow-water deep-gas royalty relief for leases in water depths less than 200 meters (where natural gas wells have been drilled 15,000 feet or greater and commence production during the primary term of the lease);
• subsalt lease term extension for leases in water depths less than 400 meters (with a primary term of 5 years), providing for a two-year extension beyond the 5-year primary term if a subsalt well has been drilled during the primary term; and
• other proposed terms and conditions.
In addition, the MMS will hold two workshops to discuss with interested parties provisions of the proposed rule at 30 CFR, part 203, published in the
Minerals Management Service, Room 111, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123.
Sheraton North Houston (at George Bush Intercontinental Airport), 15700 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77032, Hotel phone—(281) 442-5100.
Attendees need not register prior to attending either meeting. Appropriate MMS personnel will be present at both workshops to answer questions regarding any aspect of the proposed Notice in the morning workshops, and questions regarding the proposed rule regarding discretionary royalty relief in the afternoon workshops.
Potential bidders in Sale 178 should note that sale terms and conditions and other information presented in the proposed Notice may be revised following consideration of comments received during consultation with interested parties on the proposed Notice. A decision on the final Notice is scheduled for February 2001.
For additional information, please call Mr. Charles Hill (504) 736-2795.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Policy Group will meet on December 13, 2000. The agenda for the Policy Group meeting will include discussions about CALFED's: Record of Decision Commitments; Ecosystem Restoration 2001 Funding Package; and Operation and Implementation Budget. This meeting is open to the public. Interested persons may make oral statements to the CALFED Bay-Delta Program Policy Group or may file written statements for consideration.
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Policy Group meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday, December 13, 2000.
This meeting will meet at the Sacramento Convention Center, 1400 J Street, Room 103-104, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Rick Breitenbach, CALFED Bay-Delta Program, at (916) 657-2666. If reasonable accommodation is needed due to a disability, please contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Office at (916) 653-6952 or TDD (916) 653-6934 at least one week prior to the meeting.
The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta system) is a critically important part of California's natural environment and economy. In recognition of the serious problems facing the region and the complex resource management decisions that must be made, the state of California and the Federal government are working together to stabilize, protect, restore, and enhance the Bay-Delta system. The State and Federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta system are working together as CALFED to provide policy direction and oversight for the process.
One area of Bay-Delta management includes a joint State-Federal process to develop and implement long-term solutions to problems in the Bay-Delta system related to fish and wildlife, water supply reliability, natural disasters, and water quality. This effort, the CALFED Bay-Delta Program (Program), is being carried out under the direction of the CALFED Policy Group.
United States International Trade Commission.
Scheduling of a full five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on ferrovanadium and nitrided vanadium from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's
November 21, 2000.
Gail Burns (202-205-2501), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
On September 1, 2000, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year review were such that a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (65 F.R. 55047, September 12, 2000). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's web site.
Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in this review as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the review.
Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in this review available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the review, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9), who are parties to the review. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the review need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.
The prehearing staff report in the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 23, 2001, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.
The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the review beginning at 9:30 a.m. on March 15, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before March 5, 2001. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on March 8, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Each party to the review may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is March 6, 2001. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in section 207.24 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of section 207.67 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs is March 27, 2001; witness testimony must be filed no later than three days before the hearing. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the review may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the review on or before March 27, 2001. On April 20, 2001, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before April 24, 2001, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Steering Subcommittee of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy.
Jorge Perez-Lopez, Director, Office of International Economic Affairs; Phone: (202) 219-7597.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information-collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA-95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information burden is correct.
Submit written comments on or before January 29, 2001.
Submit written comments to the Docket Office, Docket No. ICR-1218-0092(2001), OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. Commenters may transmit written comments of 10 pages or less in length by facsimile to (202) 693-1648.
Todd R. Owen, Directorate of Policy, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3641, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2444. A copy of the Agency's Information-Collection Request (ICR) supporting the need for the information-collection requirements specified by the Standard is available for inspection and copying in the Docket Office, or you may request a mailed copy by telephoning Todd Owen at (202) 693-2444. For electronic copies of this ICR, contact OSHA on the Internet at
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the “Act”) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the Act or for developing information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The basic purpose of the information-collection requirements in the Lead in General Industry Standard (the “Standard”) is to document that employers in general industry are providing their employees with protection from over exposure to lead. These paperwork requirements permit employers, employees and their designated representatives, OSHA, and other specified parties to determine the effectiveness of an employer's lead-control program. Accordingly, the requirements ensure that employees exposed to lead receive all of the protection afforded by the Standard.
OSHA proposes to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the collection-of-information (paperwork) requirements contained in the Standard. The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in its request to OMB to extend the approval of these information-collection requirements.
The Agency has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
• Whether the information-collection requirements are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions, including whether the information is useful;
• The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden (time and costs) of the information-collection requirements, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• The quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply; for example, by using automated or other technological information-collection and -transmission techniques.
OSHA solicits comment concerning its request for an extension of the information-collection requirements contained in its Lead in General Industry Standard at 29 CFR 1910.1025.
Charles N. Jeffress, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506) and Secretary of Labor's Order No 3-2000 (65 FR 50017).
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the Agency's final decision on the applications of Intertek Testing Services, NA, Inc. (ITSNA), for expansion of its recognition to use additional standards, sites, and programs.
This recognition becomes effective on November 29, 2000 and, unless modified in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.7, continues in effect while ITSNA remains recognized by OSHA as an NRTL.
Bernard Pasquet, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N3653, Washington, DC 20210, or phone (202) 693-2110.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice of the expansion of recognition of Intertek Testing Services, NA, Inc. (ITSNA), as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). ITSNA's expansion of recognition covers the use of additional test standards, sites, and programs.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, OSHA can accept products “properly certified” by the NRTL. OSHA processes applications related to an NRTL's recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish a public notice of its final decision on an application.
ITSNA submitted several requests to expand its recognition to use additional test standards, testing facilities (sites), and supplemental programs (see Exhibits 30B-30H). As part of processing these requests, OSHA performed on-site reviews of ITSNA's testing and certification sites (see Exhibit 31A-31E). In the on-site review reports, the NRTL Program staff recommended granting the expansion requests but included certain limitations on intrinsic testing that will apply to all hazardous location testing. These limitations are described under
OSHA published the notice of its preliminary findings on the expansion requests in the
The Agency delayed publication of the final notice for the renewal and expansion pending resolution of certain requests made by ITSNA. OSHA cannot disclose details on these requests since the information could be confidential and privileged to ITSNA and therefore protected under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The NRTL only recently submitted necessary documentation for this pending matter to OSHA, but the Agency has not yet rendered its final decision. OSHA is proceeding with the expansion since the matter under consideration, at this time, impacts the renewal of ITSNA. As stated in the preliminary notice, ITSNA retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in the renewal process.
ITSNA's expansion requests covered an additional 114 test standards. The NRTL Program staff initially determined that two of the standards were not “appropriate test standards,” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). The staff makes such determinations in processing expansion requests from any NRTL. In preparing this final notice, the staff determined that 5 of the standards listed in the preliminary notice have been withdrawn by the standards organizations and, as a result, are also not “appropriate” for recognition. Therefore, OSHA includes 107 test standards for the expansion. Also note that the UL 2161 (Neon Transformers and Power Supplies) test standard was excluded from the notice of the preliminary finding published on December 17, 1998. The NRTL Program staff excluded this test standard from the notice pending publication of the resolution of a comment, concerning this test standard, received on a notice for another NRTL (see 64 FR 33913, 6/24/99). If publication of the resolution had already occurred, OSHA would have included the standard in the December 17 notice.
OSHA is recognizing the additional ITSNA sites listed below. All ITSNA sites listed in this notice are recognized for use of the supplemental programs. Also, the recognition of each of these sites will be limited to performing testing to the test standards for which OSHA has recognized ITSNA, and for which the site has the proper capability and control programs.
Under its current operations as an NRTL, ITSNA authorizes the use of the “ETL” certification mark or certifications only from its Cortland location. Therefore, OSHA does not recognize any other ITSNA sites for certifying products under ITSNA's NRTL operations. In addition, only the Vancouver, Antioch (formerly Pittsburg), and Madison sites identified below authorize the use of the “WHI” (Warnock Hersey) certification mark or certifications. The Agency had proposed a limitation on the type of testing that ITSNA could perform at its Vancouver, Antioch, and Madison sites. However, OSHA does not impose this limitation because it would be inconsistent with recognition granted to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.
In the
The most recent notices published by OSHA, prior to the December 17 preliminary notice, for ITSNA's recognition covered an expansion for additional sites, which OSHA announced on August 8, 1997 (62 FR 42829) and granted on December 1, 1997 (62 FR 63562).
You may obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the applications by contacting the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N2625, Washington, DC 20210. You should refer to Docket No. NRTL-1-89, the permanent record of public information on the ITSNA recognition.
The current addresses of the ITSNA testing facilities recognized by OSHA are:
The current addresses of the additional ITSNA testing sites covered by the expansion of recognition are:
OSHA is granting the request by ITSNA to use the following supplemental programs, based upon the criteria detailed in the March 9, 1995
We had included Program 7 in the notice of preliminary finding. However, this program was not recommended by the NRTL Program assessment staff, and so we do not include it above.
OSHA developed the program descriptions to limit how an NRTL may perform certain aspects of its work and to permit the activities covered under a program only when the NRTL meets certain criteria. In this sense, they are special conditions that the Agency places on an NRTL's recognition. OSHA does not consider these programs in determining whether an NRTL meets the requirements for recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. However, OSHA does treat these programs as one of the three elements that defines an NRTL's scope of recognition.
The Agency has no requirements to give public notice when granting requests to use these programs. However, we typically note our approval in a notice when processing such requests in conjunction with a regular application.
As mentioned in the preliminary notice, ITSNA currently owns a manufacturer of laboratory test equipment, Compliance Design (mistakenly called Design Engineering in the preliminary notice). Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely independent of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials [“products”] being tested for these purposes.
In accordance with OSHA policy, if ITSNA were to certify the type of products manufactured or sold by Compliance Design, then ITSNA would not meet the requirement in 29 CFR 1910.7 for complete independence. Also, ITSNA's parent company is Intertek Testing Services, Ltd. (ITSLtd). If ITSNA were to certify a type of product for an entity owned by ITSLtd, and that entity is also a supplier of that type of product, then ITSNA would not be “completely independent.” The NRTL Program staff believes that such situations can occur due to the large number of products for which OSHA has recognized ITSNA and the possible current or future interests of ITSLtd. Although ITSNA may not directly own or be owned by such an entity, both would be fully within the same organization. Mere legal separation of the entities does not suffice for purposes of meeting the requirement for complete independence.
Due to the foregoing, OSHA is imposing a condition on ITSNA's recognition to mitigate or eliminate situations that will cause it to fail to meet the independence requirement of 29 CFR 1910.7. This condition, listed first under
The NRTL Program staff has examined the applications, the assessor's reports, and other pertinent information. Based upon this examination and the assessor's recommendation, OSHA finds that Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc., has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition to include the above additional 4 sites and the additional 107 test standards, listed below, subject to the limitations and conditions, also listed below. Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of ITSNA, subject to these limitations and conditions.
OSHA hereby expands the recognition of ITSNA to include the testing sites in Los Angeles, Madison, Minneapolis, and Totowa. Similar to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites, the Agency's recognition of any ITSNA testing site is limited to performing testing to the test standards for which OSHA has recognized ITSNA, and for which the site has the proper capability and control programs. In addition, under ITSNA's current mode of operation, only its Cortland location may authorize the use of the “ETL” certification mark or certifications. Also, only its Vancouver, Antioch (formerly Pittsburg), and Madison sites may authorize the use of the “WHI” certification mark or certifications.
OSHA hereby expands the recognition of the ITSNA for testing and certification of products to demonstrate conformance to the 107 test standards listed below. OSHA has determined that each test standard meets the requirements for an appropriate test standard, within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c).
The Agency's recognition of ITSNA, or any NRTL, for a particular test standard is always limited to equipment or materials (products) for which OSHA standards require third party testing and
All safety testing for Class I locations is limited to recognized ITSNA sites properly pre-qualified by ITSNA. Also see general limitation on intrinsic testing below.
Testing and certification of gas operated equipment is limited to equipment for use with “liquefied petroleum gas.”
The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this current notice.
Many of the above test standards are approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience, we use the designation of the standards developing organization (
As previously noted, the NRTL Program staff recommended certain limitations on intrinsic testing, which is partly described in the note and footnote above and more fully below. These limitations will apply to the recognition of all test standards that involve intrinsic testing and for which ITSNA is recognized.
ITSNA may perform safety testing for hazardous location products only at the specific ITSNA sites that OSHA has recognized, and that have been pre-qualified by the ITSNA Chief Engineer. In addition, all safety test reports for hazardous location products must undergo a documented review and approval at the Cortland testing facility by a test engineer qualified in hazardous location safety testing, prior to ITSNA's initial or continued authorization of the certifications covered by these reports. All the above limitations apply solely to ITSNA's operations as an NRTL.
ITSNA must also abide by the following conditions of the recognition, in addition to those already required by 29 CFR 1910.7:
ITSNA may not test and certify any products for a client that is a manufacturer or vendor, and that is either owned in excess of 2% by ITSLtd, or affiliated organizationally with ITSNA, including Compliance Design.
OSHA must be allowed access to ITSNA's facility and records for purposes of ascertaining continuing compliance with the terms of its recognition and to investigate as OSHA deems necessary;
If ITSNA has reason to doubt the efficacy of any test standard it is using under this program, it must promptly inform the test standard developing organization of this fact and provide that organization with appropriate relevant information upon which its concerns are based;
ITSNA must not engage in or permit others to engage in any misrepresentation of the scope or conditions of its recognition. As part of this condition, ITSNA agrees that it will allow no representation that it is either a recognized or an accredited Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) without clearly indicating the specific equipment or material to which this recognition is tied, or that its recognition is limited to certain products;
ITSNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major changes in its operations as an NRTL, including details;
ITSNA will meet all the terms of its recognition and will always comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition;
ITSNA will continue to meet the requirements for recognition in all areas where it has been recognized; and
ITSNA will always cooperate with OSHA to assure compliance with the spirit as well as the letter of its recognition and 29 CFR 1910.7.
United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.
Notice of draft Finding of No Significant Impact for a draft Environmental Assessment.
Based on a draft environmental assessment (EA), the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), finds that the proposed action of reconstruction of the existing American Canal is not a major federal action that would have a significant adverse effect on the quality of the human environment. An environmental impact statement will not be prepared for the project unless additional information which may affect this decision is brought to the attention of the USIBWC within thirty (30) days of the date of this Notice. The draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and draft EA have been forwarded to the United States Environmental Protection Agency and various Federal, State and local agencies and interested parties. The draft FONSI and EA are also available at the reference desk at University of Texas At El Paso Library and El Paso Main Library, and on the USIBWC Home Page at http://www.ibwc.state.gov under “What's New.” A limited number of copies of these documents are available
The proposed rehabilitation and enlargement of the 1.98-mile-long American Canal (also known as Reach F of the Rio Grande American Canal Extension or RGACE) involves demolishing the deteriorating concrete open channel segments of the canal and replacing them with reinforced concrete-lined canal segments. The USIBWC is authorized under the Rio Grande American Canal Extension Act of 1990 (the Act of 1990), Public Law 101-438, dated October 15, 1990, to construct, operate, and maintain an extension of the existing American Canal in El Paso, Texas; which “would provide for a more equitable distribution of waters between the United States and Mexico, reduce water losses, and minimize many hazards to public safety.”
Water for both irrigation and domestic use in El Paso County is diverted into the American Canal at the American Dam located on the Rio Grande approximately 3 miles upstream from downtown El Paso. The American Dam and American Canal were constructed from 1937 to 1938, within United States territory to divert United States waters away from the Rio Grande, and to allow into the international reach of the Rio Grande only those waters assigned to the United Mexican States under the Convention of 1906. This ensured that United States waters diverted at the American Dam would be completely retained within the United States.
In the Act of 1990, the United States Congress also authorized the negotiation of international agreements for the RGACE to convey Mexican waters authorized under the 1906 Convention. In view of the conveyance water losses and the safety issues inherent in Mexico's existing canal system, the RGACE was designed to accommodate Mexico's annual 60,000 acre-foot allotment of water at 335 cubic feet per second (cfs), should Mexico request its allotment delivered at this location.
Five alternatives, including the Open Channel Alternative (the Proposed Action Alternative) and the No Action Alternative, were considered during the preparation of the environmental assessment. All four action alternatives include (1) increasing the canal capacity to 1535 cfs, (2) demolition of existing canal structures and open channel concrete lining, (3) reconstructing and enlarging the 400-foot open channel segment immediately downstream from the headgates and the 100-foot open channel segment upstream from the gaging station, (4) not repairing or replacing the two closed conduit segments under West Paisano Drive, (5) installing fences to minimize entrance into the canal, (6) installing safety equipment to reduce canal drownings, (7) removing the Smelter Bridge and the abutments of Hart's Mill Bridge, and (8) providing mitigation of the loss of the Smelter Bridge by preparing Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) Level III documentation of the structure (including existing and original construction drawings, captioned photographs, and written data). The alternatives are summarized below:
The USIBWC completed the Draft EA for the proposed action on August 22, 2000. The Draft EA is available for review and comment at the previously-cited address.
The Draft EA finds that the proposed action does not constitute a major federal action that would cause a significant local, regional, or national adverse impact on the environment, because the Proposed Action Alternative would:
1. Improve structural stability of the American Canal, ensuring an uninterrupted flow of allotted water from the Rio Grande to El Paso County farms and to existing and planned El Paso Water Utilities water treatment facilities.
2. Minimize seepage loss through the cracks in the canal lining;
3. Provide the full design capacity (1535 cfs) influent into the RGACE;
4. Improve safety and reduce the risk of accidental drownings in the American Canal by installing fences and safety equipment;
5. Preserve the historical open channel character of the Canal, and
6. Preserve historical and photographic documentation of the
Based on the Draft Environmental Assessment and the implementation of the proposed historical mitigation, it has been determined that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and an environmental impact statement is not warranted.
United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.
Notice of availability of final environmental impact statement.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) in conjunction with the El Paso Water Utilities/Public Service Board has prepared a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) on the El Paso-Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water Project in Sierra and Doña Ana counties, New Mexico and El Paso County, Texas as proposed by the New Mexico-Texas Water Commission. The FEIS analyzes the no action alternative and the impacts of five action alternatives from construction and operation of the project. No final decision can be made on this proposal during the 30 days following the filing of this FEIS, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2).
The FEIS may be inspected by appointment during normal business hours at: El Paso Water Utilities, 1154 Hawkins Boulevard, El Paso, Texas; and United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, 4171 North Mesa Street, Suite C-315, El Paso, Texas. Public libraries that have the FEIS available for review are: Branigan Memorial Library, 200 East Picacho Avenue, Las Cruces, New Mexico; El Paso Public Library, 501 North Oregon Street, El Paso, Texas; New Mexico State University Library, Las Cruces, New Mexico; and University Library, The University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas.
Mr. Douglas Echlin, Environmental Protection Specialist, Environmental Management Division, USIBWC, 4171 North Mesa Street, C-310, El Paso, Texas 79902 or call 915/832-4741. E-mail: dougechlin@ibwc.state.gov.
The New Mexico-Texas Water Commission, established in 1991 to help meet the water resource challenges of the region, proposed the El Paso-Las Cruces Regional Sustainable Water Project to secure future drinking water supplies from surface sources for the El Paso-Las Cruces region. The project includes the acquisition, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of a drinking water supply, and upgrading or constructing facilities for water conveyance, treatment, distribution, and aquifer storage and recovery. These activities comprise the following three project purposes to provide a year-round drinking water supply from the Rio Grande Project that is of sufficient quantity and quality to meet the anticipated municipal needs of Hatch, Las Cruces, northern and southern Doña Ana County, New Mexico and El Paso, Texas; to protect and maintain the sustainability of the Mesilla Bolson (ground water basin or aquifer); and to extend the longevity of the Hueco Bolson.
Project alternatives presented in this FEIS were designed to achieve these three project purposes. In addition, the project will strive to provide high quality water needed to achieve successful treatment and to meet federal drinking water standards; to deliver water efficiently and promote water conservation; and provide overall benefits to the riverine ecosystem, particularly aquatic and riparian habitats.
The project recognizes and accepts existing institutional and social constraints, including continuing to meet treaty, compact, and contract requirements for delivery of Rio Grande Project waters. The project would not adversely affect the quantity and quality of water deliveries to agricultural users; impose new responsibilities on state or federal governments; or preclude other opportunities to enhance the Rio Grande ecosystem. The need for this project is based on the region's future drinking water supply requirements. The project is necessary to avoid both potentially permanent impacts on the Mesilla and Hueco Bolsons and critical drinking water shortages in the El Paso-Las Cruces region. Population growth rates have increased sharply, increasing the demand for drinking water. It is projected that the Texas portion of the Hueco Bolson will be exhausted of all fresh water by the year 2025 because water is being pumped from the aquifer faster than it can be naturally replenished. If additional surface waters are not made available to supplement the drinking water supply, water shortages in the region will likely lead to severe health and sanitation problems.
Copies of the FEIS have been sent to agencies, organizations and individuals who participated in the scoping process and to those who have requested copies of the FEIS. A limited number of the FEIS may be obtained upon request from the contact person identified above. A Record of Decision will be prepared on this proposal after a minimum of 30 days following the filing of the FEIS. Any comments on the Final EIS must be received no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the notice of availability by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972 (Pub. L. 94-463, Stat. 770-776) the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), on October 2, 2000, announced the establishment of the Reactor Oversight Process Initial Implementation Evaluation Panel (IIEP). The IIEP functions as a cross-disciplinary oversight group to independently monitor and evaluate the results of the first year of implementation of the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP). A Charter governing the IIEP functions as a Federal Advisory Committee was filed with Congress on October 17, 2000, after consultation with the Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration. The IIEP will
The IIEP meeting participants are listed below along with their affiliation:
A tentative agenda of the meeting is outlined as follows:
8:00 am—Introduction/Meeting Objectives and Goals.
8:15 am—Review of Meeting Minutes and Action Items from November 1-2, 2000 Meeting.
8:30 am—Presentation of Results from Regional Workshops.
10:00 am—Presentation of Summary of ROP Issues Collected from IIEP Members.
12:00 pm—Lunch.
1:00 pm—Panel Discussion of Issues and Prioritization.
3:00 pm—Work Planning and Report Outline Development.
5:00 pm—Adjourn.
8:00 am—Recap of Previous Day's Meeting/Meeting Objectives and Goals.
8:30 am—Presentation of Stakeholder Issues/Views.
12:00 pm—Lunch.
1:00 pm—Panel Discussion of Stakeholder Issues/Views.
3:00 pm—Agenda Planning for January Meeting.
4:00 pm—Public Comments/General Discussion.
5:00 pm—Adjourn.
Meetings of the IIEP are open to the members of the public. Oral or written views may be presented by the members of the public, including members of the nuclear industry. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify Mr. Loren R. Plisco (Telephone 404/562-4501, e-mail LRP@nrc.gov) or Mr. John D. Monninger (Telephone 301/415-3495, e-mail JDM@nrc.gov) five days prior to the meeting date, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made to allow necessary time during the meeting for such statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras will be permitted during this meeting.
Further information regarding topics of discussion; whether the meeting has been canceled, rescheduled, or relocated; and the Panel Chairman's ruling regarding requests to present oral statements and time allotted, may be obtained by contacting Mr. Loren R. Plisco or Mr. John D. Monninger between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. EST.
IIEP meeting transcripts and meeting reports will be available from the Commission's Public Document Room. Transcripts will be placed on the agency's web page.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to the Facility Operating License (FOL) issued to Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, licensee) for operation of the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 (WBN). The facility is located at the licensee's site on the west branch of the Tennessee River approximately 50 miles northeast of Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The proposed license amendment would allow the licensee to increase the licensed thermal power level of WBN, Unit 1, from 3411 to 3459 megawatts thermal (MWt), which represents a 1.4 percent increase in the allowable thermal power. This facility was authorized for power production at 3411 MWt with issuance of the FOL on February 7, 1996.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for license amendment dated June 7, as supplemented by letters dated June 23, August 24, September 26, October 6, October 27 and November 16, 2000.
The proposed action will allow an increase in power generation at WBN to provide additional electrical power for distribution to the grid. Power uprate has been widely recognized by the industry as a safe and cost-effective method to increase generating capacity.
The Commission has previously evaluated the environmental impact of operation of WBN, as described in the “Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,” NUREG-0498, December 1978 and its Supplement 1, April 1995. With regard to consequences of postulated accidents, the licensee has reanalyzed the design-basis accident doses for the exclusion area boundary, low population zone, and the control room dose to the operators and determined that there will be a small increase in these doses; however, the analysis presented in NUREG-0498 postulates these doses resulting from releases at 104.5 percent of the currently licensed power level. Thus, the increase in postulated doses due to design-basis accidents is bounded by the previous evaluation presented in NUREG-0498. No increase in the probability of these accidents is expected to occur.
With regard to normal releases, calculations have been performed that show the potential impact on the radiological effluents from the proposed 1.4 percent increase in power level of WBN. For the 1.4 percent uprating calculation, the offsite doses from normal effluent releases remain significantly below the bounding limits of Title 10 of the
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed action will
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. With regard to thermal discharges to the Chickamauga Reservoir on the Tennessee River, a small increase in the upstream to downstream temperature rise allowed by the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the Tennessee River is expected, due to the proposed 1.4 percent power uprate. The increase is expected to be approximately 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit, and therefore, insignificant. Existing administrative controls ensure the conduct of adequate monitoring such that appropriate actions can be taken to preclude exceeding NPDES permitted limits. No additional monitoring requirements or other changes relative to the NPDES permit are required as a result of the power uprate.
Therefore, as described in the preceding discussions, the 1.4 percent uprate of WBN does not have a significant environmental impact on the Chickamauga Reservoir.
No other nonradiological impacts are associated with the proposed action.
Based upon the above, the Commission concludes that the proposed action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (
This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in the FES for Watts Bar.
In accordance with its stated policy, on November 20, 2000, the staff consulted with the Tennessee State Official, Mr. J. Graves, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that this action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for this action.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's application for license amendment dated June 7, 2000, as supplemented June 23, August 24, September 26, October 6, October 27 and November 16, 2000. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of November 27, December 4, 11, 18, 25, 2000, and January 1, 2001.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 11.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of December 25.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of January 1, 2001.
*THE SCHEDULE FOR COMMISSION MEETINGS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE ON SHORT NOTICE. TO VERIFY THE STATUS OF MEETINGS CALL (RECORDING)—(301) 415-1292. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bill Hill (301) 415-1661.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no
Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from November 6, 2000, through November 16, 2000. The last biweekly notice was published on November 15, 2000.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
By December 29, 2000, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first Floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
(1) The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical specification (TS) change eliminates an inconsistency between the Secondary Containment surveillance requirement (SR 3.6.4.1.4) and the associated Bases. The proposed change (1) revises the wording of SR 3.6.4.1.4 to verify the time to draw down the secondary containment to ≥0.25 inch water gauge for each standby gas treatment (SGT) subsystem is within the required time; and (2) relocates the specific acceptance criteria (existing TS Figure 3.6.4.1-1) to plant procedures and the TS Bases.
The scope of the proposed change is thus limited to the affected SR. No changes to plant equipment or the plant design are involved. The affected SR, as are surveillances in general, is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated. Consequently, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
The proposed change impacts SR 3.6.4.1.4 but does not change its intent or the associated acceptance criteria. Thus, the components and structural integrity being tested will still be required to be maintained Operable and capable of performing the accident mitigation functions assumed in the accident analysis. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification (TS) change eliminates an inconsistency between the Secondary Containment surveillance requirement (SR 3.6.4.1.4) and the associated Bases. The proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new failure modes are thus introduced by the proposed change. Therefore, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed Technical Specification (TS) change eliminates an inconsistency between the Secondary Containment Integrity surveillance requirement (SR 3.6.4.1.4) and the associated Bases. The revised wording of the Surveillance Requirement and the relocation of the acceptance criteria to plant procedures and TS Bases have been evaluated to ensure that they are sufficient to verify that the equipment used to meet the LCO can perform its required functions. The relocation of the acceptance criteria is consistent with the Bases previously approved in Amendment 21. Thus, appropriate equipment continues to be tested in a manner that gives confidence that the equipment can perform its assumed safety function. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
(1) The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification (TS) change deletes the minimum run time requirement (of 15 minutes) for the Containment/Drywell Hydrogen Mixing System as denoted in Surveillance Requirement 3.6.3.3.1. Satisfying a TS Surveillance Requirement ensures that the associated system will function to mitigate the consequences of an accident, and, as such is not an initiator of an accident or malfunction. Therefore, since such a test requirement or operation is not an initiator to any accident previously evaluated, the probability of an accident previously evaluated is not significantly increased.
In addition, the equipment being tested is still required to be operable and capable of performing its accident mitigation function assumed in the accident analysis. Eliminating the time requirement from the Surveillance Requirement does not reduce or relax the requirements to ensure that all controls are functioning properly. Also, it does not reduce or relax the requirements for ensuring the degraded conditions such as piping blockage, compressor failure or excessive vibration can be detected for corrective action. As a result, the consequences of any accident previously evaluated are not significantly affected. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) The proposed change would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed TS change, as denoted in Surveillance Requirement 3.6.3.3.1, does not involve a physical alteration of the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or a change in the methods governing normal plant operation. No new potential accident initiators are therefore introduced by the proposed change. Thus, this change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) The proposed change will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The proposed TS change to delete the minimum run time requirement in Surveillance Requirement 3.6.3.3.1 does not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. As provided in the justification for the proposed change, the 15-minute run time acceptance criterion is not necessary to ensure that the Containment/Drywell Hydrogen Mixing can perform its required function. Thus, if a margin of safety can be ascribed to proper operation of this system for LOCA mitigation, the system will continue to be tested in a manner that gives confidence that it can perform its assumed safety function. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The [proposed] changes do not affect the purpose, function, performance, operability, inspection or testing of and does not make any physical or procedural changes to plant systems, structures or components. Also, all existing technical specification limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements are retained.
TSCR [Technical Specifications Change Request] makes administrative changes to certain position titles without changing the technical requirements for position responsibilities.
TSCR also changes the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) staffing requirement to allow one of the required on-shift Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) positions to be combined with the required STA position so as to serve in a dual-role SRO/STA position as encouraged by the NRC in Option 1 of Generic Letter 86-04, “Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise On Shift”, dated February 13, 1986.
Implementation of the proposed dual-role SRO/STA change will result in personnel with enchanced operational knowledge being assigned to perform the STA function of providing accident assessment expertise, and analyzing and responding to off normal occurrences when needed. The NRC's stated preference in the October 28, 1985, “Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift”, indicates that the NRC has concluded that the individual filling the dual-role SRO/STA position may perform these functions better than a non-licensed individual filling the STA position even when the SRO/STA is concurrently functioning as one of the required shift SROs.
Therefore, since no physical or procedural changes are being made to existing plant systems, structures or components and since the position title changes are administrative in nature and the function and responsibilities of the STA will be executed by an appropriately qualified individual filling the dual-role SRO/STA position, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The [proposed] changes do not affect the purpose, function, performance, operability, inspection or testing of and does not make any physical or procedural changes to plant systems, structures or components. Also, all existing technical specification limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements are retained.
TSCR 277 makes administrative changes to certain position titles without changing the technical requirements for the position responsibilities.
TSCR 277 also changes the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) staffing requirement to allow one of the required on-shift Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) positions to be combined with the required STA position so as to serve in a dual-role SRO/STA position as encouraged by the NRC in Option 1 of Generic Letter 86-04, “Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise On Shift”, dated February 13, 1986.
Therefore, since no physical or procedural changes are being made to existing plant systems, structures or components and since the position title changes are administrative in nature and the function and responsibilities of the STA will be executed by an appropriately qualified individual filling the dual-role SRO/STA position, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Would operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
The [proposed] changes do not affect the purpose, function, performance, operability, inspection or testing of and does not make
TSCR 277 makes administrative changes to certain position titles without changing the technical requirements for the position responsibilities.
TSCR 277 also changes the Shift Technical Advisor (STA) staffing requirement to allow one of the required on-shift Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) positions to be combined with the required STA position so as to serve in a dual-role SRO/STA position as encouraged by the NRC in Option 1 of Generic Letter 86-04, “Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise On Shift”, dated February 13, 1986.
Therefore, since no physical or procedural changes are being made to existing plant systems, structures or components and since the position title changes are administrative in nature and the function and responsibilities of the STA will be executed by an appropriately qualified individual filling the dual-role SRO/STA position and shift staffing required by TS 6.2.2.2 and 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2) will [continue] to be maintained, operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in [a] margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
(1) Does the proposed license amendment involve a significant increase in the probability or in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The changes involve Section 3.2.1.a, referencing the QAPD instead of the IP#2 [Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2] UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report], deleting Section 3.2.1.e and having Section 3.2.1.f, refer to the QAPD for the administrative controls. These changes do not affect possible initiating events for accidents previously evaluated or alter the configuration or operation of the facility. The Limiting Safety System Settings and Safety Limits specified in the current Technical Specifications remain unchanged. Therefore, the proposed changes would not involve a significant increase in the probability or in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Does the proposed amendment create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature. The safety analysis of the facility remains complete and accurate. There are no physical changes to the facility and the plant conditions for which the design basis accidents have been evaluated are still valid. The operating procedures and emergency procedures are unaffected. Consequently no new failure modes are introduced as a result of the proposed changes. Therefore, the proposed changes would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Does the proposed amendment involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed changes are administrative in nature. Since there are no changes to the operation of the facility or the physical design, the IP#1 [Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1] FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] or the IP#2 UFSAR design basis, accident assumptions, or IP#1 Technical Specification Bases are not affected. Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards considerations.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
No. This request involves an administrative change only. The Operating License (OL) and Technical Specification Figure 4.1-1, Site Area Boundary, are being changed to reflect the new name of the facility. In addition, editorial changes are being made to Figure 4.1-1 for clarification. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses are affected by the proposed change. Therefore, this request will have no impact on the probability or consequence of any type of accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
No. This request involves an administrative change only. The OL and Technical Specification Figure 4.1-1 are being changed to reflect the new name of the facility. In addition, editorial changes are being made to Figure 4.1-1 for clarification. No actual plant equipment or accident analyses are affected by the proposed change and no failure modes not bounded by previously evaluated accidents will be created. Therefore, this request will have no impact on the possibility of any type of accident: new, different, or previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
No. Margin of safety is associated with confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers (
No actual plant equipment or accident analyses are affected by the proposed change. Additionally, the proposed change will not relax any criteria used to establish safety limits, will not relax any safety system settings, or will not relax the bases for any limiting conditions of operation. Therefore, this proposed change will not impact margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated.
The current SR frequency requires each reactor instrument line EFCV to be tested every 24-months. The reactor instrument line EFCVs at WNP-2 are designed so that they will not close accidentally during normal operation, but will close if a rupture of the instrument line is indicated downstream of the valve, and have their status indicated in the control room. This proposed change allows a reduced number of reactor instrument line EFCVs to be tested every 24-months. There are no physical plant modifications associated with this change. Industry operating experience demonstrates a high reliability of these valves. Neither reactor instrument line EFCVs nor their failures are capable of initiating previously evaluated accidents; therefore, there can be no increase in the probability of occurrence of an accident regarding this proposed change.
Reactor instrument lines connecting to the reactor coolant pressure boundary are equipped with EFCVs and also have a flow-restricting orifice inside containment and upstream of the EFCV. The consequences of an unisolable rupture of such an instrument line has been previously evaluated in WNP-2 FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] 15.6.2. The instrument lines that penetrate primary containment conform to Regulatory Guide 1.11 (WNP-2 FSAR 7.1.2.4). Those instrument lines are Seismic Category I and terminate in instruments that are Seismic Category I (reference WNP-2 FSAR Table 6.2-16 note 27).
The sequence of events in WNP-2 FSAR Section 15.6.2.2 for a reactor instrument line break assumes a continuous discharge of reactor water through the instrument line until the reactor vessel is cooled and depressurized (5 hours). Although not expected to occur as a result of this change, the postulated failure of an EFCV to isolate as a result of reduced testing is bounded by this previous evaluation. Therefore, there is no increase in the previously evaluated consequences of the rupture of an instrument line and there is no potential increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated as a result of this change.
The containment atmosphere and suppression pool instrument line EFCVs are required to remain open to sense containment atmosphere and suppression pool level conditions during postulated accidents. They are not required to close during an instrument line break assumed during normal plant operation nor is their design capable of closing during normal plant conditions. These EFCVs do not meet the criteria for inclusion in 10 CFR 50.36(c)(3) as they have no active safety function and thus relocation of their testing requirements to the FSAR cannot effect the probability of an increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
This proposed change allows a reduced number of reactor instrument line EFCVs to be tested each operating cycle and that the testing requirements for containment atmosphere and suppression pool instrument line EFCVs be relocated to the FSAR. No other changes in requirements are being proposed. Industry operating experience demonstrates the high reliability of these valves. The potential failure of a reactor instrument line EFCV to isolate by the proposed change in testing is bounded by the previous evaluation of an instrument line rupture. This change will not physically alter the plant (no new or different type of equipment will be installed). This change will not alter the operation of process variables, structures, or components as described in the safety analysis. Thus, a new or different kind of accident will not be created.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The consequences of an unisolable rupture of an instrument line has been evaluated in WNP-2 FSAR Section 15.6.2 in accordance with the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.11. That evaluation assumed a continuous discharge of reactor water for the duration of the detection and cooldown sequence (5 hours). The only margin of safety applicable to this proposed change is considered to be that implied by this evaluation. Since a continuous discharge was assumed in this evaluation, any potential failure of a reactor instrument line EFCV to isolate as a result of reduced testing frequency is bounded by existing analysis and does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
There is no accident for which the containment atmosphere or suppression pool instrument line EFCVs are designed to actuate to the isolation position for mitigation. A postulated break of a containment atmosphere or suppression pool instrument line under normal operating conditions would not result in a condition that would create the ability for these EFCVs to operate because neither the containment pressure nor the suppression pool level head would be sufficient to result in their actuation. As these EFCVs have no active design or safety function, the relocation of testing requirements would not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety. A postulated break of any instrument line simultaneously with a loss of coolant accident is beyond the design basis for the plant.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed change is necessary to achieve the decommissioning objective of terminating the license and releasing the site for unrestricted use. As such, the proposed change:
1. Will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated since accidents which might occur during the active decommissioning phase of the SNEC facility are bounded by the twelve accidents addressed in section 3.0 of the Updated Safety Analysis Report (USAR). The accident analysis addressed in the USAR demonstrate that no adverse public health and safety impacts are expected from accidents that
Implementation of the SNEC License Termination Plan involves a continuation of the decommissioning process including the final status survey activity to be performed prior to site closeout at the end of the dismantlement phase. These activities do not involve a significant increase in either the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Accidents previously evaluated in the USAR access different methods of dispersing radioactive material to the environment, which include a loss of support systems and external events. Remaining dismantlement activities and final status survey work described in the License Termination Plan are similar to those previously performed and will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The Technical Specifications currently in place at the SNEC facility were developed to safely decommission the SNEC facility. Issuance of the proposed amendment would not reduce the controls established by the technical specifications for activities performed at the SNEC facility. The proposed License Amendment establishes additional controls to ensure License Termination Plan activities are performed effectively. Thus, this change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the analysis of the licensees and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to relocate the movable incore detector instrumentation, seismic monitoring instrumentation, meteorological monitoring instrumentation, loose-part detection instrumentation, and turbine overspeed protection instrumentation from the Technical Specifications to the TRM will have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The plant response to the [design-basis accidents] DBAs will not change. In addition, the movable incore detector instrumentation, seismic monitoring instrumentation, meteorological monitoring instrumentation, and loose-part detection instrumentation are not accident initiators and cannot cause an accident. For the turbine overspeed protection instrumentation, the DBAs and transients include a variety of system failures and conditions which might result from turbine overspeed events and potential missiles striking various plant systems and equipment. However, in view of the low likelihood of the generation of turbine missiles, the turbine overspeed protection instrumentation does not serve a primary protective function. Therefore, these changes will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to relocate the movable incore detector instrumentation, seismic monitoring instrumentation, meteorological monitoring instrumentation, loose-part detection instrumentation, and turbine overspeed protection instrumentation do not alter the plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any new or unusual operator actions. They do not alter the way any [structure, system, or component] SSC functions and do not alter the manner in which the plant is operated. The proposed changes do not introduce any new failure modes. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed Technical Specification and Bases changes will relocate the requirements for the movable incore detector instrumentation, seismic monitoring instrumentation, meteorological monitoring instrumentation, loose-part detection instrumentation, and turbine overspeed protection instrumentation from Technical Specifications to the TRM. Any future changes to the relocated requirements will be in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 and approved station procedures. The proposed changes will have no adverse effect on plant operation, or the availability or operation of any accident mitigation equipment. The plant response to the DBAs will not change. In addition, the relocated requirements do not meet any of the 10 CFR 50.36c(2)(ii) criteria on items for which Technical Specifications must be established. Therefore, there will be no significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification changes associated with the revised fuel handling accident analyses will not cause an accident to occur and will not result in any change in the operation of the associated accident mitigation equipment. The design basis accidents remain the same postulated events described in the Millstone Unit No. 3 FSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes will not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification changes associated with the revised fuel handling accidents analyses will increase the associated consequences. The increased consequences are the result of a revised plant configuration and revised calculation assumptions, not the result of the addition of any new plant equipment. The current Fuel Handling Accident Inside Containment (FHAIC) analysis assumes the containment is isolated, or will be isolated, prior to any release. The revised FHAIC analysis will allow both containment personnel access hatch doors to remain open, under administrative control, during core alterations and irradiated fuel movement inside containment. This may result in a radioactive release if a fuel handling accident were to occur. The revised FHAIC analysis demonstrates that the magnitude of the potential release is small and bounded by the consequences of the Design Basis Loss of Coolant Accident. The increase in the consequences of the revised Fuel Handling Accident Inside the Spent Fuel Pool (FHAISFP) analysis due to the revised calculation assumptions is small. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed Technical Specification changes not associated with the revised fuel handling accidents analyses affect the limiting conditions for operation (LCOs), applicability, action requirements, and surveillance requirements of numerous specifications associated with plant operating restrictions, accident mitigation functions, and accident mitigation equipment. The affected operating restrictions, accident mitigation functions, and accident mitigation equipment are not accident initiators. The proposed changes will not cause an accident to occur and will not result in any change in the operation of the associated accident mitigation equipment. The design basis accidents remain the same postulated events described in the Millstone Unit No. 3 FSAR. Therefore, the proposed changes will not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed LCO and applicability changes are consistent with the design basis accident analyses, including the revised fuel handling accident analyses. (The proposed change to the LCO for containment penetrations, which will allow both personnel access hatch doors to remain open during core alterations and irradiated fuel movement inside containment will result in an increase in the consequences of a FHAIC as previously discussed.) This will ensure that the accident mitigation functions and associated equipment are available for accident mitigation as assumed in the associated analyses. As a result, the accident analysis assumptions and mitigation methods will not be adversely affected by these changes. Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The additional proposed changes to the Technical Specifications that will standardize terminology, relocate information to the Bases, remove extraneous information, and make minor format changes will not result in any technical changes to the current requirements. Therefore, these additional proposed changes will not result in a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to the Technical Specifications do not impact any system or component that could cause an accident. The proposed changes will not alter the plant configuration (no new or different type of equipment will be installed) or require any unusual operator actions. The proposed changes will not alter the way any structure, system, or component functions, and will not significantly alter the manner in which the plant is operated. There will be no adverse effect on plant operation or accident mitigation equipment. The response of the plant and the operators following an accident will not be significantly different. In addition, the proposed changes do not introduce any new failure modes. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 100 establishes the accident exposure limits (300 rem thyroid and 25 rem whole body) for the Exclusion Area Boundary and Low Population Zone. The radiological consequences resulting from the Technical Specification changes associated with the revised fuel handling accident analyses are well within these limits. The radiological consequences to the Control Room Operators resulting from the Technical Specification changes associated with the revised fuel handling accident analyses are also within the GDC 19 limit. Since these limits will not be exceeded and these limits establish the margin of safety in the plant's current licensing basis, the proposed changes will not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed Technical Specification LCO, applicability, action requirement, and surveillance requirement changes not associated with the revised fuel handling accidents analyses do not adversely affect equipment design or operation. In addition, the proposed allowed outage times and shutdown times are consistent with times already contained in the Millstone Unit No. 3 Technical Specifications. Therefore, these changes will not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The additional proposed changes to the Technical Specifications that will standardize terminology, relocate information to the Bases, remove extraneous information, and make minor format changes will not result in any technical changes to the current requirements. Therefore, these additional changes will not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the staff's analysis, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The function of the suppression-chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers is to relieve vacuum in the drywell by allowing air and steam flow from the suppression chamber to the drywell when the drywell is at a negative pressure with respect to the suppression chamber. A negative differential pressure across the drywell wall is caused by rapid depressurization of the drywell. Steam condensing in the drywell as a result of a primary system rupture results in the most severe pressure transient.
The function of the reactor building-to-suppression chamber vacuum breakers is to relieve vacuum when the primary containment depressurizes below the reactor building pressure. If the drywell depressurizes below reactor building pressure, the negative differential pressure is mitigated by flow through the reactor building-to-suppression chamber vacuum breakers and through the suppression-chamber-to-drywell vacuum breakers. A negative differential pressure across the drywell wall is caused by rapid depressurization of the drywell. The maximum depressurization rate is a function of the primary containment spray flow rate and temperature and the assumed initial conditions of the primary containment atmosphere.
Each proposed change to the vacuum breaker TS was categorized by the licensee as either administrative, more restrictive, less restrictive, or as a relocation. In addition, the licensee made changes to the bases to capture the information removed from the associated Action Steps and to be consistent with the STS. The administrative changes eliminate, replace, or add words or phrases, to provide clarity or to achieve consistency with the STS. The more restrictive changes reduce the number of vacuum breakers allowed to be open or reduces the amount of time allowed to close the open valves. The less restrictive changes: (1) Eliminate the surveillance requirements associated with the vacuum breaker position indicators; (2) reduce the frequency of vacuum breaker position verification; (3) increase the time requirement for functional testing subsequent to steam discharged to the suppression chamber from the safety-relief valves; (4) increase the number of allowable inoperable valves in one vacuum breaker assembly; (5) eliminate repetitious visual inspections; and (6) eliminate channel calibration as a means to determine operability of the inboard isolation valve auto-open control system. The relocation changes move information from the action steps to the bases.
The licensee stated in their October 12, 2000, application that neither the vacuum breakers, the vacuum breaker position indication, nor the vacuum breaker actuation system are initiators of any analyzed event. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated. In addition, the licensee's application states that the proposed changes will ensure the operability of the vacuum breakers, will provide assurance that the containment integrity and venting capability are maintained or restored within 1 hour, and that sufficient vacuum breakers will remain operable to mitigate the assumed accidents. Therefore, there is no significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The licensee further stated that any future changes to the licensee-controlled documents containing relocated requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the PSEG Nuclear 10 CFR 50.59 program. Consequently, no significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated will be allowed without prior Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approval. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.
The licensee stated in their application that the proposed change does not involve a physical alteration of the plant and does not introduce any new modes of plant operation. In addition, the licensee stated that any resulting changes to the operation of the plant will be consistent with assumptions made in the safety analysis. Therefore the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed.
The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensee stated in their application that the proposed change does not impact any safety analysis assumptions and will provide assurance that the containment integrity and venting capability are maintained or restored within 1 hour. The licensee further stated that Hope Creek experience has shown that the change in surveillance frequency of vacuum breaker position is not a significant change in operating practice. In addition, the operability of the vacuum breakers is not adversely affected by steam discharged through the safety relief valves (SRVs) and does not pose an immediate operability concern. Consequently, the potential impact from the proposed increase in the amount of time during which to perform functional testing subsequent to an SRV lift is minimal. Therefore, there is no significant reduction in a margin of safety. The licensee further stated that any future changes to the licensee-controlled documents containing relocated requirements will be evaluated in accordance with the PSEG Nuclear 10 CFR 50.59 program. Consequently, no significant reduction in a margin of safety will be allowed without prior NRC approval. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the staff's analysis, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to eliminate the words “maximum pathway” does not affect any plant system or component, and does not impact operator performance or procedures. The leak rate testing of the MSIVs will continue to be performed in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix J in a manner consistent with the guidance on leak rate testing presented in industry guidance documents and in the Standard TS. The change does not impact the design basis accident analyses presented in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This proposed TS change is considered administrative in that no changes in leak testing methods or in disposition of leak rate results are involved. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
B. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
No changes in accident analysis are involved, so the consequences of accidents will remain within the accident analysis described in the FSAR. Therefore, the proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
C. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change does not affect any plant system or component, and does not have any impact on plant operation. No changes in accident analyses are involved, therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety as currently defined in the bases of the applicable TS section or in the FSAR. For these reasons, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The change does not result in any hardware or operating procedure changes. The RHR Suppression Pool Cooling subsystems are not assumed to be initiators of any analyzed event. This change allows an additional 8 hours to restore required RHR Suppression Pool Cooling subsystem(s) prior to requiring the initiation of a unit shutdown. The proposed 8 hour Completion Time provides some time to restore required subsystem(s) to Operable status, yet is short enough that operating an additional 8 hours is not a significant risk.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
B. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated is not created because the proposed change introduces no new mode of plant operation and it does not involve a physical modification to the plant.
C. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The increased time allowed for restoring required inoperable RHR Suppression Pool Cooling subsystems is acceptable based on the small probability of an event requiring the inoperable suppression pool cooling subsystems to function and the desire to restore required subsystems prior to requiring the initiation of a plant shutdown. Delaying a plant shutdown will minimize the potential for a scram which then could result in a need for a subsystem when it is inoperable. As such, any reduction in a margin of safety will be insignificant and offset by the benefit gained from providing additional time to restore required subsystem(s), thus avoiding potential plant transients during shutdown. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
(1) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the physical design and/or operation of the plant, nor do they affect Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions. None of the proposed changes involve a physical modification to the plant, a new mode of operation or a change to the UFSAR [Updated Final Safety Analysis Report] transient analyses. No Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation, Action Statement, or Surveillance Requirement is affected by any of the proposed changes. The proposed changes do not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant component. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not affect the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated. The proposed changes do not affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses, the physical design and/or modes of plant operation defined in the plant operating license, or Technical Specifications that preserve safety analysis assumptions. The proposed changes do not introduce a new mode of plant operation or surveillance requirement, nor involve a physical modification to the plant. The proposed changes do not alter the design, function, or operation of any plant components. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not affect the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. None of the proposed changes involve a physical modification to the plant, a new mode of operation or a change to the UFSAR transient analyses. No Technical Specification Limiting Condition for Operation, Action Statement, or Surveillance Requirement is affected. Therefore, the proposed amendment does not reduce the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three
1. The operation of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes are administrative or editorial in nature and do not involve any physical changes to the plant. The changes do not revise the methods of plant operation which could increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No new modes of operation are introduced by the proposed changes such that a previously evaluated accident is more likely to occur or more adverse consequences would result.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
These changes are administrative or editorial in nature and do not affect the operation of any systems or equipment, nor do they involve any potential initiating events that would create any new or different kind of accident. There are no changes to the design assumptions, conditions, configuration of the facility, or manner in which the plant is operated and maintained.
The changes do not affect assumptions contained in plant safety analyses or the physical design and/or modes of plant operation. Consequently, no new failure mode is introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. The operation of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in accordance with the proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
There are no changes being made to the TS safety limits or safety system settings. The operating limits and functional capabilities of systems, structures and components are unchanged as a result of these administrative and editorial changes. These changes do not affect any equipment involved in potential initiating events or plant response to accidents. There is no change to the basis for any Technical Specification that is related to the establishment or maintenance of, a nuclear safety margin.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The June 14, September 26, and October 16, 2000, letters provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 2, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The September 26, 2000, letter provided clarifying information within the scope of the original application and did not change the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The July 18, 2000, supplement provided clarifying information that was within the scope of the original application and
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 8, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 8, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 9, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The June 29, 2000, supplement withdrew the proposed TS change to clarify the allowable containment leakage rate. The August 16, 2000, supplement withdrew the proposed TS change to increase the allowable containment spray pump degradation. The April 4, June 9, June 29, August 2, and August 16, 2000, supplemental letters provided clarifying information that was within the scope of the original
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 13, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 14, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 14, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of increase in power output up to the plant's licensed power level, the Commission may not have had an opportunity to provide for public comment on its no significant hazards consideration determination. In such case, the license amendment has been issued without opportunity for comment. If there has been some time for public comment but less than 30 days, the Commission may provide an opportunity for public comment. If comments have been requested, it is so stated. In either event, the State has been consulted by telephone whenever possible.
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. By December 29, 2000, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for a hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, and final determination of no significant hazards consideration are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated November 3, 2000.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
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 under 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 December 18, 2000, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) 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
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. (“EGS”), 350 Pine Street, Beaumont, Texas 77701, an electric utility subsidiary company of Entergy Corporation (“Entergy”), 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70113, a public utility holding company registered under the Act, has filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10 and 12(d) of the Act and rules 44 and 53 under the Act.
In summary, EGS requests authority to issue a variety of securities, to form certain special purpose entities (“SPEs”) for the sole purpose of issuing one or more series of preferred securities (“SPE Securities”) and to enter into agreements with governmental entities to facilitate certain financings.
Specifically, EGS proposes, from time to time through December 31, 2005 (“Authorization Period”), to issue and sell, or to arrange for the issuance and sale of, a combination of some or all of the following securities in an aggregate principal amount of $2.2 billion (“Debt Limit”): (1) one or more series of its first mortgage bonds (“Bonds”), (2) one or more series of medium-term notes (“MTNs”), (3) one or more series of debentures (“Debentures”), (4) one or more new series of EGS' preferred stock (“Preferred Stock”), (5) one or more series of EGS' preference stock (“Preference Stock”) or (6) one or more series of tax-exempt bonds (“TEBs”) issued by one or more governmental entities.
EGS also requests authority to issue guaranties to secure subsidiary SPE obligations under the SPE Securities, and to issue subordinated debentures to the SPE in respect of the proceeds of the SPE Securities. In addition, EGS requests authority to obtain letters of credit and to issue collateral securities to secure the TEBs. Further, EGS requests authority to acquire outstanding pollution control revenue and/or industrial development bonds issued for its benefit.
One or more series of Bonds, MTNs and/or Debentures may include provisions for redemption prior to maturity at various percentages of the principal amount thereof and may include restrictions on optional redemption for a given number of years. In addition, one or more series of Bonds, MTNs or Debentures may include provision for the mandatory retirement of some or all of the series prior to maturity, which will not exceed fifty years. The price, exclusive of accrued interest, to be paid to EGS for each series of Bonds, MTNs and Debentures sold at competitive bidding will be within a range (to be specified by EGS to prospective purchasers) of 95% to 105% of the principal amount of the series. No series of Bonds, MTNs or Debentures, whether fixed rate or adjustable, will bear interest at rates in excess of 15% per annum.
SPE Securities issued by an SPE will have a stated per share liquidation preference and may be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended. The holders of the SPE Securities will be either (1) the limited partners (in the case of a limited partnership) or (2) the holders of preferred interests (in the case of a business trust) of the SPE and the amounts paid by such holders for the SPE will be treated as capital contributions to the SPE. The annual distribution or interest rate borne by any of the SPE Securities will not exceed 15% and the price paid for the SPE Securities will be not less than the par or stated value and not more than 105% of that value, plus accumulated dividends, if any.
SPEs issuing SPE Securities will be in the form of statutory business trusts or limited partnerships and will be created solely for the purpose of issuing one or more series of SPE Securities. EGS will directly or indirectly make an equity contribution to the SPE at the time the SPE Securities are issued and with this equity contribution, directly or indirectly acquire all of the general partnership interests, in the case of a partnership, or all of the voting interests, in the case of a business trust, in the SPE. If the SPE is a limited partnership, EGS may act as the general partner, or alternatively, EGS requests authority to organize a special purpose corporation for the sole purpose of acting as the general partner of the SPE.
EGS proposes to issue from time to time, in one or more series, Subordinated Debentures to the SPE. The SPE will use the proceeds from the sale of its SPE Securities, plus the equity contributions made to it, to purchase the Subordinated Debentures. EGS will issue the Subordinated Debentures in an aggregate principal amount not exceeding the aggregate stated amount of the SPE Securities whose sale proceeds, along with the capital contributions, were used to purchase the Subordinated Debentures.
Each series of Subordinated Debentures will mature within fifty years of issuance and the interest rates; payment dates, redemption, maturity and other terms will be substantially identical to the SPE Securities' terms and conditions. Indentures for the Subordinated Debentures will provide that they are subordinated to senior indebtedness, may provide for deferred payment up to sixty months under certain circumstances.
EGS proposes to enter into Guarantees, securing the SPE Securities which guarantee the payment of distributions, liquidation payments and certain tax related “gross up” amounts to SPE Securities holders, if and to the extent that the SPE has legally available funds for this purpose. Separately, EGS further proposes to issue and sell one or more new series of its Preferred Stock of no par or $100 par value, either by competitive bidding, negotiated public offering or private placement during the Authorization Period. No series of Preferred Stock will be sold if the dividend rate thereon would exceed 15% per annum. The terms of one or more series of Preferred Stock may include provisions for redemption at various redemption prices, may include restrictions on optional redemption for a given number of years and may include provisions for purchases in lieu of redemption. EGS may include for any series of Preferred Stock provisions for a sinking fund designed to annually redeem a given percentage of the total number of shares of such series.
Depending upon market conditions at the time of the offering of a given series of the Preferred Stock, if EGS determines that Preferred Stock having a public offering price of less than $100 per share is likely to have a materially better market reception than shares of $100 Preferred, and it is not deemed appropriate to use no par Preferred Stock, EGS may issue and sell a series of $100 Preferred to underwriters for deposit with a bank or trust company (“Depositary”). The underwriters would then receive from the Depositary and deliver to the purchasers, in a subsequent public offering, shares of depositary preferred stock (“Depositary Preferred”), each representing a stated fraction of a share of the new series of $100 Preferred Stock.
EGS proposes to issue one or more series of Preference Stock, with the price to be paid being determined at the time of sale. No series of Preference Stock will be issued at less than 100% or more than 105% of the stated value per share, plus accrued dividends, if any. No series of Preference Stock would be sold if the dividend rate
Additionally, EGS requests authority to enter into installment purchase, refunding or other facilities agreements (“Facilities Agreement”) with one or more governmental entities (“Issuers”). As part of the agreement the Issuers will issue to the public one or more series of tax-exempt bonds (“TEBs”) under one or more trust indentures between the Issuer and one or more trustees (“Trustees”) in order to facilitate the purchase or construction of certain pollution control facilities (“Facilities”). Each series of TEBs will have such interest rates, maturity dates, redemption and sinking fund provisions and be secured by such means as shall be determined at the time of sale. In no event will the TEBs mature earlier than five years nor later than fifty years from the date of issuance and no series of TEBs will be sold if the fixed interest rate or initial adjustable interest rate will exceed 13% per annum. The aggregate amount of the TEBs issued will be within the Debt Limit.
The Facilities Agreement will provide for EGS to commit to purchase, acquire, construct, install, operate and/or maintain the Facilities for or on behalf of the Issuer. The Issuers will transfer the proceeds of the TEB sales to EGS and agree to transfer or make the Facilities available to the EGS on terms sufficient to provide for payment by the Issuer of the principal or redemption price and interest on the TEBs. EGS will then be responsible for paying the indebtedness on the TEBs.
In order to obtain a more favorable rating on any series of TEB, and improve their marketability, EGS proposes to issue one or more new series of Bonds or MTNs (“Collateral Bonds”) to secure the TEBs. The terms of the Collateral Bonds relating to maturity, interest payment dates, redemption provisions and acceleration will correspond to the terms of the related TEBs.
The principal amount of and interest rate borne by the Collateral Bonds could be determined in several ways: (1) If the series of TEBs bear a fixed interest rate, Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equal to the principal amount of the series and bear interest at a rate equal to the rate of interest on the series, (2) non-interest bearing Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equal to the state interest for a specified period, (3) Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equivalent to the principal amount of the series plus an amount equal to the interest on the series for a specified period, but carry a fixed interest rate that will be lower than the fixed interest rate of the series of TEBs or (4) Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equivalent to the principal mount of the series of TEBs at an adjustable rate of interest, that varies with the rate of interest on that series of TEBs, but having a “cap” (not greater than 13%), above which the interest on Collateral Bonds cannot rise.
In order to obtain a more favorable rating on any series of TEBs, EGS may also arrange for one or more irrevocable letters of credit for an aggregate amount of up to $52 million from one or more banks (individually and collectively the “Bank”). To induce the Bank to issue a letter of credit, EGS would enter into one or more reimbursement agreements (“Reimbursement Agreements”) with the Bank under which EGS will agree to reimburse the Bank for all amounts drawn under the letter of credit within a specified period (not to exceed sixty months) after the date the funds are drawn and with interest at a rate that will not exceed the Bank's prime commercial rate plus 2%. In order to secure EGS' obligations under the Facilities Agreement or the Reimbursement Agreement, in the event EGS enters into a Reimbursement Agreement, EGS may also grant a lien on the Facilities or other assets.
EGS proposes to use the net proceeds derived from the issuance and sale of Bonds, MTNs, Debentures, SPE Securities, Preferred Stock, Preference Stock and/or TEBs for general corporate purposes including, but not limited to the conduct of its business as an electric and gas utility, the repayment of outstanding securities when due and/or the possible redemption, acquisition or refunding of certain outstanding securities prior to their stated maturity or due date. EGS states that no proceeds from the issuance and sale of the above securities will be used to invest directly or indirectly in an exempt wholesale generator, as defined in section 32 of the Act, or a foreign utility company, as defined in section 33 of the Act.
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. (“EM”), 308 Pearl Street, Jackson, Mississippi 39201, an electric utility subsidiary of Entergy Corporation (“Entergy”), 639 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana 70113, a public utility holding company registered under the Act, has filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10 and 12(d) of the Act and rules 44 and 53 under the Act.
EM requests authority to issue a variety of securities, to form certain special purpose entities (“SPEs”) for the sole purpose of issuing one or more series of preferred securities (“SPE Securities”) and to enter into agreements with governmental entities to facilitate certain financings.
Specifically, EM proposes, from time to time through December 31, 2005 (“Authorization Period”), to issue and sell a combination of one or more series of its first mortgage bonds (“Bonds”) and one or more series of debentures (“Debentures”) in an aggregate amount of up to $540 million (“Debt Limit”). In addition, EM requests authority to issue one or more series of EM preferred securities (“Preferred Stock”) and/or to cause one or more SPEs to issue SPE Securities, in a combined aggregate outstanding principal amount of up to $50 million (“Preferred Limit”) through the Authorization Period. EM also requests authority, through the Authorization Period, to issue subordinated debentures of EM (“Subordinated Debentures”) and guarantees of EM (“Guarantees”) in connection with the issuance of SPE Securities. Further, Em requests authority through the Authorization Period to enter into arrangements for the issuance of up to $46 million of tax-exempt bonds (“TEBs”) by one or more governmental authorities and of up to $100 million of municipal securities (“Municipal Securities”) by one or more state or local municipal entities (“Municipal Entity”).
Bonds and/or Debentures may include provisions for redemption prior to maturity at various percentages of the principal amount of the bonds and may include restrictions on optional redemption for a given number of years. In addition, Bonds and Debentures may include provisions for the mandatory retirement of some or all series prior to
SPE Securities issued by an SPE will have a stated per share liquidation preference and may be registered under the Securities Act of 1933 as amended. Amounts paid by the holders of equity interests in the SPE will be treated as capital contributions to the SPE. The annual distribution or interest rate borne by any of the SPE Securities will not exceed 15%.
SPEs issuing SPE Securities will be in the form of statutory business trusts or limited partnerships and will be created solely for the purpose of issuing one or more series of SPE Securities. EM will directly or indirectly make an equity contribution to the SPE at the time the SPE Securities are issued and with this equity contribution, directly or indirectly acquire all of the general partnership interests, in the case of a partnership, or all of the voting interests, in the case of a business trust, in the SPE. If the SPE is a limited partnership, EM may act as the general partner, or alternatively, EM requests authority to organize a special purpose corporation for the sole purpose of acting as the general partner of the SPE.
EM will issue, from time to time in one or more series, Subordinated Debentures to the SPE. The SPE will use the proceeds from the sale of its SPE Securities, plus the equity contributions made to it, to purchase the Subordinated Debentures. EM will issue the Subordinated Debentures in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed the aggregate stated amount of the SPE Securities whose sale proceeds, along with the capital contributions, were used to purchase the Subordinated Debentures.
Each series of Subordinated Debentures will mature within fifty years of issuance and the interest rates, payment dates, redemption, maturity and other terms will be substantially identical to the SPE Securities' terms and conditions. Indentures for the Subordinated Debentures will provide that the Subordinated Debentures are subordinated to senior indebtedness and may provide for deferred payment up to sixty months under certain circumstances.
EM also proposes to enter into Guarantees, which guarantee the payment of distributions, liquidation payments and certain tax-related “gross up” amounts to the SPE Securities holders if, and to the extent that, the SPE has legally available funds for this purpose.
EM also proposes to directly issue and sell one of more new series of its no par, nominal par or $100 par value Preferred Stock either by competitive bidding, negotiated public offering or private placement. No series of Preferred Stock will be sold if the dividend rate would exceed 15% per annum. The terms of one or more series of Preferred Stock may include provisions for redemption at various redemption prices, restrictions on optional redemption for a given number of years, provisions for purchases in lieu of redemption or provisions for a sinking fund designed to annually redeem a given percentage of the total number of shares of the series.
Depending upon market conditions at the time of the offering of a given series of the Preferred Stock, if EM determines that Preferred Stock having a public offering price of less than $100 per share is likely to have a materially better market reception than shares of $100 Preferred, and it is not deemed appropriate to use no par Preferred Stock, EM may issue and sell a series of $100 Preferred to underwriters for deposit with a bank or trust company (“Depositary”). The underwriters would then receive from the Depositary and deliver to the purchasers, in a subsequent public offering, shares of depositary preferred stock (“Depository Preferred”), each representing a stated fraction of a share of the new series of $100 Preferred Stock.
EM may enter into installment purchase, refunding or other facilities agreements (“Facilities Agreements”) with one or more governmental entities (“Issuers”). As part of these agreements, the Issuers will issue one or more series of TEBs to the public under one or more trust indentures, in order to facilitate the purchase or construction of certain pollution control facilities (“Facilities”). Each series of TEBs will have interest rates, maturity dates, redemption, sinking fund and security provisions as will be determined at the time of sale. In no event will the TEBs mature earlier than five years nor later than fifty years from the date of issuance and no series of TEBs will bear an interest rate that exceeds 13% per annum. The aggregate amount of the TEBs issued will not exceed $46 million.
The Facilities Agreement will provide for EM to commit to purchase, acquire, construct, install, operate and/or maintain the Facilities for or on behalf of the Issuer. The Issuer will transfer the proceeds of the TEB sales to EM and agree to transfer or make the Facilities available to EM on terms sufficient to provide for payment by the Issuer of the principal or redemption price and interest on the TEBs. EM will then be responsible for paying the indebtedness on the TEBs.
In order to obtain a more favorable rating on any series of TEBs, and improve their marketability, EM proposes to issue one or more new series of Bonds up to an aggregate amount of $52 million (“Collateral Bonds”). The terms of the Collateral Bonds relating to maturity, interest payment dates, redemption provisions and acceleration will correspond to the terms of the related TEBs.
The principal amount of and interest rate borne by the Collateral Bonds could be determined in several ways: (1) If the series of TEBs bears a fixed interest rate, Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equal to the principal amount of the series and bear interest at a rate equal to the rate of interest on the series, (2) non-interest bearing Collateral bonds can be issued in a principal amount equal to the stated interest for a specified period, (3) Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equivalent to the principal amount of the series plus an amount equal to the interest on the series for a specified period, but carry a fixed interest rate that will be lower than the fixed interest rate of the series of TEBs or (4) Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equivalent to the principal amount of the series of TEBs at an adjustable rate of interest, that varies with the rate of interest on that series of TEBs, but having a “cap” (not greater than 13%), above which the interest on Collateral Bonds cannot rise.
In order to obtain a more favorable rating on any series of TEBs, EM may also arrange for one or more irrevocable letters of credit for an aggregate the amount of up to $52 million from one or more banks (individually and collectively the “Bank”). To induce the Bank to issue a letter of credit, EM would enter into one or more reimbursement agreements (“Reimbursement Agreements”) with the Bank under which EM will agree to reimburse the Bank for all amounts drawn under the letter of credit within a specified period (not to exceed sixty months) after the date the funds are
EM seeks authority to enter into arrangements for the issuance of up to $100 million aggregate principal amount of Municipal Securities to be issued by a state or local Municipal Entity. Under the arrangements, a Municipal Entity will issue securities to the public on behalf of EM and will loan money to EM through a bank, an affiliate of EM or other person, where the proceeds of the financing will be used to pay certain of EM's costs. The Municipal Entity will agree to pay to EM an amount equal to the proceeds of the Municipal Securities. Under the provisions of an agreement between EM and the Municipal Entity, EM will be obligated to make payments sufficient to provide for payment by the Municipal Entity of the principal, redemption price of, premium (if any), interest on and other amounts owing with respect to the Municipal Securities, together with related expenses.
Each series of Municipal Securities will be sold at a price, interest rate and maturity date as will be determined at the time of sale, however, no series of Municipal Securities will be sold if the fixed interest rate or adjustable interest rate would exceed 15% per annum, or if subsequent interest rates for adjustable rate would exceed 15% per annum. No series of Municipal Securities will mature earlier than one year or later than fifty years from the first day of the month of issuance.
In order to obtain a more favorable rating on any series of Municipal Securities, and improve their marketability, EM may arrange for one or more irrevocable letters of credit for an aggregate amount up to $115 million from one or more Banks. Payments with respect to principal, premium, if any, interest and purchase obligations in connection with the series of Municipal Securities coming due during the term of the letter of credit, which will not exceed ten years, will be secured by, and payable from funds (if any) drawn under, the letter of credit. To induce the Bank to issue a letter of credit, EM would enter into one or more reimbursement agreements (“Reimbursement Agreements”) with the Bank under which EM will agree to reimburse the Bank for all amounts drawn under a letter of credit within a specified period (not to exceed sixty months) after the date funds are drawn and with interest at a rate that will not exceed the Bank's prime commercial lending rate plus 2%. The terms of the Reimbursement Agreement will correspond to the terms in the letter of credit.
Any letter of credit will expire or be terminable prior to the maturity date of the series of Municipal Securities that the letter of credit supports and, in connection with the expiration or termination, the series of Municipal Securities can be made subject to mandatory redemption or purchase on or prior to the date of expiration or termination of the letter of credit, subject to the rights of owners of Municipal Securities not to have their Municipal Securities redeemed or purchased. Provision may be made, as to any series of Municipal Securities, for extension of the term of a letter of credit or for its replacement, upon its expiration or termination, by another letter of credit (having substantially the same terms as the original letter of credit) from the Bank or another bank. Extended or replacement letters of credit will expire not later than the final maturity date of the related Municipal Securities
In order to secure EM's obligations under the agreement with the Municipal Entity and/or, in the event EM enters into a Reimbursement Agreement, under the Reimbursement Agreement, EM may grant a lien, subordinate to the lien on the Bonds, on certain assets of EM (the “Municipal Subordinate Lien”).
In addition or as an alternative to the security provided by a letter of credit or the Municipal Subordinate Lien, EM may secure the Municipal Securities through the issuance and pledge of one or more new series of first mortgage bonds (“Municipal Collateral Bonds”). The principal amount of and interest rate borne by the Municipal Collateral Bonds could be determined in several ways: (1) If the series of Municipal Securities bears a fixed interest rate, Municipal Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equal to the principal amount of the series and bear interest at a rate equal to the rate of interest on the series, (2) non-interest bearing Municipal Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equivalent to the principal amount of the series plus an amount equal to interest thereon for a specified period, (3) Municipal Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equivalent to the principal amount of the series plus an amount equal to interest on the series for a specified period, but carry a fixed interest rate that will be lower than the fixed interest rate of the series of Municipal Securities or (4) Municipal Collateral Bonds can be issued in a principal amount equivalent to the principal amount of the series of Municipal Securities at an adjustable rate of interest, varying with the rate of interest borne by the series of Municipal Securities but having a “cap” (not greater than 15%), above which the interest on Municipal Collateral Bonds cannot rise.
Each series of the Municipal Collateral Bonds that bear interest will bear interest at a fixed interest rate or initial adjustable interest rate not to exceed 15%. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the Municipal Collateral Bonds would be $115 million, which will be in addition to the aggregate amount requested for Bonds and/or Debentures. The terms of the Municipal Collateral Bonds relating to maturity, interest payment dates, if any, redemption provisions and acceleration will correspond to the terms of the related Municipal Securities. The terms of each series of the Municipal Collateral Bonds will not vary during the life of the series except for the interest rate of any series that bears interest at an adjustable rate.
EM proposes to use the net proceeds derived from the issuance and sale of Bonds, Debentures, SPE Securities, Preferred Stock and TEBs for general corporate purposes including, but not limited to the conduct of its business as an electric and gas utility, the repayment of outstanding securities when due and/or the possible redemption, acquisition or refunding of certain outstanding securities prior to their stated maturity or due date. The proceeds from the issuance and sale of Bonds, Debentures, SPE Securities, Preferred Stock and TEBs will not be used to invest directly or indirectly in an exempt wholesale generator, as defined in section 32 of the Act, or a foreign utility company, as defined in section 33 of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) for an exemption from section 15(f)(1)(A) of the Act.
Secretary, Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, TIP Funds and Turner, 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 350, Berwyn, PA 19312; the Company, the Trust and FAM, 800 Scudders Mill Road, Plainsboro, NJ 08536.
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, at (202) 942-0634 or Nadya Roytblat, Assistant Director, at (202) 942-0693 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application.The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0101, telephone (202) 942-8090.
1. TIP Funds is a Massachusetts business trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. Turner Large Cap Growth Fund (“Turner Fund”) was a series of TIP Funds. Turner is an investment adviser registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the “Advisers Act”), and served as the investment adviser to the Turner Fund until the Reorganization (as defined below).
2. The Company is a Maryland corporation registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Company is comprised of seven separate series, one of which is Mercury Select Growth Fund (“Mercury Fund”). On June 19, 2000, the Mercury Fund acquired substantially all of the assets of the Turner Fund in exchange for the assumption by the Mercury Fund of substantially all of the liabilities of the turner Fund and Class I shares of the Mercury Fund equal in value to the net asset value of the assets acquired from the Turner Fund (the “Reorganization”). The Mercury Fund invests substantially all of its assets in the Master Select Growth Portfolio (“Master Portfolio”), a series of the Trust. The Trust is a Delaware business trust registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. FAM, an investment adviser registered under the Advisers Act, serves as the investment adviser to the Master Portfolio, and Turner serves as the subadviser.
3. Applicants state that the board of directors of the Company consists of 2 directors who are interested persons, as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act (“Interested Directors”), and 4 directors who are not interested persons (“Disinterested Directors”). Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act exempting the Company from the provisions of section 15(f)(1)(A) of the Act with respect to the Reorganization.
1. Section 15(f) of the Act is a safe harbor that permits an investment adviser to a registered investment company (or an affiliated person of the investment adviser) to receive “any amount or benefit” in connection with the sale of securities of, or sale of any interest in, such adviser (which results in the assignment of an investment advisory contract with such company) if certain conditions are met. Section 15(f)(1)(A) requires that, for a period of three years after such sale, at least 75 percent of the board of directors of an investment company (or its successor, by reorganization or otherwise) may not be “interested persons” with respect to either the predecessor or successor investment adviser to the investment company.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any person or transaction from any provision of the Act, or rule or regulation thereunder, if the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Section 15(f)(3)(B) of the Act provides that if the assignment of an investment advisory contract results from the merger of, or sale of substantially all the assets by, a registered investment company with or to another registered investment company with assets substantially greater in amount, such discrepancy in size shall be considered by the Commission in determining whether, or to what extent, to grant exemptive relief pursuant to section 6(c) from section 15(f)(1)(A). Applicants state that, as a result of the Reorganization, it could be argued that section 15(f)(1)(A) of the Act requires the board of directors of the Company to be comprised of at least 75% Disinterested Directors. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act for an exemption from the requirement in section 15(f)(1)(A) with respect to the Reorganization. Applicants acknowledge that the requested order would grant relief only for the period following the date on which the order is granted.
3. Applicants state that the aggregate net assets of the Company ($2,906,843,959 as of June 16, 2000) were substantially greater than the aggregate net assets of the Turner Fund ($45,527,647 as of June 16, 2000), making the Turner Fund's assets approximately 1.5% of the Company's assets. Applicants submit that it is appropriate for the assets of the Company as a whole, as opposed to the Mercury Fund alone, to be taken into account when considering the “substantially greater” test of section 15(f)(3)(B).
4. Applicants state that, in order to comply with section 15(f)(1)(A), the Company would have to either add two Disinterested Directors or reduce the number of Interested Directors from two
5. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the requested relief is necessary and appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
Notice of meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Market Information.
The second meeting of the Securities and Exchange Commission Advisory Committee on Market Information (“Committee”) will be held on December 14, 2000, in the William O. Douglas Room, at the Commission's main offices, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC., beginning at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public, and the public is invited to submit written comments to the Committee.
Written comments should be submitted in triplicate and should refer to File No. 265-22. Comments should be submitted to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609.
Anitra Cassas, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, at 202-942-0089; Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-1001.
In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 10a, and the regulations thereunder, the Designated Federal Official of the Committee, David S. Shillman, has ordered publication of this notice that the Committee will conduct a meeting on December 14, 2000, in the William O. Douglas Room at the Commission's main offices, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC., beginning at 1:00 p.m. The meeting will be open to the public. This will be the second meeting of the Committee. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss appropriate models for consolidating and disseminating market information, and other issues relating to the public availability of market information in the equities and options markets.
On April 13, 2000, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Amex Rule 15 (Loans by Exchange Officers) and Amex Rule 416 (Accounts of Employees of Exchange and Members), to delete Amex Rule 348 (Gratuities to Employees of Exchange), and to add new Amex Rule 417 (Transactions Involving Exchange Employees).
The NASD Code of Conduct generally prohibits NASD and Amex employees from accepting loans from members, issuers, or any person with whom the NASD or Amex transacts business.
The SEC staff has recommended that the Amex adopt a rule expressly prohibiting members from making loans to Amex employees, outside routine brokerage or banking relationships.
The NASD Code of Conduct requires
Commentary .01 to Amex Rule 416 currently requires members to obtain the Exchange's prior written
Currently under Amex Rule 348, Amex members must obtain approval from the Corporate Secretary's Office before giving an Exchange employee gifts valued at over $50 per year. The Secretary's Office does not approve gifts that exceed the $50 threshold for employees in the Exchange's Member Firm Regulation area. There is no such pre-approval mechanism, however, under the NASD Code of Conduct.
To conform Amex rules to the NASD Code of Conduct, Amex Rule 348 (Gratuities to Employees of Exchange) would be deleted and replaced with new Amex Rule 417(c), a provision that parallels the NASD Code of Conduct. New Amex Rules 417(c) permits members to give non-cash business gifts with an aggregate annual value of $100 to Exchange employees when no conflict of interest exists, but prohibits members from giving business gifts or courtesies of more than nominal value to any Exchange employee who has responsibility for a specific regulatory matter that involves the member. A “regulatory matter” would include such matters as examinations, disciplinary proceedings, membership applications, listing applications, delisting proceedings, and dispute resolution proceedings involving the member. The proposed rule would permit members to give items of nominal value to employees responsible for regulatory matters affecting the member.
The Commission has reviewed carefully the Amex's proposed rule change and believes, for the reasons set forth below,
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change (SR-Amex-00-23) prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice thereof in the
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On July 23, 1999, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Until several years ago, the margin requirements governing listed options were set forth in Regulation T, “Credit by Brokers and Dealers.”
At the present time, the Exchange seeks to further revise its margin rules to implement enhancements long desired by Exchange members and member firms, public investors, and the Exchange staff. The Exchange believes that certain multiple options position strategies and other strategies that combine stock with option positions warrant more equitable margin treatment. The Exchange further believes that the offset in risk that results if the stock and options position are viewed collectively is not reflected in the current maintenance margin requirements. The Exchange believes that market participants should have the ability to use these strategies for the least amount of margin necessary. In addition, the Exchange believes it is appropriate for member firms to extend credit on certain types of long term options.
In its proposal, the Exchange reviewed all of its margin rules with a view toward updating or improving margin provisions as necessary. The Exchange also found it necessary to propose minor changes to certain rules because they are closely related to, and will be impacted by, the more substantive proposals.
In sum, the proposed revisions to the Exchange's margin rules would: (1) Permit the extension of credit on certain long term options and warrants with over nine months until expiration, and on certain long box spreads comprised entirely of European-style options; (2) recognize butterfly and box spread strategies for purposes of margin treatment and establish appropriate margin requirements for them; (3) recognize various strategies involving stocks (or other underlying instruments) paired with a long option, and provide for lower maintenance margin requirements on such hedged stock positions; (4) expand the types of short options positions that would be considered “covered” in a cash account, specifically, certain short positions that are components of limited risk spread strategies (
Currently, Amex Rule 462 defines the “current market value” or “current market price” of an option, currency warrant, currency index warrant, or stock index warrant as the total cost or net proceeds of the option contract or warrant on the day it was purchased or sold. The Amex proposes to revise the definition to indicate that the current market value or current market price of an option, currency warrant, currency index warrant, or stock index warrant are as defined in Section 220.2 of Regulation T of the Federal Reserve Board.
The Exchange also proposes to establish definitions for “butterfly spread”
[A]n aggregation of positions in three series of either put or call options all having the same underlying component or index and time of expiration, and based on the same aggregate current underlying value, where the interval between the exercise price of each series is equal, which positions are structured as either (A) a “long butterfly spread” in which two short options in the same series are offset by one long option with a higher exercise price and one long option with a lower exercise price, or (B) a “short butterfly spread” in which two long options in the same series offset one short option with a higher exercise price and one short option with a lower exercise price.
[A]n aggregation of positions in a long call option and short put option with the same exercise price (“buy side”) coupled with a long put option and short call option with the same exercise price (“sell side”) all of which have the same underlying component or index and time of expiration, and are
The proposal would define the term “OTC margin bond.”
(1) Any debt securities not traded on a national securities exchange that meet all of the following requirements (a) at the time of the original issue, a principal amount of not less than $25,000,000 of the issue was outstanding; (b) the issue was registered under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 and the issuer either files periodic reports pursuant to the Act or is an insurance company under Section 12(g)(2)(G) of the Act; or (c) at the time of the extension of credit the creditor has a reasonable basis for believing that the issuer is not in default on interest or principal payments; or (2) any private pass-through securities (not guaranteed by a U.S. government agency) that meet all of the following requirements: (a) an aggregate principal amount of not less than $25,000,000 was issued pursuant to a registration statement filed with the Commission; (b) current reports relating to the issue have been filed with the Commission; and (c) at the time of the credit extension, the creditor has a reasonable basis for believing that mortgage interest, principal payments and other distributions are being passed through as required and that the servicing agent is meeting its material obligations under the terms of the offering.
The Amex proposes to define an “escrow agreement,” when used in connection with cash settled calls, puts, currency warrants, currency index warrants or stock index warrants, carried short, any agreement issued in a form acceptable to the Exchange under which a bank holding cash, cash equivalents, one or more qualified equity securities or a combination thereof is obligated in the case of a call option or warrant; or cash, cash equivalents or a combination thereof in the case of a put option or warrant is obligated to pay to the creditor (in the case of an option) the exercise settlement amount in the event an option is assigned an exercise notice or (in the case of a warrant) the funds sufficient to purchase a warrant sold short in the event of a buy-in.
The Exchange also seeks to define the term “listed.”
The Exchange would also define the term “underlying stock basket.”
[A] group of securities which includes each of the component securities of the applicable index and which meets the following conditions: (i) The quantity of each stock in the basket is proportional to its representation in the index; (ii) the total market value of the basket is equal to the underlying index value of the index options or warrants to be covered; (iii) the securities in the basket cannot be used to cover more than the number of index options or warrants represented by that value; and (iv) the securities in the basket shall be unavailable to support any other option or warrant transaction in the account.
The proposal would allow extensions of credit on certain long listed and OTC
The proposal would permit the extension of credit on certain long term OTC options and warrants. Specifically, an Amex member firm could extend credit on a OTC put or call option on a stock or stock index, and on an OTC stock index warrant. In addition to being more than nine months from expiration, a marginable OTC option or warrant must: (1) Be in-the-money and valued at all time for margin purposes at an amount not to exceed the in-the-money amount; (2) be guaranteed by the carrying broker-dealer, and (3) have an American-style
When the time remaining until expiration for an option or warrant (listed or OTC) on which credit has been extended reaches nine months, the maintenance margin requirement would become 100 percent of the current market value. Options or warrants expiring in less than nine months would have no loan value under the proposal because of the leverage and volatility of those instruments.
The proposal also would permit the extension of credit on a long box spread composed entirely of European-style options
For long box spreads made up of European-style options, the proposal would require initial and maintenance margin of 50 percent of the aggregate difference in the two exercise prices (buy and sell), which results in a margin requirement slightly higher than 50 percent of the net debit typically incurred.
The proposal would permit butterfly spreads and box spreads in cash-settled, European-style options eligible for the cash amount. A butterfly spread is a pairing of two standard spreads, one bullish and one bearish. To qualify for carrying in the cash account, the butterfly spreads and box spreads must meet the specifications contained in the proposed definition section,
For long butterfly spreads and long box spreads, the proposal would require full payment of the net debit that is incurred when the spread strategy is established. According to the Amex, full payment of the net debit incurred to establish a long butterfly or box spread will cover any potential risk to the carrying broker-dealer.
Shortly butterfly spreads generate a credit balance when established (
In addition to butterfly spreads and box spreads, the proposal will permit investors to hold in their cash accounts other spreads made up of European-style, cash-settled stock index options, stock index warrants, or currency index warrants. A short position would be considered covered, and thus eligible for the cash account, if a long position in the same European-style, cash-settled index option, stock index warrant, or currency index warrant was held in, or purchased for, the account on the same day.
The proposal also would establish requirements for the following types of options and warrants carried short in the cash account: equity options, index options, capped-style index options, stock index warrants, and currency index warrants. For each of these securities, the proposal specifies certain criteria that must be satisfied for the short position to be deemed a covered position, and thus considered eligible
The Exchange's margin rules presently do not recognize butterfly spreads for margin purposes. Under the Exchange's current margin rules, the two spreads (bullish and bearish) that make up a butterfly spread each must be margined separately. The Exchange believes that the two spreads should be viewed in combination, and that commensurate with the lower combined risk, investors should receive the benefit of lower margin requirements.
The Exchange's proposal would recognize as a distinct strategy butterfly spreads held in margin accounts,and specify requirements that are the same as the cash account requirements for butterfly spreads.
The proposed requirements for box spreads held in a margin account, where all option positions making up the box spread are listed or guaranteed by the carrying broker-dealer, also are the same as those applied to the cash account. With respect to long box spreads, where the component options are not European-style, the proposal would require full payment of the net debit that is incurred when the spread strategy is established.
The Exchange proposes to recognize, and establish reduced maintenance margin requirements for five options strategies that are designed to limit the risk of a position in the underlying component. The strategies are: (1) Long Put/Long Stock; (2) Long Call/Short Stock; (3) Conversion; (4) Reverse Conversion; and (5) Collar. Although the five strategies are summarized below in terms of a stock position held in conjunction with an overlying option (or options), the proposal is structured to also apply to components that underlie index options and warrants. For example, these same maintenance margin requirements will apply when these strategies are utilized with a stock basket underlying index options or warrants. Proposed Exchange Rule 462(d)(10)(B)(iv), “Exceptions,” will define the five strategies and set forth the respective maintenance requirements for the stock component of each strategy.
The Long Put/Long Stock hedging strategy requires an investor to carry in an account a long position in the component underlying the put option, and a long put option specifying equivalent units of the underlying component. The maintenance margin requirement for the Long Put/Long Stock combination would be the lesser of: (i) 10 percent of the put option aggregate exercise price, plus 100 percent of any amount by which the put option is out-of-the-money; or (ii) 25 percent of the current market value of the long stock position.
The Long Call/Short Stock hedging strategy requires an investor to carry in an account a short position in the component underlying the call option, and a long call option specifying equivalent units of the underlying component. For a Long Call/Short Stock combination, the maintenance margin requirement would be the lesser of: (i) 10 percent of the call option aggregate exercise price, plus 100 percent of any amount by which the call option is out-of-the-money; or (ii) the maintenance margin requirement of the short stock position as specified in Amex Rule 462(b).
A “Conversion” is a long stock position held in conjunction with a long put and a short call. For a Conversion to qualify as hedged, the long put and short call must have the same expiration date and exercise price. The short call is covered by the long stock and the long put is a right to sell the stock at a predetermined price—the exercise price of the long put. Thus, regardless of any decline in market value, the stock position, in effect, is worth no less than the exercise price of the put.
Current Amex margin rules specify that no maintenance margin would be required on the short call option because it is covered, but the underlying long stock position would be margined according to the present maintenance margin requirement (
A “Reverse Conversion” is a short stock position held in conjunction with a short put and a long call. As with the Conversion, the short put and long call must have the same expiration date and exercise price. Regardless of any rise in market value, the stock can be acquired for the call exercise price, in effect, the short position is valued at no more than the call exercise price. The maintenance margin requirement for a Reverse Conversion would be 10 percent of the aggregate exercise price, plus any in-the-money amount (
A “Collar” is a stock position held in conjunction with a long put and a short call. A Collar differs from a Conversion in that the exercise price of the long put is lower than the exercise price of the short call. Therefore, the options positions in a Collar do not constitute a pure synthetic short stock position. The maintenance margin for a Collar would be the lesser of: (i) 10 percent of the long put aggregate exercise price, plus 100 percent of any amount by which the long put is out-of-the-money; or (ii) 25 percent of the short call aggregate exercise price.
The Exchange proposes to update other margin provisions with Amex Rule 462 to make its margin rule consistent with the 431 Committee's (which is comprised of industry representatives with diverse areas of expertise) recommendations. Specifically, the proposal would make some minor corrections to the table in Exchange Rule 462 that displays the margin requirements for short OTC options. The proposal also would revise and update provisions regarding straddle/combination in Amex Rule 462(d)10(B)(v) and would move those provisions to proposed Amex Rule 462(d)(10)(B)(vi)(c).
The Exchange proposes to adopt proposed Commentary .10 to Exchange Rule 462 to provide an exception to the margin requirement for short equity options in the event trading in the underlying security ceases due to a merger or acquisition. Under this exception, if an underlying security ceases to trade due to a merger or acquisition, and a cash settlement price has been announced by the issuer of the option, margin would be required only for in-the-money options and would be set at 100 percent of the in-the-money amount.
The proposal would revise Exchange Rule 462(d)1 to make it consistent with that portion of the Exchange's proposal that allows the extension of credit on certain long term options and warrants (
For the reasons discussed below, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange. In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
The Commission believes that it is appropriate for the Exchange to allow member firms to extend credit on certain long term options and warrants, and that such practice is consistent with Regulation T of the Federal Reserve Board. In 1996, the Federal Reserve Board amended Regulation T to enable the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to adopt rules permitting the margining of options.
The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange to restrict the extension of credit to long term options and warrants. The Commission believes that by limiting loan value to long term options and warrants, the proposal will help to ensure that the extension of credit is backed by collateral (
The Commission believes that the proposed margin requirements for eligible long term options and warrants are reasonable. For long term listed options and warrants, the proposal requires that an investor deposits and maintains not less than 75 percent of the long term OTC's option's or warrant's current market value. For long term OTC options and warrants, an investor must deposit and maintain margin of not less than 75 percent of the option's or warrant's in-the-money amount (
The Commission recognizes that because current Exchange rules prohibit loan value for options, increases in the value of long term options cannot contribute to margin equity (
The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange to afford long term options and warrants loan value because mathematical models for pricing options and evaluating their worth as loan collateral are widely recognized and understood.
Furthermore, since 1998, lenders other than broker-dealers have been permitted to extend 50 percent loan value against long listed options under Regulation U.
[A]mending the Supplement to Regulation U to allow lenders other than broker-dealers to extend 50 percent loan value against listed options. Unlisted options continue to have no loan value when used as part of a mixed-collateral loan. However, banks and other lenders can extend credit against unlisted options if the loan is not subject to Regulation U [12 CFR 221
The Federal Board first proposed margining options in 1995.
The Commission believes that it is appropriate for the Exchange to recognize the hedged nature of certain combined options strategies and prescribe margin and cash account requirements that better reflect the true risk of the strategy. Under current Exchange rules, the multiple positions comprising an option strategy such as a butterfly spread must be margined separately. In the case of a butterfly spread, the two component spreads (bull spread and bear spread) are margined without regard to the risk profile of the entire strategy. The net debit incurred on the bullish spread must be paid in full, and margin equal
The Commission believes that the revised margin and cash account requirements for butterfly spread and box spread strategies are reasonable measures that will better reflect the risk of the combined positions. Rather than view the butterfly and box spread strategies in terms of their individual option components, the Exchange's proposal would take a broader approach and require margin that is commensurate with the risk of the entire hedged position. For long butterfly spreads and long box spreads, the proposal would require full payment of the net debit that is incurred when the spread strategy is established.
The Commission believes that the proposed margin and cash account requirements for butterfly spreads and box spreads are appropriate because the component options positions serve to offset each other with respect to risk. The proposal takes into account the defined risk of these strategies and sets margin requirements that better reflect the economic reality of each strategy. As a result, the margin requirements are tailored to the overall risk of the combined positions.
For similar reasons, the Commission approves of the proposed cash account requirements for spreads made up of European-style cash-settled stock index options, stock index warrants, or currency index warrants. Under the proposal, a short position would be considered covered, and thus eligible for the cash account, if a long position in the same European-style cash-settled stock index option, stock index warrant, or currency index warrant was held in, or purchased for, the account on the same day. In addition, the long and short positions must expire concurrently, and the cash account must contain cash, cash equivalents, or an escrow agreement equal to at least the aggregate exercise price differential.
The Commission believes that it is appropriate for the Exchange to revise the maintenance margin requirements for several hedging strategies that combine stock positions with option positions. The Commission recognizes that the hedging strategies such as the Long Put/Long Stock, Long Call/Short Stock, Conversion, Reverse Conversion, and Collar are designed to limit the exposure of the investor holding the combined stock and option positions. The proposal would modify the maintenance margin required for the stock component of a hedging strategy. For example, the stock component of a Long Put/Long Stock combination currently is margined without regard to the hedge provided by the long put position (
The Commission notes that the proposed changes were reviewed carefully by the 431 Committee and the Options Subcommittee, which are comprised of industry participants who have extensive experience in margin and credit matters. In addition, as noted above, the Amex's proposal is substantially identical to rules adopted by the CBOE and the NYSE, which the Commission approved. In approving the CBOE's proposal, the Commission noted the CBOE's experience in monitoring the credit exposures of options strategies and the fact that the CBOE regularly examines the coverage of options margin as it relates to price movements in the underlying securities and index components.
The Commission notes that the margin requirements approved in this order are mandatory minimums. Therefore, an Exchange member may freely implement margin requirements that exceed the margin requirements adopted by the Exchange.
The Commission also believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange to define “butterfly spread”
The Commission also believes that it is reasonable for the Amex to revise its definition of “current market value” and “current market price” in Amex Rule 462(d) to conform to Regulation T of the Federal Reserve Board. A linkage to the Regulation T definition should keep the Exchange's definition equivalent to Regulation T without requiring a rule filing if the Federal Reserve Board revises its definition of Regulation T of the Federal Reserve Board. In addition, the Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Amex to define an “escrow agreement” in respect of cash settled options or warrants,
The Commission believes that it is appropriate for the Exchange to revise Exchange Rule 462, “Determination of Value for Margin Purposes,” to allow the market value of certain long term stock options, stock index options, and stock index warrants to be considered for margin equity purposes. Under the current terms of Exchange Rule 462, options contracts are not deemed to have market value. Because the Exchange's proposal will allow extensions of credit on long term options and warrants, Exchange Rule 462 must be revised to permit such marginable options and warrants to have market value for margin purposes. The Commission notes that unless Exchange Rule 462 were revised to recognize the market value of the marginable options and warrants, the Exchange's loan value proposal would be ineffective (
The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange to codify as part of its rules the current margin requirements for short options on securities that have been delisted due to a merger or acquisition. Under the provision, if an underlying security ceases to trade due to a merger or acquisition, and a cash settlement price has been announced by the issuer of the option, margin would be required only for in-the-money options and would be set at 100 percent of the in-the-money amount. The Commission believes that it is appropriate for the Exchange not to require margin for out-of-the-money short options. Given that a fixed settlement price will have been announced by the issuer of the option (
The Commission also believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange to update and reorganize its margin provisions within Exchange Rule 462 so that Exchange members and other market participants will find the Exchange margin provisions easier to locate and use. The Commission believes that it is reasonable for the Exchange to rephrase and update some of the margin provisions that have been relocated. The margin revisions are designed to ensure consistency among exchanges margin rules (for example, between the Amex's, the CBOE's and the NYSE's margin rules). In some instances, changes proposed to one particular margin requirement impacted the requirements for other positions and products. In other instances, the Exchange simply revised language to clarify the meaning of a provision.
The revisions to the Exchange's margin rules will significantly impact the way Exchange members calculate margin for options customers. The Commission believes that it is important for the Exchange to be adequately prepared to implement and monitor the revised margin requirements. To best accommodate the transition, the Commission believes that a phase-in period is appropriate. Therefore, the approved margin requirements shall not become effective until the earlier of February 27, 2001 or such date as the Exchange represents in writing to the Commission and to its members that the Exchange is prepared to fully implement and monitor the approved margin requirements.
The Commission expects the Exchange to issue an information memorandum to members that discusses the revised margin provisions and provides guidance to members regarding their regulatory responsibilities. The Commission also believes that it would be helpful for the Exchange to publicly disseminate (
The Commission finds good cause for approving proposed Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the
Changes proposed in Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 will strengthen the proposal by making it consistent with the margin requirements supported by the 431 Committee. Because the changes conform the Amex's rule to existing rule recently adopted by the CBOE and NYSE,
Based on the above, the Commission finds that good cause exists, consistent with Section 19(b) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, including whether Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 16, 2000, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 713 of the Amex Company Guide requires shareholder approval for stock issuances of 20 percent or more of an issuer's total shares outstanding, offered at less than the greater of book or market value. The applicable rules further provide, however, that shareholder approval is not required for a “public offering,” although that term is not defined in the rules. The Exchange proposes to adopt Commentary .01 to Section 713, to clarify the definition of “public offering” for issuers and interested parties. According to the Amex, a number of issuers have recently inquired as to whether certain large, below-market offerings were “public offerings” because the transactions were registered with the Commission prior to closing the transactions.
The Amex expects that proposed Commentary .01 will help to ensure issuer understanding of how Amex determines whether a transaction is a “public offering” for purposes of shareholder approval rules. The proposed Commentary identifies a number of factors that will be considered in establishing the existence of a “public offering.” Such factors include the type of offering; the marketing of the offering; the extent of the offering's distribution; the offering price; and the extent to which the issuer controls the offering and its distribution. Decisions as to whether a transaction is a “public offering” for purposes of these rules will be based on the facts and circumstances surrounding each particular transaction.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regualtion, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The CHX proposes to amend its rules relating to its market maker program and to its floor trading operations. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the following: (i) CHX Rules 8, 9 and 10 under Article XXXIV; (ii)
Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in
.01 Specialists shall input their current markets and sizes to the quotation system [through the key terminal or the mark sense terminal] at the post
.02 In respect to Dual Trading System issues specialists utilizing the Auto Quote mode are prohibited from disseminating a bid and/or offer more than
.03 Market [M]
[.04 Floor Brokers, while at the post, shall input to the quotation system those bids or offers which better the current Exchange market, unless the bid or offer is cancelled or withdrawn if not executed immediately. If a floor broker transfers possession of an order to a specialist, the requirement for input to the quotation system becomes the obligation of the specialist. When a floor broker who retains possession of an order leaves the post he must withdraw his bid or offer from the quotation system. Quotations and accompanying sizes shall be firm until withdrawn unless exempted under one of the conditions specified in paragraphs .06-.09 of this Rule.]
RULE 10. Bids and offers to be effective must be [audibly] made at the post and shall remain in full force until the person making the bid or offer shall [audibly] withdraw the bid or offer [announce that he is out of the market or until he leaves the post].
.01 Although there may be a certain amount of negotiation by voice away from the post, every trade must be consummated at the post.
Amended Jan. 15, 1997.
.02 Clearing the Post.
Policy. All orders received by floor brokers or originated by market makers on the floor of the Exchange
Floor brokers who receive an order on the floor have a fiduciary responsibility to seek a best price execution for such order. This responsibility includes clearing of the Exchange's post prior to routing an order to another market so that other buying and selling interest at the post can be checked for a potential execution that may be as good as or better than the execution available in another market.
Market makers
Notwithstanding the above, it is understood that on occasion a customer will insist on special handling for a particular order that would preclude it from clearing the post on the Exchange floor. For example, a customer might request that a specific order be given a primary market execution. These situations must be documented and reported to the Exchange. Customer directives for special handling of all orders in a particular stock or all stocks, however, will not be considered as exceptions to the clearing the post policy.
All executions resulting from bids and offers reflected on Instinet terminals residents on the Exchange floor constitute “orders” which are “communicated” to the Exchange floor. Therefore, all orders resulting from interest reflected on Instinet terminals on the Exchange floor must be handled as any other order communicated to the floor. All such orders must be presented to the post during normal trading hours. All trades between Instinet and Exchange floor members are Exchange trades and must be executed on the Exchange.
Method of Clearing the Post. Subject to Article XX, Rule 11 relating to cabinet securities, the Exchange's clearing the post policy requires the floor broker or market maker to be physically present at the post. A market maker, after requesting the specialist's market quote, must bid or offer the price and size of his intended interest at the post. A floor broker must clear the post by requesting a market quote from the specialist.
(b)
(12) Automated Execution of Limit Orders.
A Specialist may voluntarily choose to activate a feature of MAX that automatically executes limit orders on a specialist's book
RULE 8.
.01 No change to text.
RULE 9. Registered market makers as a group are entitled to participate in opening a security on the Exchange to the extent of [one-third]
RULE 10. No specialist [or market maker] shall effect a transaction for his own account
In its filing with the Commission, the CHX included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CHX has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to modify the CHX's market maker program (“Program”) and to make certain changes to reflect technical enhancements to the CHX's trading operations.
The CHX is engaged in an examination of how to reconfigure its operations in order to compete in a technologically driven marketplace that has begun to face competition from electronic communication networks (“ECNs”) and the NASDAQ Stock Market, Inc. (“NASDAQ”) in listed stocks. As part of this evaluation, the CHX recognized that it needs to continue to increase the automation of its trading operations and address the role of floor traders on the CHX, especially market makers that do not contribute substantially to the liquidity of the Exchange.
The CHX's evaluation included an analysis of trading by market makers. This analysis found that market makers rarely supply liquidity outside of several exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”). Specifically, market makers participate in less than 0.83% of trade volume outside of ETFs. For ETFs, especially the NASDAQ 100 Depository Receipts, market makers often participate in trades of 5,000 shares or greater. They accounted for 17% of the share volume of four ETFs during a sample period examined by the CHX (but only 2.4% of the trade volume in these issues), and a significant portion of the 17% of share volume involved market makers trading with brokers who were filling customer orders for large transactions.
In light of the data, the CHX explored several approaches to address market maker activity. One approach would have eliminated market makers because their activity is limited almost entirely to participating in large ETF transactions. In response to concerns by some members about eliminating market makers and the liquidity they provide to large, brokered orders, the CHX decided to focus on encouraging market maker participation in large orders and stimulating increased quote competition for small orders.
This proposed rule change would implement the CHX's modification of market maker obligations. Under the proposed rule change, registered market makers would be entitled to participate with the specialist in any round lot order in the specialist's book that is greater in size than the specialist's auto-acceptance threshold for a given security. For these orders, if the bids or offers of one or more registered market makers are equal to those of the specialist, the registered market maker or market makers as a group would be entitled to participate in forty percent of the total shares involved (excluding the shares needed to satisfy public orders).
With respect to orders at or less than the specialist's auto-acceptance threshold, the specialist could still request market maker interaction, in which event the market maker would be entitled to participate in that order. In addition, a specialist must request such interaction if the specialist chooses not to fill an order within the auto-acceptance parameters. A floor broker or specialist can also request market maker participation in a floor broker order. Market makers in these situations would also be entitled to participate in forty percent of the trade.
Under the proposed rules, market makers and floor brokers must continue to provide the specialist with their bids and/or offers that better the current CHX market. The specialist must input these bids and offers to the quotation system. Market makers and floor brokers may also provide their orders to buy or sell securities to the specialist, in which event the specialist must include these orders in the book as required by the CHX rules.
The proposed rule change limits market makers' ability to participate in small sized orders unless they improve the CHX quote, but offers them increased participation rights for larger sized orders and for those orders for which their participation is requested by a specialist. As a whole, the CHX believes that the proposed rule change does not alter the Program significantly, other than for small sized orders, which have not been subject to much market maker participation in the past.
The intent of the proposed rule change is to stimulate market makers to continue to provide liquidity for larger orders by increasing their participation rights for those orders. Similarly, the proposed rule change could increase quote competition on the CHX in smaller size orders by creating incentives for market makers to improve the specialist's quote. As discussed above, a market maker who improves the specialist's quote would be entitled to participate in the entire transaction. This is a change from the current rules which allows market makers to receive one-third participation for merely matching a specialist's quote. The new rule would force market makers to improve the quote to participate in a trade, but reward such improvement by providing a greater participation right to the market maker. CHX believes that this proposed rule change is consistent with the recent SEC proposals to strengthen quote competition.
The CHX is making a few changes to its CHX Rule 10 of Article XX. The first change would reflect the changes made to CHX Rule 7 of Article XX by removing the audibalization requirement. Because bids and offers will have to be provided to the specialist for input into the Exchange's quotation system, the audibalization requirement is no longer necessary. The proposed rule change also adds language to require specialists to adhere to agency/auction market principles. Among other things, specialists are required to clear the post of exposable orders they received on the floor.
Finally, the CHX is proposing to amend CHX Rule 37 of Article XX to limit the automtic execution feature of MAX, the Exchange's automatic execution system, for limit orders at or less than the specialist's auto acceptance level. Currently, if a specialist chooses to activate the limit order auto-ex feature, he must do so for all limit orders on the book regardless of size. By allowng the specialist to automatically execute these limit orders only when the orders are of a size at or less than his auto acceptance level, the specialist will be required to present larger orders to the crowd as required by the new market maker participation rules. Of course, specialists will still be obligated to exercise care and diligence to provide quality executions to manually handled limit orders if the two conditions of paragraph (b)(12) of CHX Rule 37 of Article XX are triggered by executions in the primary market.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The CHX believes that the proposed rule change will enhance competition on the Exchange by providing an incentive for the CHX market makers to aggressively compete on quotes.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CHX. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-00-34 and should be submitted by December 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the CHX rules governing its voluntary price improvement programs. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Article XX, Rule 37 to add a new price improvement algorithm entitled SuperMAX 2000, applicable to all issues trading in decimal price increments. The CHX anticipates that SuperMAX 2000 will supplant all of the Exchange's existing price improvement algorithms upon completion of the securities industry transition to decimal pricing. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Additions are in italics.
(1)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
According to the CHX, the primary purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the number of orders that are eligible for price improvement and to afford CHX specialists the opportunity to provide price improvement alternatives equal to or more favorable than existing alternatives.
On May 22, 1995, the Commission approved a proposed CHX rule change that allows specialists on the Exchange, through the Exchange's MAX system, to provide order execution guarantees that are more favorable than those required under CHX Rule 37(a), Article XX.
SuperMAX, Enhanced SuperMAX, SuperMAX Plus and Derivative SuperMAX are four existing CHX programs within the MAX system that use computerized algorithms to provide automated price improvement. The Commission has approved each of these
The Exchange believes that, for it to remain competitive, its specialists must be able to swiftly and meaningfully respond to the price improvement considerations articulated by the Exchange's order sending firms and their customers. To this end, the Exchange proposes the following change to its existing price improvement program.
At present, Exchange specialists may voluntarily participate, on an issue-by-issue basis, in one of the four price improvement programs referenced above. Each of the existing price improvement programs provides for a fixed amount of price improvement) when the national BBO spread meets certain spread parameters (
Under the proposed SuperMAX 2000, customers would be guaranteed the same minimum amount of price improvement they would receive under SuperMAX Plus (
The Exchange believes that SuperMAX 2000 will provide CHX specialists with the requisite flexibility to respond to customer price improvement requirements in a decimal pricing environment. Significantly, the proposal contemplates equality among order-sending firms (and their customers) by mandating that CHX specialists provide additional price improvement on an issue-by-issue basis; specialists would not be permitted to distinguish among order-sending firms when designating price improvement levels.
The Exchange also believes that SuperMAX 2000 would simplify the Exchange's existing price improvement framework by eliminating multiple price improvement programs with different names, requirements and results.
The CHX believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The CHX has requested accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. While the Commission is not prepared to grant accelerated approval at this time, the Commission will consider granting accelerated approval of the proposal at the close of an abbreviated comment period of 15 days from the date of publication of the proposal in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to file number SR-CHX-00-37 and should be submitted by December 14, 2000.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange has requested a one-year extension of the pilot program relating to the trading of Nasdaq/NM securities on the Exchange. Specifically, the pilot program amended Article XX, Rule 37 and Article XX, Rule 43 of the Exchange's rules. The last pilot expired on November 1, 2000. The Exchange proposes that the pilot remain in effect on a pilot basis through November 1, 2001. The text of the proposed rule is available at the Exchange and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received regarding the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has requested a one-year extension of the pilot program relating to the trading of Nasdaq/NM securities on the Exchange. Specifically, the pilot program amends Article XX, Rule 37 and Article XX, Rule 43 of the Exchange's Rules. The latest pilot program expired on November 1, 2000; the Exchange proposes that the amendments remain in effect on a pilot basis through November 1, 2001.
On May 4, 1987, the Commission approved certain Exchange rules and procedures relating to the trading of Nasdaq/NM securities on the Exchange.
On January 3, 1997, the Commission approved, on a one year pilot basis, a program that eliminated the requirement that CHX specialists automatically execute orders for Nasdaq/NM securities when the specialist is not quoting at the national best bid or best offer disseminated pursuant to SEC Rule 11Ac1-1 (the “NBBO”).
On December 31, 1997, the Commission extended the pilot program for an additional three months, until March 31, 1998, to give the Exchange additional time to prepare and submit the report and to give the Commission adequate time to review the report prior to approving the pilot on a permanent basis.
On March 31, 1998, the Commission approved the pilot for an additional three-month period, until June 30, 1998.
Under the pilot program, specialists must continue to accept agency
The pilot program requires the specialist to set the MAX auto-execution threshold at 300 shares or greater for Nasdaq/NM securities. When a CHX
When the specialist is not quoting a Nasdaq/NM security at the NBBO, an order that is of a size less than or equal to the auto execution threshold designated by the specialist will execute automatically at the NBBO price up to the size of the auto execution threshold. Orders of a size greater than the auto execution threshold will be designated as open orders in the specialist's book and manually executed, unless the order-sending firm previously has advised the specialist that it elects partial automatic execution, in which event the order will be executed automatically up to the size of the auto execution threshold, with the balance of the order to be designated as an open order in the specialist's book.
Whether the specialist is quoting at the NBBO or not, “oversized” orders,
The proposed rule is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b).
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
This proposed rule change has been filed by the Exchange as a “non-controversial” rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
The Exchange has requested that the Commission accelerate the operative date of the proposal. In addition, the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, more than five business days prior to the date of the filing of the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to accelerate the operative date of the proposal and designate the proposal to become operative today.
The Commission notes that in approving prior extensions of this pilot program, it has found that the Exchange's program is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
The Commission notes, however, that while the Exchange has been working toward establishing a linkage, specialists and OTC market makers do not yet have an effective method of routing orders to each other. The
The Commission also requests that the Exchange continue its effort to rewrite Article XX, Rule 37 and Article XX, Rule 43 of the Exchange's rules so these rules clearly explain the difference between how listed (or dually traded) securities and over-the-counter (or Nasdaq/NM) securities are routed and executed by the Exchange, and submit the new proposed language to the Commission for review and approval. Additionally, the Commission requests that the Exchange include in its rules an explanation of how the provisions of the Exchange's Best Rule interact with the Exchange's Rules governing automatic execution of orders.
The Commission does not want to interrupt the current operations of the Exchange while the above-described issues are being addressed. Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate to accelerate the operative date of the proposed rule change.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-00-36 and should be submitted by December 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On March 28, 2000, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD or Association”), through its wholly-owned subsidiary, NASD Regulation, Inc. (“NASD Regulation”), submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Proposal was published for comment in the
NASD Rule 2340, “Customer Account Statements,” requires general securities
In March 1994, the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the U.S. House of Representatives (“House Subcommittee”), expressed concern to the NASD regarding the sufficiency of information provided on customer account statements with respect to the current value of illiquid partnership securities.
In June 1994, the Division requested information from the NASD concerning whether it would be appropriate for self-regulatory organizations to require that members make certain disclosures regarding illiquid partnerships on customer account statements.
In response to the concerns raised by the House Subcommittee and the Division, NASD Regulation filed a proposed rule change relating to DPPs and REITs with the Commission in February 1997 (“1997 Proposal”).
According to NASD Regulation, concerns arose regarding potential conflicts between the requirements of the 1997 Proposal and the obligations of a member acting as a retirement account fiduciary under Employee Retirement Income Securities Act and Internal Revenue Service regulations. Therefore, NASD Regulation withdrew the 1997 Proposal and replaced it with the current proposal.
In the current proposal, NASD Regulation proposes to amend its rules to require general securities members to list valuations for DPP and REIT securities on customer account statements under certain circumstances.
The proposal will apply to DPP and REIT securities sold in a public offering. The definitions of DPP and REIT in NASD Rule 2340 will exclude securities listed on a national securities exchange or Nasdaq, as well as securities that are in a depository and settle regular way. NASD Regulation believes that the excluded securities are more likely to trade regularly and, accordingly, that investors will have ready access to current market value information. The definition of DPP in NASD Rule 2340 also will exclude any program registered as a commodity pool because those programs generally offer investors a security that is redeemable by the issuer at the customer's option at regular intervals and at ascertainable values.
NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(A) allows a general securities member to provide a per share estimated value for a DPP or REIT on an account statement if the member satisfies the conditions of NASD Rules 2340(b)(2) and (b)(3).
NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(B) requires a general securities member to include in a customer's account statement an estimated value of a DPP or REIT from an annual report,
NASD Rule 2340(b)(2) requires that an estimated value be developed from data that is as of a date no more than 18 months prior to the date that the statement is issued. NASD Regulation believes that the 18-month standard provides sufficient time for the member and for an independent valuation source to develop an estimated value for DPP and REIT securities based on the audited financial statements contained in the Form 10-K of the DPP or REIT. For example, an estimated value based on December 31, 1999, financial statements could be used from January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001, thereby allowing time between April and June 2001 for a new estimated value to be developed based on the December 31, 2000, financial statements.
NASD Rule 2340(b)(4), as proposed in Amendment No. 1 and revised in Amendment No. 2, prohibits a member from including a per share estimated value for a DPP or REIT security on an account statement if the member can demonstrate that the value was inaccurate as of the date of the valuation or is no longer accurate as a result of a material change in the operations or assets of the program or trust.
NASD Rule 2340(b)(3) requries an account statement that provides an estimated value for a DPP or REIT security to include: (1) a brief description of the estimated value, its source, and the method by which it was developed; and (2) disclosure that DPP or REIT securities are generally illiquid, and that the estimated value may not be realized when the investor seeks to liquidate the security.
NASD Rule 2340(b)(5) requires an account statement that does not provide an estimated value for a DPP or REIT security to include disclosure that: (1) DPP or REIT securities are generally illiquid; (2) the value of the security will be different from its purchase price; and (3) if applicable, that accurate valuation information is not available.
NASD Regulation believes that the amendments to NASD Rule 2710, “Corporate Financing Rule—Underwriting Terms and Arrangements,” and NASD Rule 2810, “Direct Participation Programs,” will help to ensure that DPP general partners or sponsors and REIT trustees provide estimated per share values in their annual reports. NASD Rule 2710(c)(6), as amended, states that, when proposed in connection with the distribution of a public offering of securities, it shall be unfair and unreasonable for a member or associated person to participate in a public offering of REIT securities unless the trustee will disclose in each annual report distributed to investors pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act a per share estimated value of the trust securities, the method by which it was developed, and the date of the data used to develop the estimated value.
New NASD rule 2810(b)(5) prohibits a member from participating in a public offering of DPP securities unless the general partner or sponsor of the program will disclose in each annual report distributed to investors pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act a per share estimated value of the DPP securities, the method by which it was developed, and the date of the data used to develop the estimated value.
As discussed more fully below, one commenter, Merrill Lynch, expressed concern that NASD Rule 2340(b)(2)(A) would have required members to make an affirmative determination about the reliability of estimated values provided through an annual report of a DPP or REIT, by an independent valuation service, or through any other source.
In Amendment No. 2, NASD Regulation revised NASD Rule 2340(b)(4) to prohibit a member from including an estimated per share value for a DPP or REIT security on an account statement if the member can demonstrate that the value was inaccurate as of the date of the valuation or is no longer accurate as a result of a material change in the operations or assets of the program or trust. According to NASD Regulation, the amended rule language is intended to clarify that a member is obligated to refrain from using an estimated per share value on customer account statements if the member can demonstrate that the estimated value is inaccurate.
To provide members and their service organizations with sufficient time to modify their computer systems to comply with the proposed rule change, the NASD has requested that the proposed rule change become effective three months after notifying its members of Commission approval of the proposal.
The Commission received five comment letters from four commenters regarding the proposal.
Specifically, Merrill Lynch asserted that NASD Rule 2340(b)(2)(A) would impose an unfair obligation on a member to consider the accuracy of an estimated valuation, even if the member had obtained the estimated value from the DPP or REIT's annual report or from an independent valuation service that the member had retained to provide a valuation. Merrill Lynch recommended that NASD Regulation amend NASD Rule 2340(b)(2)(A) to include a provision from the 1997 Proposal that would prohibit a member from including on an account statement “an estimated value that the member believes is inaccurate as of the date of
The IPA supported the proposal but expressed concern that some firms might omit valuation information from customer account statements by arguing that an action of an investment program since the date of an annual report, such as a purchase or sale, made the valuation information in the annual report inaccurate.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities association.
The Commission finds that the proposed definitions of DPP and REIT in NASD Rule 2340(c) will facilitate compliance with the proposal by clearly identifying the DPP and REIT securities that are subject to the proposal. As noted above, the proposal will apply to DPP and REIT securities sold in a public offering and will exclude: (1) DPP and REIT securities listed on a national securities exchange or Nasdaq; (2) DPP and REIT securities that are in a depository and settle regular way; and (3) any DPP program registered as a commodity pool. According to NASD Regulation, DPP and REIT securities listed on a national securities exchange or Nasdaq and DPP and REIT securities that are in a depository and settle regular way are more likely to trade regularly and investors should have ready access to current market value information concerning those securities. Similarly, NASD Regulation noted that a DPP program registered as a commodity pool generally offers investors a security that is redeemable by the issuer at the customer's option at ascertainable values.
The Commission believes that the proposed definitions of DPP and REIT are consistent with the concerns raised in the 1994 Letter regarding the adequacy of ongoing valuation disclosures for non-publicly traded partnership securities. Because the 1994 Letter expressed concern with regard to the availability of valuation information for non-publicly traded partnership securities, the Commission believes that it is reasonable for NASD Regulation to exclude from the proposal those DPPs and REITs for which current valuation information is available.
The Commission believes that the proposal to define an “annual report” as the most recent annual report of the DPP or REIT distributed to investors pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act is reasonable and will help to clarify the application of the rule.
NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(A) allows a general securities member to provide a per share estimated value for a DPP or REIT on an account statement if the member satisfies the conditions of NASD Rules 2340(b)(2) and (b)(3). The Commission believes that NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(A) will protect investors and public interest by ensuring that DPP and REIT valuations provided voluntarily in customer account statements are subject to the same requirements and disclosures as the mandatory DPP and REIT valuations required under NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(B). The Commission believes that it is reasonable to provide identical treatment for DPP and REIT valuations provided voluntarily in customer account statements and for DPP and REIT valuations provided in customer account statements to comply with the requirements of NASD rule 2340(b)(1)(B).
NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(B) requires a general securities member to include in a customer account statement an estimated value of a DPP or REIT from an annual report, an independent valuation service, or any other source if: (1) The annual report of a DPP or REIT held in a customer's account or included on the customer's account statement includes a per share estimated value; and (2) the conditions of NASD Rules 2340(b)(2) and 2340(b)(3) are satisfied. The Commission believes that NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(B) will protect investors and the public interest by requiring members to provide DPP and REIT valuation information on customer account statements under the circumstances specified in NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(B). By providing investors with valuation information for their DPP or REIT investments, the Commission believes that NASD Rule 2340(b)(1)(B) will help to address the concerns raised in the 1994 Letter regarding the availability of valuation information for non-traded partnerships.
NASD Rule 2340(b)(2) allows a member to include a per share estimated value for a DPP or REIT on an account statement only if the estimated value has been developed from data that is as of a date no more than 18 months prior to the date that the statement is issued. The Commission believes that NASD Rule 2340(b)(2) will help to ensure the reliability of estimated valuations provided on customer account statements by requiring the valuations to be based on relatively recent data. In addition, as NASD Regulation noted in its proposal, the 18-month period should provide a member or an independent valuation source with sufficient time to develop a new valuation based on the audited financial statements provided in a DPP or REIT's most recent Form 10-K.
In Amendment No. 1 NASD Regulation addressed Merrill Lynch's concern that proposed NASD Rule 2340(b)(2)(A) would have imposed on broker-dealers an obligation to consider the accuracy of an estimated valuation obtained from an annual report of a DPP or REIT or from an independent valuation service retained by the member to provide a valuation. Specifically, Amendment No. 1 deleted proposed NASD Rule 2340(b)(2)(A) and adopted NASD Rule 2340(b)(4), which, as revised in Amendment No. 2,
In Amendment No. 1 NASD Regulation also responded to the concerns of the IPA and other commenters, who believed that a broker-dealer might omit an estimated valuation from an account statement by asserting that a change in an investment program since the date of an annual report made the valuation information in the annual report inaccurate.
In response, NASD Regulation stated that it did not believe that members would be able to rely inappropriately on NASD Rule 2340(b)(4) to omit estimated valuations from customer account statements. In this regard, NASD Regulation noted that once the publication of an estimated value in a DPP or REIT's annual report triggers a broker-dealer's obligation to provide a valuation on a customer account statement, the member must include on the customer account statement either the value published in the annual report, a value obtained from another third-party source, or a value developed by the member.
The Commission believes that NASD Rule 2340(b)(4) will protect investors and the public interest by helping to ensure the reliability of valuation information provided on customer account statements. Specifically, by prohibiting a broker-dealer from including a per share estimated value for a DPP or REIT if the broker-dealer can demonstrate that the value was inaccurate as of the date of the valuation or is no longer accurate, NASD Rule 2340(b)(4) will help to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate valuation information.
NASD Rule 2340(b)(3) requires an account statement that provides an estimated value for a DPP or REIT to include: (1) A brief description of the estimated value, its source, and the method by which it was developed; and (2) disclosure that DPP or REIT securities are generally illiquid and that the estimated value may not be realized when the investor seeks to liquidate the security. The Commission notes that the disclosures required by NASD Rule 2340(b)(3) are consistent with the disclosures discussed in the Division's Limited Partnership Letter.
NASD Rule 2340(b)(5) requires an account statement that does not provide an estimated value for a DPP or REIT security an account statement that does not provide an estimated value for a DPP or REIT security to include disclosure that: (1) DPP or REIT securities are generally illiquid; (2) the value of the security will be different from its purchase price; and (3) if applicable, that accurate valuation information is not available. The Commission believes that the disclosure required in NASD Rule 2340(b)(5) will provide investors with important information concerning the market for DPP and REIT securities, the difference between the purchase price and the current value of their security, and the availability of valuation information.
NASD Regulation proposes to amend NASD rule 2710(c)96) to provide that, when proposed in connection with the distribution of a public offering of securities, it shall be unfair and unreasonable for a member or associated person to participate in a public offering of REIT securities unless the trustee will disclose in each annual report distributed to investors pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act a per share estimated value of the trust securities, the method by which it was developed, and the date of the data used to develop the estimated value.
NASD Regulation proposes to amend NASD Rule 2810(b) to prohibit a member from participating in a public offering of DPP securities unless the general partner or sponsor of the program will disclose in each annual report distributed to investors pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Act a per share estimated value of the DPP securities, the method by which it was developed, and the date of the data used to develop the estimated value.
The Commission believes that the amendments to NASD Rules 2710 and 2810 will encourage general partners and sponsors of DPPs and REIT trustees to provide estimated per share values in their annual reports, thereby helping to address the concerns raised in the 1994 Letter regarding ongoing disclosures of the values of non-traded partnership
The NASD has requested that the proposed rule change become effective three months after the NASD notifies its members of Commission approval of the proposal.
The Commission finds good cause for approving Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of filing thereof in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, including whether Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-00-13 and should be submitted by December 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Amendment No. 2 reflects certain changes proposed by the commenters in response to the proposed rule change, as originally noticed, or changes suggested by the NASD staff after additional review. Amendment No. 3 sets forth the statutory basis of the proposed rule change. For convenience, the proposed NASD Rules in Amendment No. 2 are referred to as the TRACE Rules, in reference to the proposed facility, which is currently referred to as the Trade Reporting and Comparison Entry Service (TRACE).
The NASD proposes the following amendments to the rule text (as originally proposed) in response to comment letters or suggestions by the NASD staff after additional review. Proposed additions are italicized; proposed deletions are in brackets.
The terms used in this [paragraph]
(a) The term [“TRACE eligible Security”] “
(b) The term “Trade Reporting And Comparison Entry Service” or “TRACE” shall mean the automated system owned and operated by the
(c) The term “reportable TRACE transaction” shall mean [all]
(d) The term “time of execution” for a transaction in a TRACE-eligible security shall be the time when
(e) The term [“Parties to the Transaction”] “
(f) The term “TRACE Participant” shall mean any NASD member [in good standing] that uses the TRACE system.
[(g) The term “TRACE Reporting Party” shall mean a member of the Association that is registered as a TRACE participant with the Association and obligated to report a TRACE transaction pursuant to TRACE system rules and who is member of a registered clearing agency for clearing or comparison purposes or has a clearing arrangement with such a member.]
[(h) The term “TRACE Non-Reporting Party” shall mean a member of the Association that is registered as a TRACE participant with the Association who is not obligated to report under TRACE system rules for a particular transaction to which it is a party and who is member of a registered clearing agency for clearing or comparison purposes or has a clearing arrangement with such a member. It shall also mean any customer who is not a member of the Association.]
[(i) The term “Clearing Broker/Dealer” or “Clearing Broker” shall mean the member firm that has been identified in the TRACE system as principal for clearing and settling a trade, whether for its own account or for a correspondent firm.]
[(j) The term “Correspondent Executing Broker/Dealer” or “Correspondent Executing Broker” shall mean the member firm that has been identified in the TRACE system as having a correspondent relationship with a clearing firm whereby it executes trades and the clearing function is the responsibility of the clearing firm.]
[(k)(
[(l) The term “Browse” shall mean the functions of TRACE that permit a Participant to review (or query) for trades in the system identifying the Participant as a party to the transaction, subject to the specific uses contained in the TRACE Users Guide.]
[(m) The term “Gross Dollar Thresholds” in the risk management application of TRACE shall mean the daily dollar amounts for purchases and sales that a clearing broker establishes in the TRACE system for each correspondent executing broker that may be raised or lowered on an inter-day or intra-day basis. If the value of a correspondent's trades equals or exceeds the gross dollar thresholds, the system will alert the clearing broker.]
[(n) The term “Pre-alert” shall mean the alert notifying the correspondent executing broker and the clearing broker that the correspondent executing broker has equaled or exceeded 70% of the purchase or sale gross dollar limits established by the clearing broker. The Association reserves the right to modify the percentage of the pre-alert as necessary and upon prior notification to the TRACE Participants.]
[(o) The term “Single Trade Limit” shall mean the dollar amount established by the Clearing Broker for a single trade that enables a TRACE clearing firm to review the trade before it is obligated to clear the trade. When a correspondent executing broker negotiates a trade that equals or exceeds the Single Trade Limit, its clearing broker shall have a period of thirty (30) minutes to review and agree to decline to act as principal for clearing that trade. If a Clearing Broker fails to set a single trade limit the TRACE system will automatically set a default single trade limit of $0 for the Correspondent Broker. The Association reserves the right to modify the minimum/maximum dollar amount of the Single Trade Limit as well as the time frame for clearing broker review as necessary and upon prior notification to the TRACE Participants.]
[(p)] (
[(q)]
(1) Pursuant to Article VII, Section 1(a)(vi) and (vii) of the By-Laws, participation in TRACE is mandatory for all brokers/dealers that are members of a clearing agency registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 17A of the Act, and for all brokers that have a clearing arrangement with such a broker. Such participation shall include the reconciliation of all over the counter clearing agency eligible transactions involving TRACE securities.]
(2) Participation in TRACE shall be conditioned upon the TRACE Participant's initial and continuing compliance with the following requirements:
(A) execution of, and continuing compliance with, a TRACE Participant Application Agreement and all applicable rules and operating procedures of the Association and the Commission;
[(B) membership in, or maintenance of, an effective clearing arrangement with a member of a clearing agency registered pursuant to the Act;]
[(C)]
[(D) acceptance and settlement of each trade that TRACE identifies has having been effected by such TRACE Participant, or if settlement is to be made through a clearing member, guarantee the acceptance and settlement of each TRACE identified trade by the clearing member on the regularly scheduled settlement date.]
[(3) Participation in TRACE as a Clearing Broker shall be conditioned upon the Clearing Broker's initial and continuing compliance with the following requirements:]
[(A) execution of, and continuing compliance with, a TRACE Participant Application Agreement and all applicable rules and operating procedures of the Association and the Commission;]
[(B) membership in a clearing agency registered pursuant to the Act;]
[(C) maintenance of the physical security of the equipment located on the premises of the TRACE Clearing Broker to prevent the unauthorized entry of information into TRACE; and]
[(D) acceptance and settlement of each trade that TRACE identifies as having been effected by itself or any of its correspondents on the regularly scheduled settlement date.]
[(4)]
Upon execution and receipt by the Association of the TRACE Participant Application Agreement, a TRACE Participant may commence input and validation of trade information in TRACE-eligible securities. TRACE Participants may access the service via an NASD-approved facility during the hours of operation.
If at any time a TRACE Participant fails to maintain a clearing arrangement, it shall be removed from the TRACE system until such time as a clearing arrangement is reestablished and notice of such arrangement is provided to the Association. If, however, the Association finds that the TRACE Participant's failure to maintain a clearing arrangement is voluntary, the withdrawal will be considered voluntary and unexcused.
[(A) Clearing brokers may cease to act as principal for a correspondent executing broker at any time provided that notification has been given to, received and acknowledged by the TRACE Operations Center and affirmative action has been completed by the Center to remove the correspondent broker from TRACE. The clearing broker's obligation to accept and clear trades for its correspondents shall not cease prior to the completion of all of the steps detailed in this subparagraph (3).]
[(B) TRACE Clearing brokers shall establish for each correspondent executing broker daily Gross Dollar Thresholds and may raise or lower the thresholds on an inter-day or intra-day basis. TRACE clearing brokers will receive a system alert when a correspondent executing broker equals or exceeds its gross dollar thresholds and will also receive a system pre-alert when a correspondent executing broker equals or exceeds 70% of the daily thresholds.]
[(C) For trades effected by a correspondent executing broker that equal or exceed the correspondent's Single Trade Limit set by the clearing broker in TRACE, clearing brokers have 30 minutes from the time of trade report input to TRACE to review the trade and accept or decline to act as principal to the trade. If the clearing broker does not make an affirmative acceptance or declination of the trade report within 30 minutes, the trade report will be subject to normal TRACE processing and the clearing broker will be obligated to act as principal for the trade.]
(1)(
(A) Reports of transactions in TRACE
(B) Report of transaction in TRACE
[A pattern or practice of late reporting without exceptional circumstances may be considered inconsistent with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principles of trade, in violation of Rule 2110.]
[Both parties executing a transaction shall, subject to the input requirements below, either input trade reports into the TRACE system or utilize the Browse feature to accept or decline a trade within the applicable time frames as specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule.] Trade data input obligations are as follows:
(1) [in]
(2) [in]
Each TRACE trade report shall contain the following information:
(1) CUSIP number or NASD symbol;
(2) Number of bonds as required by paragraph (d) below;
(3) Price of the transaction as required by paragraph (d) below;
(4) A symbol indicating whether the transaction is a buy, sell or cross;
(5) Date of Trade Execution (as/of trades only);
(6) Contra-party's identifier;
(7) Capacity—Principal or Agent (with riskless principal reported as principal) as required by paragraph (d) below;
(8) Time of trade execution
(9) Reporting side executing broker as “give up” (if any);
(10) Contra side [introducing broker]
(11) Stated commission;
(12) Such trade modifiers as required by either: (a) the TRACE [System] Rules; and/or (b) the TRACE Users Guide[.]
(1) For agency and principal transactions, report the price, including the mark-up, mark-down or commission (commission entered separately). Do not include accrued interest.
(2) For agency and principal transactions, report the actual number of bonds traded. Baby bonds (those with a face value of less than $1,000) should be reported expressed as a decimal.
(3)
The following types of transactions shall not be
(1) Transactions [which]
(2) Transactions made in reliance on Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933;
(3) Transactions in listed securities that are both executed on, and reported to, a national securities exchange;
(4) Transactions where the buyer and the seller have agreed to trade at a price substantially unrelated to the current market for the TRACE-
[Locked-in trades may be determined in the TRACE system by matching the trade information submitted by the reporting parties through one of the following methods:]
[Both parties to the trade submit transaction data and the TRACE system performs an on-line match;]
[The TRACE reporting party enters its version of the trade into the system and the TRACE non-reporting contra party reviews the trade report and accepts or declines the trade. An acceptance results in a locked-in trade; a declined trade report is purged from the TRACE system at the end of trade date processing;]
[T+N entries may be submitted during system hours each business day. At the end of daily matching, all declined trade entries will be purged from the TRACE system. TRACE will not purge any open trade (
[The TRACE system will provide the following risk management capabilities to clearing brokers:]
[Clearing brokers will be able to scan the trading activities of their correspondent executing brokers through the TRACE system.]
[Clearing brokers will be able to establish, on an inter-day or intra-day basis, gross dollar thresholds for purchases and sales for their correspondent executing brokers, and the TRACE system will alert the clearing broker and its correspondent if the correspondent's trading activity equals or exceeds either threshold.]
[In addition to the gross dollar threshold alert, the TRACE system will also alert the clearing broker and its correspondent when the correspondent's trading activity equals or exceeds 70% of either gross dollar threshold.]
[Clearing brokers that access TRACE through a computer interface will be able to receive intra-day activity of their correspondents as it is reported.]
[Clearing brokers will have 30 minutes from trade report input to TRACE to review any single trade executed by their correspondent executing brokers that equals or exceeds an amount set by the clearing broker for that correspondent in order to decide to act as principal. If, however, the clearing broker does not affirmatively accept or decline the trade, at the end of 30 minutes, the system will subject the trade to normal TRACE processing and the clearing broker will be obligated to act as principal to clear the trade.]
[The Super Cap will be set as an amount to be determined by the Clearing Broker, but in no event less than the gross dollar threshold. When a correspondent's Super Cap is reached, notice will be furnished to TRACE participants, and no trade in excess of an amount set by the clearing broker for that correspondent will be accepted for TRACE processing unless the clearing broker accepts the trade within 30 minutes of execution.]
[If a TRACE Participant is reported by TRACE as a party to a trade that has been treated as locked-in and sent to NSCC, notwithstanding any other agreement to the contrary, that party shall be obligated to act as a principal to the trade and shall honor such trade on the scheduled settlement date.]
[Failure of an NASD member, or person associated with a member, to comply with any of the rules or requirements of TRACE, or failure of a member or associated person to comply with any of the transaction reporting requirements for TRACE-Eligible Securities may be considered conduct inconsistent with high standards of commercial honor and just and equitable principals of trade, in violation of Rule 2110.]
The data elements specified in Rule [6220(c)]
The Association may, upon notice, terminate TRACE service to a [Participant]
[Trade reports entered into TRACE will be collected, processed and disseminated on a real-time basis between 8 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time.]
In order to facilitate trade reporting of secondary transactions in TRACE-
In its filing with the Commission, the NASD included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NASD has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In 1998, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, in recognition of the relative lack of transparency in the corporate debt market, called upon the NASD to do the following: (1) Adopt rules requiring NASD members to report all transactions in corporate bonds to the NASD and to develop systems to receive and distribute transaction prices on an immediate basis; (2) create a database of transactions in corporate bonds to enable regulators to take a proactive role in supervising the corporate debt market; and (3) create a surveillance program, in conjunction with the development of a database, to better detect fraud and foster investor confidence in the fairness of the corporate debt market. The NASD notes that after extensive consultation with industry professionals, it filed SR-NASD-99-65. The NASD also states that it consulted extensively with industry professionals again before filing Amendment Nos. 2 and 3.
TRACE has generated significant comment. The NASD has identified the following common areas in the comment letters: (a) TRACE ownership, operation, and governance; (b) the proposed comparison function; (c) collection and dissemination of data; (d) TRACE data; (e) implementation schedules; and (f) T + 1 clearance and settlement and straight-through-processing (STP) issues. These issues are addressed below. In addition, the NASD is proposing to add bond yield as a mandatory element of reporting, which is discussed as item (g) below.
As noted above, at the request of the SEC, the NASD has proposed to create a system for the reporting, dissemination and surveillance of fixed income transactions. Many commenters expressed concern about, or requested further information regarding, the roles and responsibilities of NASD and Nasdaq in this initiative. In response to those concerns, the NASD states that it will take the following steps to clarify the roles of NASD, NASD Regulation, and Nasdaq:
(1) The NASD will amend proposed TRACE Rule 6210 to clarify that it is the owner and operator of the facility, TRACE, to collect information on fixed income transactions and to disseminate such information;
(2) The NASD will file an application with the SEC to become registered as a exclusive securities information processor (ESIP) under Section 11A of the Act;
(3) The NASD, with the approval of the NASD Board of Governors, will establish a body of rules and policies that will be the bases on which NASD staff will administer the reporting and dissemination facility and assure compliance with the TRACE Rules;
(4) NASD Regulation will aid the NASD in establishing appropriate regulatory rules and policies and in performing all the regulatory functions associated with TRACE; and
(5) Nasdaq will provide technology and operational support pursuant to a contractual arrangement.
The NASD believes that the structure outlined above is responsive to many of the concerns raised by commenters. The NASD, the sole self-regulatory organization (“SRO”) for the over-the-counter (OTC) markets, represents that it will exercise full ownership and operational control over the TRACE project, including day-to-day administration and the information collection process. The NASD states that it will become an ESIP under Section
Although ultimate statutory authority will reside with the NASD Board of Governors, to more fully incorporate bond market expertise into TRACE operations and decision-making, the NASD proposes to create a new committee, the Bond Transaction Reporting Committee (BTRC), to advise the NASD Board. BTRC would consist of 8 persons selected by the NASD Board. Four of the members will be recommended by the staff of the NASD, and the other four members will be recommended by the Bond Market Association (TBMA). Selections would not include current staff or officers of either the NASD or TBMA. Both the NASD and TBMA would commit to having their selections consist of a broad range of bond market participants and include public representation. BTRC would provide significant input to the NASD Board on issues related to the operation of TRACE, including future NASD proposals to phase in dissemination and the setting of fees for dissemination of real-time TRACE data to the public. In addition, BTRC will be tasked with reviewing the effects upon liquidity associated with the dissemination of fixed income transaction information. BTRC will make recommendations to the NASD Board concerning appropriate time frames for public dissemination of smaller, less-actively traded issues.
The NASD represents that the NASD Board will give significant weight to the advice and recommendations of the BTRC. The NASD represents, however, that the formation and operation of BTRC shall in no way limit or hinder the responsibility and ability of the NASD Board to make final decisions, as required in accordance with the statutory obligations and responsibility articulated in Section 15A of the Act and the NASD By-Laws. In addition, the NASD represents that its staff may continue to make independent recommendations or proposals to the NASD Board concerning bond market issues.
In addition to concern expressed by some commenters about the role of Nasdaq in the TRACE initiative, other commenters suggested that a super-utility, rather than the NASD or Nasdaq, be used to collect fixed income transaction information. Others suggested the creation of a new SRO or vesting that authority in the NSCC. Since the NASD is the SRO charged with regulating the OTC markets and 95% of corporate bond transactions occur in the OTC market, the NASD believes that it is the SRO most appropriately situated to undertake this regulatory initiative and to assure compliance with it. It believes that creating a super-utility or a new SRO would not be cost-effective, would result in regulatory duplication and duplicative fees to the industry, and would delay greatly the implementation of reporting and dissemination.
Finally, one set of commenters, consisting of a data vendor and securities exchange, urged the Commission to adopt a de-centralized, multiple SRO-collector and disseminator model for fixed income transaction reporting. These commenters assert that such a model would encourage innovation and competition among organizations for the collection, comparison and dissemination of corporate bond trade data. While the NASD agrees that competition is an important goal, the NASD believes that the Commission and Congress have long recognized that in the area of collection, consolidation, and dissemination of market data information, other factors, such as equality of access, reasonableness of fees, and sufficient system capacity and security, are equally important.
Some commenters expressed concern that the proposal would mandate that all corporate bond trade comparison take place within TRACE. Among other things, commenters objected to mandated comparison through TRACE because, they argued, it would result in Nasdaq having an exclusive franchise over the provision of comparison services for corporate bond trades.
The NASD believes that the proposal to require mandatory comparison through TRACE was intended to ensure that the corporate bond trade data reported to and disseminated by the NASD was as accurate as possible, as evidenced by the acceptance of the trade by both parties. In addition to the fact that the NASD, not Nasdaq, will own and control TRACE, to further alleviate concerns expressed by the commenters, the NASD proposes to delete the TRACE Rules regarding trade comparison. (The NASD also proposes to delete the risk management provisions contained in the initial proposal.) Although NASD plans to offer voluntary comparison services to NASD members, firms will be free to select other entities to compare their transactions in TRACE-eligible securities. The NASD represents that elimination of mandatory comparison through TRACE will provide an opportunity for other entities to offer competing value-added comparison services for fixed income transactions.
As a result of Amendment No. 2, both compared and un-compared corporate bond trade data will be disseminated by the NASD. The NASD represents that it will amend the proposal further to require TRACE participants, whether reporting or non-reporting members, to provide to the NASD the same data on TRACE-eligible securities transactions that is provided to the member's registered clearing agency, within the same time frame, and, to the extent possible, in the same format. (Proposed TRACE Rule 6231.) This requirement is in addition to a member's obligation, if any, to report a fixed income transaction on a real-time basis under proposed TRACE Rule 6230. The NASD believes that this will improve considerably the quality of the data for surveillance purposes, while imposing minimal additional burdens on the firms.
The NASD originally proposed a reporting plan that began first with high yield and convertible debt securities, followed by an alphabetical phase-in of all other TRACE-eligible corporate bonds. The initial time frame proposed for reporting trades would be no later than 1 hour after trade execution, which subsequently would be reduced to 15 minutes. After a brief start-up period during which the NASD would conduct a data integrity review, all eligible trade reports received would thereafter be disseminated immediately, subject to TRACE's proposed limitations on reporting the actual size of large
Some commenters raised concerns that this plan failed to take into account the potential negative impact on liquidity that immediate dissemination of bond transaction reports could have on smaller, less-activity traded issues. Additional concerns were raised regarding likely confusion relating to trade reporting obligations in a plan that involved multiple phases and categories of fixed income securities. In response, the NASD has determined to propose a new phase-in methodology. Under this new approach, a member's obligation to report and the NASD's initial dissemination of reports in TRACE-eligible securities will take place as follows:
• NASD members will be required to report
• NASD will immediately disseminate transaction reports to the public and data vendors of all transactions in publicly offered, investment grade corporate bonds having an initial issuance of $1 billion or greater. If applicable, these reports will be disseminated using the large volume trade dissemination cap identifiers (
• Transaction reports in the high yield debt securities denominated as the “FIPS 50” at the time of filing becomes effective will also be disseminated—also using the “1MM+” large volume trade dissemination cap identifiers.
• The BTRC will commence its examination of the impact of TRACE's transaction dissemination on liquidity. By the end of Phase I (three months after the start of TRACE reporting), the BTRC will provide its recommendations for appropriate dissemination protocols covering those investment grade bonds, starting with the largest issuance size, that, when combined together, make up the top 50% (by dollar volume) of such bonds.
• NASD members will continue to be required to report
• NASD will disseminate transaction reports to the public and data vendors of all transactions in the top 50% (by dollar volume) of investment grade bonds consistent with the recommendations of the BTRC (subject to the approval of the NASD Board and the SEC.
• Three months after the start of Phase II (six months after the start of TRACE reporting), the 1 hour maximum time period to submit TRACE trade reports will be reduced to 15 minutes, subject to the ability of firms to comply technologically and operationally.
• Transaction reports in the “FIPS 50” will continue to be disseminated—also using the large volume trade dissemination cap identifiers (
• The BTRC will continue its evaluation of the impact that dissemination of transaction information has on liquidity. By the end of Phase II (9 months after the start of TRACE reporting), the BTRC will provide recommendations for appropriate dissemination protocols for all remaining TRACE issues eligible for public dissemination.
During all phases, the NASD represents that the BTRC continually will evaluate industry technological readiness with a view to reducing further the post-execution deadlines for submitting trade reports to TRACE. The NASD believes that this new approach to collecting and disseminating real-time market data draws an appropriate balance between the Commission's desire for quick and measurable progress in improving transparency in the corporate bond market and industry concerns about liquidity. Moreover, the NASD believes that the new approach captures more information for regulatory purposes in a shorter time frame than under NASD's earlier TRACE transaction reporting plan. In turn, the NASD believes that the new approach will allow it to more quickly to develop and refine its surveillance plan for the fixed income market.
Many commenters raised concerns that TRACE would grant the NASD exclusive control over corporate bond trade data. The NASD, in response to concerns raised regarding such exclusive control, intends to register as an ESIP under Section 11A of the Act. The NASD states that, as explained in the SEC's release entitled
The NASD represents that the SEC exercises oversight over the information consolidator by requiring registration of the consolidator as an ESIP under Section 11A of the Act, and regulating the registered ESIP's conduct. Under Section 11A, the NASD, as the registered ESIP, will be obligated to deliver market information on terms that are fair and reasonable, and to meet all other obligations imposed on ESIPs, including capacity, redundancy, audit trail, and surveillance capabilities. The NASD represents that it will be solely responsible for establishing rules and fees related to the sale of real-time data dissemination, subject to SEC oversight Nasdaq, which will not be the ESIP, will not possess any ownership rights in TRACE data, and will not exercise any control over the TRACE project. Nasdaq's role will be that of a contractor, providing to the NASD the collection and dissemination systems that will enable the NASD to perform its SRO functions.
The NASD states that it has discussed TRACE's implementation with various members, vendors, and industry groups to understand the likely amount of time necessary to implement the regulatory reporting and transparency aspects of TRACE. After discussions with corporate bond market participants, the NASD represents that it has determined to modify its original filing and seek
Many commenters raised concerns about how TRACE fits into ongoing industry initiatives to facilitate a T+1 clearance and settlement cycle anticipated in 2004 and later, straight-through processing (STP). The NASD believes that TRACE provides significant tools to the fixed income industry to assist them in moving to a T+1 settlement cycle. The NASD represents that when implemented, TRACE's real-time comparison and forwarding features will give market participants a fast, efficient way to enter their “locked-in” trade reports into the trade processing system and allow for faster settlement. The NASD believes that TRACE's open system architecture provides multiple ways of entering trade reports and also ensures that these powerful tools will be available to all firms regardless of size. The NASD represents that it is committed to the concept of interoperability between its systems and others operated by national and international clearing entities. In the final analysis, however, it believes that the pressing need for improved transparency in the corporate bond market cannot be subordinated to the much more complex and long-term goals of global straight-through processing. The NASD represents that it will continue to take action to ensure that its systems remain the most flexible and open possible, as well as being capable of quickly and efficiently adapting to whatever STP standards and protocols are adopted in the future.
As a result of further internal NASD review regarding the proper elements of a fixed income transaction report, the NASD has determined to add a yield requirement to TRACE trade reports. The NASD believes that the addition of a yield value, determined in conformity with Rule 10b-10 under the Act, provides a valuable mechanism to match, verify, and analyze pricing of corporate bonds. The NASD notes that firms are already required to provide this information to customers as part of the transaction confirmation process and believes that any additional burden on firms to enter such information is more than offset by the regulatory value of such information. Specifically, the NASD represents that yield information will enable the NASD to identify potentially erroneous fixed income transactions on a real time basic, thereby promoting the integrity of the transactions reports.
The NASD's principal goal in developing TRACE is to meet the mandate of the SEC to provide greater transparency to investors and to enhance the NASD's regulatory oversight of corporate bond trading. The NASD believes it has responded in a flexible and proactive manner to various industry concerns regarding TRACE.
The NASD represents that it believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the NASD's rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The NASD states that the proposed rule change, if approved, will establish rules for the reporting and dissemination of information on fixed income transactions that will provide the NASD, as the self-regulatory organization designed to regulate the over-the-counter markets, with heightened capabilities to regulate the fixed income markets in order to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices. The NASD also represents that the proposed structure to collect the information, with the NASD as the proposed exclusive securities information processor under Section 11A of the Act, is consistent with other information processing structures that have been proposed and approved by the SEC, and will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clear4ing, settling, and processing information with respect to fixed income securities and among persons facilitating transactions in fixed income securities. Finally, the NASD believes that the proposed rule change, by requiring reporting and dissemination of such transaction information, will protect investors and the public interest by, among other things, increasing transparency in the fixed income market.
The NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning Amendment Nos. 2 and 3, including whether Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 are consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to Amendment Nos. 2 and 3 to file number NASD 99-65 and should be submitted by December 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On April 7, 2000, the National Securities Clearing Corporation (“NSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change (File No. SR-NSCC-00-05) pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Several NSCC participants who utilize NSCC's Defined Contribution Clearance and Settlement Service of NSCC's Mutual Fund Services have requested that NSCC permit additional types of investment products regulated under state insurance laws or federal or state banking laws to be eligible for processing through NSCC's Mutual Fund Services. Examples of such investment products include stable value funds, separate account group guaranteed investment contracts (which are regulated as group annuities), and bank collective investment trusts.
To accommodate their participants' request, NSCC will create a new class of securities defined as Investment Funds. Pursuant to the rule filing NSCC will: (1) Add Investment Funds as a class of securities eligible for processing through Mutual Fund Services; (2) make corresponding changes to the rules relating to the entities eligible to process Investment Funds transactions through the Mutual Fund Services; (3) establish standards of financial responsibility and operational capability for those participants wishing to process Investment Funds through NSCC's Mutual Fund Services; and (4) make conforming changes to the existing rules where necessary.
Investment Funds will be defined as any fund or investment entity that is subject to regulation under applicable federal and state banking and/or insurance laws. Investment Funds will include such things as bank collective investment trusts, separate account guaranteed investment contracts, and other similar pooled investment vehicles. All Invested Fund products will be subject to regulation under federal or state banking laws or state insurance laws. Only Investment Funds that have been assigned a CUSIP number would be eligible for processing through NSCC's Mutual Fund Services.
For the purpose of processing transactions in Investment Funds, NSCC also will expand the types of entities that may qualify as a Fund Member under Rule 51 of NSCC's Rules so that insurance companies, banks, and trust companies as packagers and sponsors of such funds may apply to become a Fund Member. As with other entities seeking to become Fund Members, any of these new eligible entities seeking to process Investment Fund transactions through NSCC's Mutual Fund Services will be required to enter into an agreement with NSCC that sets forth the entity's rights and obligations as a Fund Member, including that it will limit its use of NSCC's services to use of Mutual Fund Services (or Insurance Processing Services, as the case may be), it will comply with NSCC's rules and procedures, and will permit NSCC to inspect its books and records. Moreover, as with all other transactions in Mutual Fund Services, transactions involving Investment Funds will not be guaranteed by NSCC. As currently provided in NSCC's Rules, if one side fails to pay for a transaction, the contra side will be required to return to NSCC any funds received from NSCC.
Under the rule change, NSCC's Rule 2 will be amended to permit an insurance company to become a mutual fund member or insurance services member in order to transmit Investment Fund Purchases, exchanges, and redemption orders to a fund member and to engage in other customer-related transactions with a funds member. In addition to the standards of financial responsibility and operational capability set forth in Addenda B and I of NSCC's Rules currently applicable to Mutual Fund Service members, insurance services members, and Fund Members, entities seeking to process Investment Fund transactions through Mutual Fund Services will be required to meet the rating and capital requirements set forth in new Addendum V, Financial Standards for Applicants and participants Processing investment Funds Transactions Through Mutual Fund Services.
Since NSCC will make a new category of securities eligible for Mutual Fund Services processing, the rule change will also make conforming changes to certain existing rules in order to include a reference to Investment Funds as applicable.
NSCC believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Act because it will make a new class of products eligible for processing through NSCC's Mutual Fund Services and thereby should facilitate the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of these transactions in these products.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
In addition to the fact that transactions in Mutual Fund Services are not guaranteed, the rule change establishes standards of financial responsibility and operational capabilities for entities processing Investment Funds through NSCC's Mutual Fund Services. This should help NSCC assure the safeguarding of funds and securities which are in NSCC's control or for which it is responsible. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with NSCC's obligations under the Act.
NSCC has requested that the Commission find good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice of the filing. The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after publication because accelerated approval will permit NSCC to expand the types of products processed by and the types of entities processing through NSCC's Mutual Fund Services, thereby extending the benefits of the Mutual Fund Services as soon as practicable.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change consists of an amendment to the Exchange's Floor Conduct and Safety Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) with respect to policies and procedures pertaining to The Code of Personal Appearance. The Guidelines are a “stated policy, practice or interpretation” concerned with the administration of Exchange Rules 35 and 37. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language, as amended, is italicized and proposed deletions are in brackets.
1. Guidelines and Fines—The conduct of individuals on the Trading Floor of the New York Stock Exchange and on other premises under Exchange control can significantly affect the public investor's image of the quality, fairness and professionalism of the Exchange [M]
• Engage in any act or practice which may be detrimental to the interest or welfare of the Exchange; or
• Engage in any act or practice which may serve to disrupt or hinder the ordinary and efficient conduct of business; or
• Engage in any act or practice which may serve to jeopardize the safety or welfare of any other individual.
It is the responsibility of all members and Floor clerical employees of members or member organizations to be familiar with the following guidelines governing Floor conduct and safety throughout Exchange premises, and to be aware that the applicable penalties will be imposed where violations of these guidelines are found to have occurred. In addition, where substantial or continued violations of these guidelines occur, that individual will be subject to possible disciplinary action in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Exchange Constitution and Rules.
Code of Personal Appearance—Members and employees of members and member organizations must conform to the revised Trading Floor Code of Personal Appearance. All garments must be reasonably pressed and not wrinkled.
All male personnel are expected to wear suitable attire as follows: A dress shirt, buttoned at the collar, with a dress tie knotted at the customary place,
All female personnel
Blouses, shirts, sweaters and tops should be of appropriate style and shall exclude informal wear such as tank tops, tube tops, midriffs, backless halters, see-through blouses, sweatshirts and T-shirts. Leotards, plunging necklines and off-the-shoulder styles are also unacceptable. Pants and slacks should be full length dress slacks.
Footwear should be confined to those that are comfortably heeled and considered safe, in view of the heavy traffic on the Trading Floor. Shoes should also be appropriate styles
[Appropriate hosiery,
Summer Attire: The standards of dress outlined above will apply throughout the year. If conditions warrant, the Market Performance Committee may waive certain of the requirements for a specified period of time.
Grooming: Beards, Mustaches, and Sideburns should be neatly trimmed. Hair should be neatly maintained.
Runners: May not wear hats (unless required for religious reasons). No headphones, jeans or other sport slacks are permitted. An acceptable work jacket is required. A tie is not required.
The member must ensure that all visitors to the Trading Floor comply with the same NYSE Code of Personal Appearance and Dress Code,
In its filing with the Commission, the NYSE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The NYSE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the Guidelines is to ensure that the behavior and practices of individuals on the Floor of the Exchange contribute to the efficient, undisrupted conduct of business on the Floor and do not jeopardize the safety or welfare of others. Included in the Guidelines is a Code of Personal Appearance.
The Exchange is proposing to revise the Code of Personal Appearance contained in the Guidelines. The revisions to the Floor Conduct and Safety Guidelines do not affect the existing structure of fines, penalties and disciplinary actions contained in the Guidelines; nor do they affect the rights of members and Floor clerical employees of members and member organizations to appeal, pursuant to existing Exchange rules and procedures, any penalties that are imposed.
The revised Code of personal Appearance provides guidance to members, employees of members, member organizations and guests.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received any written comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change and Amendment No. 1 to the rule change have become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
The NYSE seeks to have the proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1 to
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change are consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSE-00-43 and should be submitted by December 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Constitution to change the composition of the Nominating Committee to include public Governors and Equity Trading Permit (“ETP”) Holders, Equity ASAP Holders, or Allied Persons of an ETP firm or an Equity ASAP Holder. The text of the proposed rule change follows. Additions are in
SEC. 4(a) At each annual meeting there shall be elected by the membership, by ballot, for a term of one year, a Nominating Committee of nine persons, one of whom shall be nominated as Chair[man] and one of whom shall be nominated as Vice Chair[man] who are eligible for election in accordance with Sec. 4(b) of this Article III, none of whom shall be [a Governor or] an officer of the Exchange. The Nominating Committee shall assume duties as provided in Sec. 4(d) of this Article III.
SEC. 4(b). The nine members of the Nominating Committee eligible to be elected at each annual meeting shall be as follows:
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, Article III, Section 4(a) of the PCX Constitution states that at each annual meeting a Nominating Committee of nine persons shall be elected. No person elected to the Nominating Committee may be a Governor or an officer of the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to amend Section 4(a) to make Governors eligible for election to the Nominating
The Exchange believes that by allowing public Governors to serve on the Nominating Committee, the requirement that at least one public representative serve on the Committee could be a met by electing a public Governor. The Exchange proposes this change in an effort to potentially provide public representatives greater influence in the Board of Governors nomination process.
In addition, the Exchange proposes to change references in Article III, Section 4(a) to “Chairman” and “Vice Chairman” to “Chair” and “Vice Chair.” The Exchange proposes this change to make the provisions gender-neutral.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend PCX Constitution, Article III, Section 4(b), entitled “Eligibility of members of Nominating Committee.” Currently, this section states, “[t]he nine members of the Nominating Committee eligible to be elected at each annual meeting shall be as follows: Not less than two Committee members shall be floor members and seven Committee members shall be members or office members of office allied members of the Exchange.” The Exchange is proposing to modify Section 4(b) in two respects.
First, with regard to the provision that not less than two Nominating Committee members shall be floor members, the Exchange is proposing to replace it with a new requirement that at least one Nominating Committee members shall be a representative of the public. Accordingly, under the proposal, there may be up to two public representatives on the Nominating Committee at a time, although there must always be at least one. The balance of seats on the Nominating Committee, which will be either seven or eight depending on the number of public representatives nominated at the time, shall be members, office members, office allied members, ETP Holders, Equity ASAP Holders, or allied persons of an ETP Firm or Equity ASAP Holder. The rule change eliminates the requirement that at least two floor members be represented on the Nominating Committee so that the Exchange will have the flexibility to meet its obligation to have a fair representation of Exchange members.
Second, as noted above, the Exchange is proposing to expand the list of members who may serve on the Nominating Committee to include ETP Holders, Equity ASAP Holders, or Allied Persons of an ETP Firm or Equity ASAP Holder. These changes are intended to expand the list of eligible committee members to include new types of members of PCX Equities, Inc.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCX. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-PCX-00-09 and should be submitted by December 20, 2000.
The Commission has reviewed the Exchange's proposed rule change and finds, for the reasons set forth below, that the proposal, as amended, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act
In addition, the Exchange has proposed to permit public representatives to serve on the Nominating Committee. The Commission believes that allowing public representatives to serve on the Nominating Committee will help to ensure that qualified governors are nominated for positions on the PCX Board, as well as the PCX Nominating Committee. As the Commission has noted in the past, public representatives should provide unique unbiased
The Exchange has also proposed to permit PCX public Governors to serve as the public representatives on the Nominating Committee. The Commission notes that as currently drafted, the PCX Constitution seems to permit any governor to serve on the Nominating Committee. However, in Amendment No. 1,
To accommodate the public positions, the Exchange has eliminated the requirement that at least two floor members be represented on the Nominating Committee. Because the Commission believes that public representation on the Nominating Committee enhances the ability of the Committee to select eligible candidates for the PCX Board and PCX Nominating Committee, the Commission believes that this change is consistent with the Act. Further, the Commission notes that the composition of the Nominating Committee continues to contemplate all types of PCX members. Thus, floor members may continue to be represented on the Nominating Committee, if members are elected.
The Commission finds good cause for approving the proposed rule change, as amended, prior to the thirteenth day after publication of notice thereof in the
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Phlx, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act, proposes to extend its current pilot program that allows certain Exchange members to receive a monthly credit of up to $1,000.
In addition to member-owners, the credit may be applied against credit-
Specifically, the amount of credit-eligible fees owed to the Exchange shall be reduced on a monthly basis by an amount equal to: (1) $1,000 per month if such fees, dues, charges and other amounts are equal to or greater than $1,000, or (2) the amount of such fees, dues, charges and other amounts if such fees, dues, charges and other amounts are less that $1,000.
Credits cannot be shared among members, except qualified members in the same member organization may aggregate their credits. The monthly credit of up to $1,000 will be applied against the invoice of the member or member organization with which the member is associated. However, in no event shall the aggregated credits exceed $1,000 per membership per month.
Initially, any request to receive the credit was application driven, with each applicant submitting an Exchange form delineating the credit-eligible fees for that calendar month. To reduce the burden on members, the Exchange proposes to include the amount of the credit directly on a member's invoice, once it has been established that the member is eligible for the credit, in lieu of requiring the member to complete a credit form each month.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's schedule of fees, dues, and charges to allow for a monthly credit of up to $1,000 to be applied against certain fees, dues, charges and other amounts, as defined above, owed to the Exchange by a qualified member of the Exchange.
As more fully explained below, the Exchange believes that the proposed credit should provide qualified members with additional liquidity and an incentive for seat owners to trade on the Exchange. In turn, the Exchange believes that this will introduce additional liquidity into the marketplace to the benefit of the investing public.
The Exchange believes that leasing of memberships by passive holders of equitable title to lessees who trade on the Exchange (
Moreover, such lessors have limited practical ability to influence the affairs of the Exchange, because practically all voting rights are vested in “members” under Phlx's Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws.
The Exchange also believes that members who acquire membership and access trading on the Exchange by means of a lease may in many cases have a very limited stake in the well-being and survival of the Exchange. Although such members may have voting rights, they have no capital investment in their membership, and, because leases typically may be terminated on 30 days notice,
Specifically, by terminating a lease with 30 days notice, lessees who do not have “other” business interests or relationships with the Exchange beyond the mere existence of a lease (such as those relationships enumerated in part b. below) may, and often do, leave the Exchange to trade on another exchange, perhaps seeking to trade a certain “hot” option or other product. Thus, their potential commitment to the Exchange's long-term well-being and survival is undercut by their easy ability to pursue business endeavors that further their own well-being. Further, although member-lessees may be appointed to certain Exchange committees and sub-committees, their motivation to devote the time to such service may be less, as is their incentive to make decisions focused on the long-term. Both daily and longer term, strategic decision-making could thus be affected.
This sort-term commitment may also bear on the quality and quantity of liquidity provided on the Exchange. Building order flow commitments with order flow providers is a long-term endeavor, often requiring regular performance, evaluation, and most importantly, a relationship with the trading crowd providing liquidity. Thus, familiarity and consistency of crowd participation are an important marketing mechanism to order flow providers. Providing liquidity also involves a longer-term view of sacrificing profit today for continued order flow, as well as acknowledging that not every order is a profitable one, but continuous order flow, spawned by ample liquidity, should, over time, provide more opportunity for additional order flow.
Lessees that do not have other business interests or relationships (such as those referred to in part b. below) may also have a limited stake in the technology of the Exchange, including participation in any good use of technology, nor would they necessarily have an incentive to invest in the longer-term development of that technology. Such investment is not only financial, but also strategic. Such lessees may also have a limited stake in the operations of the Exchange, including the continued long-term refinement and upgrading of facilities, other equipment and the pricing of such operations. In sum, lessees, absent other factors tying them to the Exchange, may be less vested in the long-term success of the Exchange, in terms of a lesser incentive to create liquidity, invest in technology and be active in strategic and daily decision-making.
In contrast, the Exchange is of the view that members who
Although the credit is available to some Exchange members and not others, it meets the criteria set forth in Sections 6(b)(4)
As more fully articulated below, the Exchange believes that the credit is equitably distributed and not unfairly discriminatory, because it is based on legitimate, reasonable business interests of the Exchange, and is reasonably designed to further those interests. Moreover, it does not unfairly single out individuals or groups for personal or political reasons. To the contrary, any member may become eligible for the credit by changing the way in which such member finances his or her access to the Exchange by purchasing the membership or by changing the member's lease arrangement.
i.
(A) Unlike passive, financial investors, owner-members risk their capital by their trading and other activities on the floor, thereby (in many cases) creating liquidity in our market and generating revenues for the Exchange, both directly through transaction-based revenues, and indirectly, by generating activity that results in tape revenues, such as under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) and Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”) plans.
Seat ownership is one aspect of Exchange “investment” and the actual use of that membership by the qualified member is a different form. Member-owners or their functional equivalents, have additional operational and market risks. For example, a qualified member who is also a specialist or market maker may have additional risks related to fluctuations in the securities market and order-processing errors in addition to market risks associated with seat ownership. Similarly, a qualified member who is also a specialist may have risks (in addition to seat risk) associated with the specialists' obligation to promote a fair and orderly market and, particularly, maintain the limit order book. Furthermore, in addition to any fees assessed on owners, qualified members also contribute to the Exchange by paying transaction fees, such as equity transaction value charges, equity floor brokerage transaction fees, option comparison charges and option transaction charges, and trading floor fees, such as trading post/booth, controller space, shelf space, transmission, execution/communication charges and floor facility fees.
(B) Unlike members who lease their seats under typical lease arrangements that may be cancelled on 30 days' notice, member-owners have a significant capital investment at risk; and
(C) Unlike owners that are not members, member-owners may have voting rights under the Exchange's by-laws, and may participate on certain Exchange committees.
Because of their dual interest in preserving and increasing the value of their memberships, and in the technological, operational, and regulatory infrastructure that affects the present and future conditions of transacting business on or at the Exchange, the Exchange believes that member-owners have powerful incentives to create liquidity on the Exchange, and to participate responsibly in the business life of the Exchange through the exercise of voting rights, and through service on the Board and certain Exchange committees. The concept (and the underlying policy) of making the credit available to member-owners is not unlike that of the federal government in providing tax incentives to homeowners that are not available to renters. The long-term capital stake of the homeowner in his or her property promotes various behaviors that have social utility in that it fosters community-oriented behavior, and increases the prospect that the homeowner will make further socially useful investments in the property and in the neighborhood.
The Exchange believes that similar principles are involved in the instant case. The ability to lease memberships has been available for many years. Over time, the equitable ownership of memberships by passive financial investors has become a very pervasive phenomenon at the Exchange, with 324 of the Exchange's 505 memberships being owned by such financial investors.
The Exchange notes that no member may claim that his or her lack of eligibility for the credit is unfair or discriminatory. Any member may obtain eligibility for the credit by changing his or her method of financing their access to the Exchange—
ii.
Pursuant to the A-B-C agreement, the member contributes the use of the membership to the member organization and subjects the membership to the claims of the creditors of the member organization. Moreover, the member organization pays the dues, fees and other charges on behalf of the member. Thus, given this unique business relationship, owners who are member organizations have significant capital investment at risk and have a long-term interest in preserving and increasing the value of their membership, much like member-owners. For this reason, the Exchange is providing the credit to members who are parties to an A-B-C agreement with a member organization who owns that membership.
iii.
Members who are lessees but who also are owners of a different membership should be accorded the same treatment as the traditional member-owners who were previously discussed. These members, who are also owners, have an interest in preserving and increasing the value of their membership as well as an interest in preserving and increasing the standard of technology and the operational and regulatory infrastructure that affects the present and future conditions of transacting business at the Exchange. As with traditional member-owners, the Exchange believes that the credit will free up funds for those members who are also owners thereby encouraging them to put their capital to work by trading and creating liquidity on the floor. As previously discussed, the credit may also effectively (but indirectly) lessen the overall impact of the capital funding fee on those owners who are trading at the Exchange.
At the Phlx, many member firms are family businesses, which choose to structure their operations with the owner being a relative (rather than that member) for tax or estate planning purposes. The Exchange believes that there is commonality of interest in property of close family members, thus affording the credit to members who lease from close family members. This concept is one that is widely accepted, especially in connection with rules relating to the securities industry and tax law. For example, Rule 16a-1(a)(2)
Tax laws also recognize the commonality of interest in property of close family members. For example, the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) recognizes the shared interests of family members by way of attributing the ownership of stock held by close family members to the taxpayer.
A further example is the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) Freeriding and Withholding Interpretation,
The Exchange believes that it should not penalize members who choose to lease memberships from close family members, as it believes that these persons are the functional equivalents of member-owners, and the same rationale applies to giving the credit to these members as to member-owners.
Members who are lessees and are associated with a member organization in which the owner has at least a ten percent interest also should be eligible for the credit based on their closely aligned interests with the owner. The federal securities laws and rules of the securities industry have long recognized that a ten percent ownership interest is a significant capital investment. For example, Section 16 of the Act
Moreover, for purposes of NASD Conduct Rule 2720, which restricts the ability of an NASD member to participate in the distribution of a public offering of its own securities or the securities of the member's parent or affiliate, a company is presumed to control a member (and this is an affiliate) if the company beneficially owns ten percent or more of the member firm. Finally, under the NASD's Freeriding and Withholding Interpretation
In each of these examples, Congress or the NASD found that a ten percent owner is sufficiently involved in the affairs of the subject entity to be subject to the applicable restriction. A similar analysis is applicable with respect to owners of Phlx memberships who hold a ten percent or greater interest in the very member organization with which the lessee is associated. The interests of the owner, the member lessee and the member organization are sufficiently
Similar to member-owners and other eligible members discussed above, members who lease from owners or their affiliates who provide order flow to the Exchange through the member or member organization have a direct contractual relationship with that owner. For example, a floor broker who executes orders entered by the owner from whom the member leases his or her seat has a fiduciary relationship with that owner. The member derives income, by way of commissions, from the order flow provider and the order flow provider, in turn, provides revenue to the Exchange mainly by way of transaction fees (and indirectly via tape revenues). Giving a credit to members in this situation should encourage the member to fully maximize the business relationship between the floor broker and order flow provider by encouraging the member to get more order flow, which in turn equates to an increase in fees paid by the floor broker to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that by extending the credit to this category of members who are closely associated with the owner, it is encouraging behavior that is beneficial to the long-term interests of the Exchange,
Members who lease from a clearing firm or related entity of the clearing firm that provides clearing services to the leasing member should also be eligible to receive the credit. Members have a close connection to their clearing firms, or a related entity of the clearing firms, in that the clearing firms provide important and essential services by contractual agreement with such members; for instance, they guarantee members' trades. In addition, clearing firms lend money and extend credit; they also manage risk by way of tracking positions and other monitoring functions. Moreover, the clearing firm offers various ancillary services to the members, including stock executions services, office space and other business amenities. Therefore, given this close connection between the members and clearing firms or their affiliates, the Exchange believes that the credit is appropriate and should further their joint interest in the well-being of the Exchange.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change imposes no inappropriate burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received regarding an extension of the monthly credit.
The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as a fee change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-00-100, and should be submitted by December 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 18, 2000, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange Inc. (“PHLX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), a proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the text of Phlx Rule 960.9 to incorporate specific procedures for appeals from decisions rendered in disciplinary
The proposed amendment to paragraph (a) of Phlx Rule 960.9 is intended to provide time guidelines for requesting an appeal. The Respondent's petition for appeal must be in writing and filed with the Secretary of the Exchange within 10 days after service of notice and a copy of the decision of the Business Conduct Committee. The petition must specify the findings and conclusions that are the subject of the petition, along with the reasons the Respondent is petitioning for review. Exchange Enforcement Staff will have 15 days to file a written response. The Respondent may then file a reply within 15 days after service of the Enforcement Staff's response.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed rule, “Conduct of Review,” provides that the review shall be conducted by the Exchange's Board of Governors (“Board”), or an Advisory Committee made up of three Governors, with at least one being a non-industry Governor appointed by the Chairman of the Board. No Governor who was a member of the hearing panel below may participate in the hearing on review. Unless the Board of Governors or Advisory Committee hearing the review allows oral argument, the review will be based solely on the record below. If an Advisory Committee hears the review, it must submit a written report to the Board.
Sub-paragraphs (b)(ii) and (iii) of the proposed rule set forth the standard of review for the Board or Advisory Committee. The decision of the Business Conduct Committee can be affirmed, reversed or modified, in whole or in part. A modification may include an increase or decrease of the sanction. However, neither the Board nor the Advisory Committee may reverse or modify the findings, conclusions, and decision of the Business Conduct Committee if the factual conclusions in the decision are supported by substantial evidence, and such decision is not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion.
In paragraph (c), the proposed rule change includes procedures for a review by the Board of Governors on its own initiative. The review would follow the procedure set forth in paragraph (b) of the proposed rule. Together, these provisions are intended to establish a standard and process of review.
Finally, paragraph (d) of the proposed rule sets forth the procedures by which the Exchange's Enforcement staff may petition the Board for permission to appeal. The petition must specify the findings and conclusions that are the subject of the petition, along with the reasons the staff is petitioning for review. If the Board grants permission, the Exchange's Enforcement staff must serve a copy of the petition on the Respondent within 5 days. The respondent then has 15 days to file a written response with the Board, and the staff would have 15 days to file a reply.
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, with the requirements of Sections 6(b)(6) and 6(b)(7).
Currently, the Phlx does not have detailed procedures for appeals from decisions in summary and regular disciplinary proceedings. The Commission believes that the proposed procedures in Phlx Rule 960.9 could provide for a more appropriate and fair disciplinary procedure. For example, paragraphs (b) and (c) of revised Rule 960.9 set forth a standard of review the Board of Governors or the Advisory Committee must follow in deciding whether to affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Business Conduct Committee. The Commission believes that explicit standards will help ensure that decisions in disciplinary proceedings are not rendered arbitrarily.
The Commission also believes that the clear time guidelines set forth in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) enhance the fairness of the disciplinary procedure. Currently, Phlx Rule 960.9 only dictates the time a respondent has to file an appeal. Under the proposal, the expanded procedures in Rule 960.0 layout the timetable for responses and replies to be filed. Thus, respondents and the Exchange's Enforcement staff will not be subjected to unnecessary delays. The Commission believes this is a more fair procedure because it brings a measure of finality to disciplinary proceedings.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 10(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Phlx proposes to amend its By-Law, Article X, Section 10-7—Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee and Equity Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee. The proposed amendment would clarify that references to the “Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee” in the Exchange By-Laws and Rules may mean either the Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee or the Equity Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee, as the context requires. The text of the proposed by-law change is set forth below. New language is in italics.
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed by-law change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed by-law change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On July 5, 2000, the Commission approved changes to Phlx By-Law Article X, Section 10-7, which divided the Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee into two separate committees: The Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee and the Equity Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee.
The purpose of the proposed by-law amendment is to clarify that references to the “Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee” in the Exchange's by-laws and rules may mean either the Options Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee or the Equity Allocation, Evaluation and Securities Committee, as the context requires, and to ensure that the by-laws and rules pertaining to each committee remain consistent.
The Phlx believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act
The Phlx does not believe that the proposed by-law change would impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed by-law change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed by-law change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed by-law change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-00-98 and should be submitted by December 20, 2000.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before December 29, 2000. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments
Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before December 29, 2000. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of reporting requirements submitted for OMB review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before December 29, 2000. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the Agency Clearance Officer.
Address all comments concerning this notice to: Agency Clearance Officer, Jacqueline White, Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416; and OMB Reviewer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
In compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, SSA is providing notice of its information collections that require submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Social Security Administration (SSA) is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
I. The information collections listed below will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, comments and recommendations regarding the information collections would be most useful if received by the Agency within 60 days from the date of this publication. Comments should be directed to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the address listed at the end of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on (410) 965-4145, or by writing to him at the address listed at the end of this publication.
1. Application for Benefits Under The Federal Mine And Safety And Health Act Of 1977, as Amended (Widow's Claim, Child's Claim And Dependent's Claim)—0960-0118. Section 402(g) and Section 412(a) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act provide that those widows, surviving children and dependent parents, brothers and sisters who are not currently receiving benefits on the deceased miner's account must
2. Representative Payee Report of Benefits and Dedicated Account—0960-0576. Form SSA-6233 is used to ensure that the representative payee is using the benefits received for the beneficiary's current maintenance and personal needs and that expenditures of funds from the dedicated account are in compliance with the law. The respondents are individuals and organizational representative payees who are required by law to establish a separate (“dedicated”) account in a financial institution for certain past-due SSI benefits.
3. Physician's/Medical Officer's Statement of Patient's Capability to Manage Benefits—0960-0024. SSA uses the information collected on Form SSA-787 to determine an individual's capability, or lack thereof, to handle his or her own benefits. The information also provides SSA with leads to follow in selecting a representative payee, if needed. The respondents are physicians of these beneficiaries.
4. Request for Internet Service—Password—0960-NEW. SSA will collect and use information to establish a PIN/Password Data File. The file will be used to allow customers to conduct electronic business with the Agency. SSA will request the following information: Name, Social Security Number, Password Request Code, Last Month Payment Amount and Director Deposit Account Number (if applicable). The respondents are individuals electing to conduct business with SSA in the electronic medium.
5. Internet Social Security Benefits Applications (also known as ISBA)—0960-0618. The ISBA (formerly the Internet Retirement Insurance Benefit or IRIB application) is one application that the Commissioner of Social Security will prescribe to meet the requirement to file an application for title II retirement and/or spouse's benefits. The ISBA will be available on the Social Security Administration Internet site and will enable individuals to complete the application electronically on their own and submit the application over the Internet. Until SSA develops an acceptable electronic signature process, applicants will also print, sign and mail the IBSA statement with the required evidence that supports their application. The information that SSA collects will be used to determine entitlement to retirement insurance benefits. The respondents are individuals and their spouses, if applicable, who choose to apply for title II benefits over the Internet.
6. Discrimination Complaint Form—0960-0585. The information collected on form SSA-437 will be used by SSA to investigate and informally resolve complaints of discrimination based on race, color, national, origin, sex, age religion and retaliation in any program or activity conducted by SSA. A person who believes that he or she has been discriminated against on any of the above bases may file a written complaint of discrimination. The information will be used to identify the complainant; identify the alleged discriminatory act; ascertain the date of such alleged act; obtain the identity of the individual(s)/facility/component that allegedly discriminated; and ascertain other relevant information that would assist in the investigation and resolution of the complaints. The respondents are individuals who allege discrimination on the grounds described above.
7. Claimant's Statement When Request for Hearing is Filed and the Issue is Disability—0960-0316. SSA requests that a claimant complete an HA-4486 when a claim for title II disability benefits or title XVI Supplemental Security Income benefits is denied and the claimant wishes a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). SSA uses this form to obtain updated information on the claimant's medical treatment to assist the ALJ in preparing for the hearing and in issuing a decision on entitlement to benefits. The respondents are individuals whose claims have been denied and who want a hearing before an ALJ.
II. The information collections listed below have been submitted to OMB for clearance. Written comments and recommendations on the information collections would be most useful if received within 30 days from the date of this publication. Comments should be directed to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer and the OMB Desk Officer at the addresses listed at the end of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance packages by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on (410) 965-4145, or by writing to him.
1. National Teacher Questionnaire (SSA-5665-BK), and Information About the Working Age Child (SSA-5665-SUPP)—0960-New. The information collected on forms SSA-5665-BK and SSA-5665-Sup is used by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the State Disability Determination Services (DDS) to obtain descriptions of children claiming SSI benefits based on disability and their ability to function on a daily basis. The forms will be used for initial determinations of eligibility, in appeals
These forms are being developed because the forms currently used by the DDSs vary in format and content. It was decided that for the sake of a uniform national childhood program (and with this information in hand and the sensitivity of this population), the time has come for a National Teacher Questionnaire and Information About the Working Age Child. The respondents are the educational community and small businesses that educate and/or employ applicants for Supplemental Security Income for the aged, blind, and Disabled.
2. Beneficiary Recontact Report—0960-0536. SSA collects the information on Form SSA-1587 to ensure that eligibility for benefits continues after entitlement is established. SSA asks children ages 15, 16, and 17 information about marital status to detect overpayments and avoid continuing payment to those no longer entitled. Studies show that children who marry fail to report the marriage, which is a terminating event. The respondents are applicants for Title II (Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) Children/Beneficiaries who are ages 15, 16, and 17.
3. Questionnaire About Employment or Self-Employment Outside the United States, 0960-0050. This information is used by SSA to determine whether work performed by beneficiaries outside the United States (U.S.) is cause for deductions from their monthly benefits; to determine which of two work tests (foreign or regular) is applicable; and to determine the months, if any, for which deductions should be imposed. The respondents are beneficiaries living and working outside the U.S.
Office of the United States Trade Representative.
Notice of intent to conduct negotiations, initiation of environmental review, and request for comments.
This publication gives notice that the United States intends to conduct negotiations with the Republic of Singapore to conclude a free trade agreement. The Trade Policy Staff Committee (TPSC) is requesting written comments from the public to assist the United States Trade Representative (USTR) in formulating negotiating objectives for the agreement and to provide advice on how specific goods and services and other matters should be treated under the agreement. This publication also provides notice that, pursuant to Executive Order 13141 (64 FR 63169), USTR, through the TPSC, is initiating an environmental review of the agreement.
The TPSC is requesting written comments from the public on what should be included in the scope of the environmental review, including the potential environmental effects that might flow from the free trade agreement and the potential implications for our environmental laws and regulations. Persons submitting written comments should provide as much detail as possible on the degree to which the subject matter they propose for inclusion in the review may raise significant environmental issues in the context of the negotiation.
Public comments should be received by noon, December 19, 2000.
For procedural questions concerning public comments, contact Gloria Blue, Executive Secretary, TPSC, Office of the USTR, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508 (202) 395-3475. All questions regarding the environmental review should be addressed to Mary Latimer, Deputy Assistant US Trade Representative for Environment and Natural Resources, Office of the USTR (202) 395-7320. All other questions regarding the negotiations should be addressed to Barbara Weisel, Deputy Assistant US Trade Representative for Bilateral Asian Affairs, Office of the USTR (202) 395-6813.
On November 16, 2000, President Clinton agreed with Singapore's Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong to negotiate a bilaterial free trade agreement. In the negotiations, the United States and Singapore will seek to eliminate duties and commercial barriers to bilateral trade in U.S.- and Singaporean-origin goods and also expect to address trade in services, investment, trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, trade-related environmental and labor matters, and other issues. Two-way trade between the United States and Singapore totaled $34.4 billion in 1999. The free trade agreement will be modeled upon the recently signed free trade agreement between Jordan and the United States, but will recognize the substantial volume of trade between Singapore and the United States. USTR is requesting that the U.S. International Trade Commission conduct a study of the potential economic impacts of the free trade agreement.
USTR, through the TPSC, will perform an environmental review of the
Written comments with as much specificity as possible, including data, views and recommendations, are invited on:
(a) General and commodity-specific negotiating objectives for the agreement.
(b) Economic costs and benefits to U.S. producers and consumers of removal of tariffs and non-tariff barriers to U.S.-Singapore trade.
(c) Treatment of specific goods (described by Harmonized System tariff numbers) under the agreement, including comments on (1) product specific import or export interests or barriers, (2) experience with particular measures that should be addressed in the negotiations, and (3) in the case of articles for which immediate elimination of tariffs is not appropriate, recommended staging schedule for such elimination.
(d) Adequacy of existing customs measures to ensure Singaporean origin of imported goods, and appropriate rules of origin for goods entering the United States under the agreement.
(e) Proposals for service sectors to be addressed in the agreement, existing barriers to trade in those sectors, and economic costs and benefits of removing such barriers.
(f) Relevant trade-related intellectual property rights issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(g) Relevant investment issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(h) Relevant environmental and labor issues that should be addressed in the negotiations.
(i) Possible environmental effects of the agreement and the scope of the U.S. environmental review of the agreement.
Comments identifying as present or potential trade barriers laws or regulations that are not primarily trade-related should address the economic, political and social objectives of such regulations and the degree to which they discriminate against producers of the other country. Comments on the scope of the environmental review should be as detailed as possible.
Persons submitting written comments should provide twenty (20) copies no later than noon, December 19, 2000, to Gloria Blue at address listed above. If possible, comments should be submitted before this date. Where possible, please supplement written comments with a computer disk of the submission containing as much of the technical details as possible either in spreadsheet or word processing table format, with each tariff line/services sector in a separate cell. The disk should have a label identifying the software used and the submitter.
Written comments submitted in connection with this request, except for information granted “business confidential” status pursuant to 15 CFR 2003.6, will be available for public inspection in the USTR Reading Room (Room 101) at the address noted above. An appointment to review the file may be made by calling Brenda Webb at (202) 395-6186. The Reading Room is open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 12 noon, and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Business confidential information, including any information submitted on disks, will be subject to the requirements of 15 CFR 2003.6. Any business confidential material must be clearly marked as such on the cover letter or page and each succeeding page, and must be accompanied by a non-confidential summary thereof. If the submission contains business confidential information, twenty copies of a public version that does not contain confidential information, must be submitted. A justification as to why the information contained in the submission should be treated confidentially must be included in the submission. In addition, any submissions containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “Confidential” at the top and bottom of the cover page (or letter) and each succeeding page of the submission. The version that does not contain confidential information should also be clearly marked, at the top and bottom of each page, “public version” or “non-confidential.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Notice of meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee to discuss air carrier operations issues.
The meeting will be held on December 13, 2000, at 10:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held in Conference Room 827, Federal Office Building 10A (the “FAA Building”), 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591.
Linda Williams, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone (202) 267-9685.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee on Air Carrier Operations to be held on December 13, 2000.
The agenda will include:
• Airplane Performance Working Group status report.
• Extended Range Operations with Two-Engine Aircraft (ETOPS) Working (ETOPS) Working Group status report.
• Consideration of a proposed task to review proposed Advisory Circular 120-29A, Criteria for Approval of Nonprecision, Category I and Category II Weather Minima for Takeoff, Approach and Landing and all associated comments received during the public comment period.
Attendance is open to the interested public but may be limited by the space available. Members of the public must make arrangements in advance to present oral statements at the meeting or may present written statements to the committee at any time. Arrangements may be made by contacting the person listed under the heading
Sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the meeting, as well as an assistive listening device, if requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.
If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this event, please contact the person listed under
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 use the revenue from a PFC at Craig 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 December 29, 2000.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida, 32822-5024.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to John D. Clark, III, Vice President of Aviation, of the Jacksonville Port Authority at the following address: Jacksonville Port Authority, Post Office Box 3005, Jacksonville, Florida, 32206-0005.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Jacksonville Port Authority under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Richard M. Owen, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, Florida, 32822-5024, (407) 812-6331, extension 19. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to use the revenue from a PFC at Craig 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 19, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Jacksonville Port 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 February 3, 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 Jacksonville Port Authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Louisville 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 December 29, 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, Tennessee 38116-3841.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. James C. DeLong, General Manager of the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County at the following address: P.O. Box 9129, Louisville, Kentucky 40229
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Mr. Jerry O. Bowers, Program Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, 3385 Airways Boulevard, Suite 302, Memphis, Tennessee 38116-3841, 901-544-3495, Extension 21. 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 Louisville 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 November 21, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County 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 March 14, 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 Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County.
In accordance with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 211.41, and 49 U.S.C. 20103, notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received a request for waiver of compliance with certain requirements of the Federal railroad safety regulations. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, and the nature of the relief being sought.
Sound Transit seeks a permanent waiver of compliance from certain sections of Title 49 of the CFR for operation of a new “Tacoma Line” light rail line at a “limited connection” with The Burlington Northen and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). Sound Transit is building the Tacoma Link, which will intersect the BNSF Prairie Line at a rail crossing located in the City of Tacoma, Washington. The Tacoma Line will be within a highway at the rail grade crossing.
Sound Transit seeks relief based on the safety precautions already in place at the crossing. Specifically, BNSF is subject to FRA's regulations and maintains and operates the rail crossing for the proposed project. Sound Transit specifically requests a waiver from the Passenger Equipment Safety Standards (49 CFR part 238), as Tacoma Link is a light rail transit operation except for the minor crossing connection. Sound Transit also states that the requirements for its light rail vehicles should be considered as similar to buses, autos, and all other street vehicles, wherein efforts are put into having warning equipment and procedures to reduce the probability and severity of an accident. See
Since FRA has not yet concluded its investigation of the Tacoma Link, the agency takes no position at this time on the merits of Sound Transit's stated justifications.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proceeding by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with the request for a waiver of certain regulatory provisions. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, he or she should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for his or her request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
The Union Pacific Railroad (UP) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking a waiver of compliance with the requirements of 49 CFR 214.329. UP requests relief that will permit the use of a system described by UP as the automatic train approach warning system (TAWS). UP proposes that roadway work groups be permitted to substitute TAWS for watchmen/lookouts as the method of train approach warning when fouling a track within equipped interlockings and controlled points. UP also proposes that lone workers be permitted to use TAWS as a method of train approach warning within the limits of those interlockings and controlled points without a requirement to establish working limits. Technical details of the TAWS system, its developmental history, and its function were described in the
The FRA issued a public notice (65 FR 57237, September 21, 2000) seeking comments of interested parties. After examining the railroad's proposal and the available facts, FRA has determined that a public hearing is necessary before a final decision is made on this proposal.
Accordingly, a public hearing is hereby set for 9 a.m. CST, on Thursday, January 4, 2001, in Room 102-A (first floor) of the Peter Kiewit Building, 1313 Farnam Street, Omaha, Nebraska. Interested parties are invited to present oral statements at the hearing.
The hearing will be an informal one and will be conducted in accordance with Rule 25 of the FRA Rules of Practice (Title 49 CFR Part 211.25), by a representative designated by the FRA.
In rule document 00-29944 beginning on page 70461 in the issue of Friday, November 24, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 70463, in the third column, in §946.336, in the seventh line from the bottom, paragraph “(a)” should read “(e)”.
Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Final rule.
This final rule implements a 1998 law that authorizes public housing agencies (PHAs) to administer any or all of their housing programs through a consortium of PHAs. The law also authorizes PHAs to use subsidiaries, joint ventures, partnerships or other business arrangements to administer their housing programs or to provide supportive or social services. This final rule specifies minimum requirements relating to formation and operation of consortia and minimum contents of consortium agreements, as required by the statute and reflects consideration of public comments received on the proposed rule.
December 29, 2000.
Rod Solomon, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 4116, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-0713 (this is not a toll-free telephone number). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
On September 14, 1999 (64 FR 49940), HUD published for public comment a proposed rule implementing section 13 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437
In addition to authorizing public housing agencies (PHAs) to administer any or all of their housing programs through a consortium of PHAs, section 13 of the 1937 Act also authorizes PHAs to use subsidiaries, joint ventures, partnerships or other business arrangements to administer their housing programs or to provide supportive or social services. The proposed rule specified minimum requirements relating to formation and operation of consortia and minimum contents of consortium agreements, as required by the statute.
Before enactment of the Public Housing Reform Act, some PHAs had established cooperative arrangements for carrying out some of their responsibilities. A principal difference is that under a section 13 consortium, a joint PHA Plan is submitted on behalf of participating PHAs. Enactment of the revised section 13, however, does not restrict the ability of PHAs to continue to establish cooperative arrangements under which they receive funding separately and submit separate PHA Plans. Another major difference between such arrangements and consortia as authorized under section 13, is that under section 13 funding must be paid to the consortium. HUD is implementing this requirement by providing that funds shall be directed to the lead agency, as a representative of the consortium, on behalf of the participating PHAs, instead of being paid to the PHAs separately (although funding allocations are still calculated separately for each PHA).
The preamble to the September 14, 1999 proposed rule provides additional information regarding the proposed implementation of section 13 of the 1937 Act, as revised.
The following describes the more significant changes made to this rule at the final rule stage. In addition to the changes discussed below, certain technical and clarifying changes were made at the final rule stage. Some of the nonsubstantive changes, but not necessarily all, may be noted below. The more significant changes are as follows:
• In § 943.118 (What is a consortium?), HUD adds language at the end of this section to require that PHAs participating in a consortium adopt the same fiscal year in order that the applicable periods for submission and review of the joint PHA Plan are the same and to indicate that notwithstanding any other regulation, PHAs may request and HUD may approve changes in PHA fiscal years to make this possible.
• In § 943.120 (What programs of a PHA are included in a consortium's functions), HUD revises paragraph (a)(1) to clarify that a PHA's public housing program may include either the operating fund or the capital fund, or both). In paragraph (a)(4) of this same section, HUD removes reference to the exception made for “Moderate Rehabilitation and Certificates and Vouchers.
• In § 943.122 (How is a consortium organized?), HUD revises paragraph to clarify that any necessary payment agreements entered into between HUD and the lead agency and other participating agencies must provide that HUD funding to the participating PHAs for program categories covered by the consortium will be paid to the lead agency. This payment arrangement is consistent with the requirements of the Public Housing Reform Act. HUD revises paragraph (b) to provide that to be the lead agency in a consortium, not only must a PHA not be designated as troubled, or determined by HUD to fail the civil rights compliance threshold for new funding, the PHA must not have had its PHAS designation withheld for civil rights or other reasons.
• In § 943.124 (What elements must a consortium agreement contain?), HUD revises paragraph (a)(5) to provide that the consortium agreement must not only specify the period of existence of the consortium and the terms under which a PHA may withdraw from the consortium before the end of the period of existence, but must specify when a PHA may join the consortium. This paragraph also was revised to provide that, for orderly transition, the addition or withdrawal of a PHA and termination of the consortium must take effect on the anniversary of the consortium's fiscal year.
• In § 943.126 (What is the relationship between HUD and a consortium?), HUD removes paragraph (b) which provided that HUD's payment to the consortium of funding for the covered program categories covered will be paid to the lead agency. This paragraph was duplicative of § 943.122, which addresses consortium organization. HUD revises paragraph (a) by removing the “(a)” as the designation for this paragraph and by clarifying that HUD's relationship with the consortium is through the PHA Plan process, in addition to the payment agreements entered into. HUD also revises this paragraph to clarify that HUD funds provided to the consortium must be used in accordance with the consortium agreement and the joint PHA Plan, in addition to HUD's regulations and requirements.
• In § 943.128 (How does a consortium carry out planning and reporting functions?), HUD revises paragraph (b) to clarify that the consortium must maintain records, in
• In § 943.130 (What are the responsibilities of participating PHAs?), HUD adds a new paragraph (b) to address the applicability of independent audit and performance assessment system requirements to consortia and to note that the manner of applicability depends upon the composition and funding of the PHA. The new paragraph provides that where the lead agency will manage substantially all program and activities of the consortium, HUD interprets financial accountability to rest with the consortium and therefore apply independent and performance assessment requirements on a consortium-wide basis. Where the lead agency will not manage substantially all programs and activities of a consortium, the consortium must identify in its PHA Plan submission which PHAs have financial accountability for the programs. The determination of financial accountability shall be made in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, as determined in consultation with an independent public accountant. This paragraph also provides, however, that with respect to any consortium, HUD may determine (based on a request from the consortium or other circumstances) to apply independent audit and performance requirements on a different basis (than that provided in the rule) where a different basis would promote sound management.
• In § 943.140 (What programs and activities are covered by this subpart?), HUD revises paragraph (a) to clarify that subpart C applies to a PHA's management functions as well as the PHA's administrative functions.
• In § 943.146 (What impact does the use of a subsidiary affiliate, or joint venture have on financial accountability to HUD and the Federal government?), HUD replaces the term “General Accounting Office” with “Comptroller General,” which is consistent with statutory terminology.
• In § 943.148 (What procurement standards apply to PHAs selecting partners for a joint venture?), HUD revises paragraph (a) to clarify that the requirements of 24 CFR part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments) are applicable to the regulations in part 943, subject to the provisions in paragraph (b) of this section. HUD revises paragraph (b)(2) of this same section, to reference the applicability of the requirements of 24 CFR part 84 (Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Agencies).
In § 943.150 (What procurement standards apply to a PHA's joint venture partner?), HUD revises paragraph (a) to include reference to the applicability of part 84.
This final rule takes into consideration the public comments received on the September 14, 1999 proposed rule. The public comment period on the proposed rule closed on November 15, 1999. By close of business on that date, HUD had received 6 public comments. Comments were submitted by two PHAs; two of the three main organizations representing PHAs; a State PHA association; and a private individual. This section of the preamble presents a summary of the significant issues raised by the public commenters on the September 14, 1999 proposed rule and HUD's responses to these comments, and provides the basis why certain changes, as highlighted in Section II of this preamble, were made at the final rule stage. The changes benefit both from the comments received during the public comment period and from comments and questions that have arisen since the comment period closed from PHAs and others interested in forming consortia or joint ventures, as provided by this rule.
The commenter asked the following questions:
1. Will such a PHA be able to join a consortium of other PHAs that continuously receive PHDEP assistance?
2. Will the PHA be required to become a PHDEP grantee before joining such a consortium?
3. May a PHA that was not awarded PHDEP assistance conduct drug-elimination activities subsidized by other PHAs who have received PHDEP funding?
1. PHA-administered project-based Section 8 under the Request for Proposals published on May 19, 1999 (64 FR 27358); and
2. Section 8 projects that are the subject of financial restructuring under the “Mark to Market” program, where Participating Administrative Entities are designated to administer the program (see 42 U.S.C. 1437f note).
One commenter objected to these exclusions, writing that “[a]ny consortium made up of public agencies should be treated corporately as a public agency itself.”
1. The joint venture partner will make available to the PHA substantial, unique and tangible resources or other benefits that would not otherwise be available to the PHA on the open market (
2. A resident group or a PHA subsidiary is willing and able to act as the PHA's partner in performing administrative functions or to provide supportive or social services.
One commenter wrote that, by treating a PHA's decision to operate through an affiliate as a procurement action, the proposed rule “detracts from the benefit to the PHA of utilizing the associated entity.” The commenter wrote that new section 13 of the 1937 Act “appears to evidence Congress' opinion that PHAs need the ability to operate through whatever organizational structure is most suitable in light of the specific objectives sought to be accomplished, without fear that such operation will be clouded by intimations that such relationships are somehow improper or inappropriate vehicles.”
The commenter stated that it does not believe that the “sole source exception” provided in proposed § 943.148(b) adequately addresses this problem. According to the commenter, the first standard “provides little help in the PHA/affiliate context” because the “PHA affiliate will usually offer to the PHA only another form with which to accomplish its objectives, with perhaps the same staff and resources the PHA already has.” The commenter also objected to the second standard because “there are many functions” (such as real estate acquisition) that cannot be categorized as administrative functions or supportive/social services.
With respect to the functions that are covered by subpart C, the rule has been revised at this final rule stage to clarify that the functions covered include management functions. It does not apply to activities of a PHA that are subject to the requirements of subpart F of Part 941. This section also has been revised at the final rule stage to clarify that the requirements of 24 CFR part 84 also may be applicable.
The information collection requirements contained in §§ 943.124, 943.126, and 943.128 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Number 2577-0235. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Secretary has reviewed this final rule before publication and by approving it certifies, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Based on HUD's experience and contacts with representatives of PHAs and HUD field offices, HUD expects a relatively small number of PHAs to form consortia—certainly fewer than 100. While there would be savings and efficiencies in the long run for small PHAs, forming a consortium also would require some work for these PHAs—to enter consortium agreements—and would require them to overcome resistance to giving up local control of their programs. Consequently, HUD concludes that this final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment was made at the proposed rule stage, in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4223). Since the changes to the proposed rule are minor, that Finding remains applicable to this final rule and is available for public inspection between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This final rule does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This rule does not impose a Federal mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed this rule under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” OMB determined that this rule is a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of the Order (although not an economically significant regulatory action under the Order). Any changes made to this rule as a result of that review are clearly identified in the docket file, which is available for public inspection in the Regulations Division of the Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for the program affected by this rule are 14.850, 14.855, and 14.857.
Low and moderate income housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 1437k and 3535(d).
This part authorizes public housing agencies (PHAs) to form consortia, joint ventures, affiliates, subsidiaries, partnerships, and other business arrangements under section 13 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437k). Under this authority, PHAs participating in a consortium enter into a consortium agreement, submit joint PHA Plans to HUD, and may combine all or part of their funding and program administration. This part does not preclude a PHA from entering cooperative arrangements to operate its programs under other authority, as long as they are consistent with other program regulations and requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to the following:
(1) PHA administration of public housing or Section 8 programs under an Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) with HUD; and
(2) PHA administration of grants to the PHA in connection with its public housing or Section 8 programs.
(b) This subpart does not apply to the following:
(1) PHA administration of Section 8 projects assigned to a PHA for contract administration pursuant to an ACC entered under the Request for Proposals (RFP) published May 19, 1999 (64 FR 27358);
(2) Section 8 contract administration of a restructured subsidized multifamily project by a Participating Administrative Entity in accordance with part 401 of this title; or
(3) A PHA in its capacity as owner of a Section 8 project.
A consortium consists of two or more PHAs that join together to perform planning, reporting, and other administrative or management functions for participating PHAs, as specified in a consortium agreement. A consortium also submits a joint PHA Plan. The lead agency collects the assistance funds from HUD that would be paid to the participating PHAs for the elements of their operations that are administered by the consortium and allocates them according to the consortium agreement. The participating PHAs must adopt the same fiscal year so that the applicable periods for submission and review of the joint PHA Plan are the same. Notwithstanding any other regulation, PHAs proposing to form consortia may request and HUD may approve changes in PHA fiscal years to make this possible.
(a) A PHA may enter a consortium under this subpart for administration of any of the following program categories:
(1) The PHA's public housing program (which may include either the operating fund or the capital fund, or both);
(2) The PHA's Section 8 voucher and certificate program (including the project-based certificate and voucher programs and special housing types);
(3) The PHA's Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program, including Single Room Occupancy program;
(4) All other project-based Section 8 programs administered by the PHA under an ACC with HUD; and
(5) Any grant programs of the PHA in connection with its Section 8 or public housing programs, such as the Drug Elimination program or the Resident Opportunities and Self-Sufficiency program, to the extent not inconsistent with the terms of the governing documents for the grant program's funding source.
(b) If a PHA elects to enter a consortium with respect to a category specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the consortium must cover the PHA's whole program under the ACC with HUD for that category, including all dwelling units and all funding for that program under the ACC with HUD.
(a) PHAs that elect to form a consortium enter into a consortium agreement among the participating PHAs, specifying a lead agency (see § 943.124), and submit a joint PHA Plan (§ 943.118). HUD enters into any necessary payment agreements with the lead agency and the other participating PHAs (see § 943.126) to provide that HUD funding to the participating PHAs for program categories covered by the consortium will be paid to the lead agency.
(b) The lead agency must not be a PHA that is designated as a “troubled PHA” by HUD, that has been determined by HUD to fail the civil rights compliance threshold for new funding, or that has had a PHAS designation withheld for civil rights or other reasons. The lead agency is designated to receive HUD program payments on behalf of participating PHAs, to administer HUD requirements for administration of the funds, and to apply the funds in accordance with the consortium agreement and HUD regulations and requirements.
(a) The consortium agreement among the participating PHAs governs the formation and operation of the consortium. The consortium agreement must be consistent with any payment agreements between the participating PHAs and HUD and must specify the following:
(1) The names of the participating PHAs and the program categories each PHA is including under the consortium agreement;
(2) The name of the lead agency;
(3) The functions to be performed by the lead agency and the other participating PHAs during the term of the consortium;
(4) The allocation of funds among participating PHAs and responsibility for administration of funds paid to the consortium; and
(5) The period of existence of the consortium and the terms under which a PHA may join or withdraw from the consortium before the end of that period. To provide for orderly transition, addition or withdrawal of a PHA and termination of the consortium must take effect on the anniversary of the consortium's fiscal year.
(b) The agreement must acknowledge that the participating PHAs are subject to the joint PHA Plan submitted by the lead agency.
(c) The agreement must be signed by an authorized representative of each participating PHA.
HUD has a direct relationship with the consortium through the PHA Plan process and through one or more payment agreements, executed in a form prescribed by HUD, under which HUD and the participating PHAs agree that program funds will be paid to the lead agency on behalf of the participating PHAs. Such funds must be used in accordance with the consortium agreement, the joint PHA Plan and HUD regulations and requirements.
(a) During the term of the consortium agreement, the consortium must submit joint five-year Plans and joint Annual Plans for all participating PHAs, in accordance with part 903 of this chapter. HUD may prescribe methods of submission for consortia generally and where the consortium does not cover all program categories.
(b) The consortium must maintain records and submit reports to HUD, in accordance with HUD regulations and requirements, for all of the participating PHAs. All PHAs will be bound by Plans and reports submitted to HUD by the consortium for programs covered by the consortium.
(c) Each PHA must keep a copy of the consortium agreement on file for inspection. The consortium agreement must also be a supporting document to the joint PHA Plan.
(a)
(b)
(a) This subpart applies to the provision of a PHA's public housing administrative and management functions, and to the provision (or arranging for the provision) of supportive and social services in connection with public housing. This subpart does not apply to activities of a PHA that are subject to the requirements of part 941, subpart F, of this title.
(b) For purposes of this subpart, the term “joint venture partner” means a participant (other than a PHA) in a joint venture, partnership, or other business arrangement or contract for services with a PHA.
(c) This part does not affect a PHA's authority to use joint ventures, as may be permitted under State law, when using non-1937 Act funds.
(a) A PHA may create and operate a wholly owned or controlled subsidiary or other affiliate; may enter into joint ventures, partnerships, or other business arrangements with individuals, organizations, entities, or governmental units. A subsidiary or affiliate may be a nonprofit corporation. A subsidiary or affiliate may be an organization controlled by the same persons who serve on the governing board of the PHA or who are employees of the PHA.
(b) The purpose of any of these operating organizations would be to administer programs of the PHA.
Income generated by subsidiaries, affiliates, or joint ventures formed under the authority of this subpart is to be used for low-income housing or to benefit the residents assisted by the PHA. This income will not cause a decrease in funding provided under the public housing program, except as otherwise provided under the Operating Fund and Capital Fund formulas.
None; the subsidiary, affiliate, or joint venture is subject to the same authority of HUD, HUD's Inspector General, and the Comptroller General to audit its conduct.
(a) The requirements of part 85 of this title are applicable to this part, subject to paragraph (b) of this section, in connection with the PHA's public housing program.
(b) A PHA may use competitive proposal procedures for qualifications-based procurement (request for qualifications or “RFQ”), or may solicit a proposal from only one source (“sole source”) to select a joint venture partner to perform an administrative or management function of its public housing program or to provide or arrange to provide supportive or social services covered under this part, under the following circumstances:
(1) The proposed joint venture partner has under its control and will make available to the partnership substantial, unique and tangible resources or other benefits that would not otherwise be available to the PHA on the open market (
(2) A resident group or a PHA subsidiary is willing and able to act as the PHA's partner in performing administrative and management functions or to provide supportive or social services. This entity must comply with the requirements of part 84 of this title (if the entity is a nonprofit) or part
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The PHA can demonstrate that its original competitive selection of the partner clearly anticipated the later provision of such goods or services;
(2) Compensation of all identity-of-interest parties is structured to ensure there is no duplication of profit or expenses; and
(3) The PHA can demonstrate that its selection is reasonable based upon prevailing market costs and standards, and that the quality and timeliness of the goods or services is comparable to that available in the open market. For purposes of this paragraph (c), an “identity-of-interest party” means a party that is wholly owned or controlled by, or that is otherwise affiliated with, the partner or the PHA. The PHA may use an independent organization experienced in cost valuation to determine the cost reasonableness of the proposed contracts.
(a) When the joint venture as a whole is controlled by the PHA or an identity of interest party of the PHA, the joint venture is subject to the requirements of part 85 of this title.
(b) If a joint venture is not controlled by the PHA or an identity of interest party of the PHA, then the rules that apply to the other partners apply. See § 943.150.
Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Budget Analysis and Systems Division.
Notice of Transmittal amending OMB Circular No. A-129, “Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables”.
This Circular updates policies and procedures for justifying, designing, and managing Federal credit programs and for collecting non-tax receivables.
Ms. Courtney Timberlake, Office of Management and Budget, Budget and Analysis Branch, NEOB Room 6001, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Tel. No. (202) 395-7864.
Federal credit programs are created to accomplish a variety of social and economic goals. Agencies must implement budget policies and management practices that ensure the goals of credit programs are met while properly identifying and controlling costs. In addition, Federal receivables, whether from credit programs or other non-tax sources, must be serviced and collected in an efficient and effective manner to protect the value of the Federal Government's assets.
1.
2.
3.
(1) Direct loan programs;
(2) Loan guarantee programs and loan insurance programs in which the Federal Government bears a legal liability to pay for all or part of the principal or interest in the event of borrower default; and
(3) Loans or other financial assets acquired by a Federal agency (or a receiver or conservator acting for a Federal agency) as a result of a claim payment on a defaulted guaranteed or insured loan or in fulfillment of a Federal deposit insurance commitment.
Sections IV and V of Appendix A (“Managing the Federal Government's Receivables” and “Delinquent Debt Collection”) also apply to receivables due to the Government from the sale of goods and services; fines, fees, duties, leases, rents, royalties, and penalties; overpayments to beneficiaries, grantees, contractors, and Federal employees; and similar debts.
b.
c.
4.
This Circular supplements, and does not supersede, the requirements applicable to budget submissions under OMB Circular No. A-11 and to proposed legislation and testimony under OMB Circular No. A-19.
5.
6.
For inquiries concerning budget and legislative policy for credit programs contact
7.
1.
2.
3.
4.
a.
(1) Federal credit program legislation, regulations, and policies are designed and administered in compliance with the principles of this Circular;
(2) The costs of credit programs covered by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 are budgeted for and controlled in accordance with the principles of that Act. (Some agencies and programs are expressly exempted from the statute.);
(3) Every effort is made to prevent future delinquencies by following appropriate screening standards and procedures for determination of creditworthiness;
(4) Lenders participating in guaranteed loan programs meet all applicable financial and programmatic requirements;
(5) Informed and cost effective decisions are made concerning portfolio management, including full consideration of contracting out for servicing or selling the portfolio;
(6) The full range of available techniques are used, such as those found in the Federal Claims Collection Standards and Treasury regulations, as appropriate, to collect delinquent debts, including demand letters, administrative offset, salary offset, tax refund offset, private collection agencies, cross-servicing by Treasury, administrative wage garnishment, and litigation;
(7) Delinquent debts are written-off as soon as they are determined to be uncollectible; and
(8) Timely and accurate financial management and performance data are submitted to OMB and the Department of the Treasury so that the Government's credit management and debt collection programs and policies can be evaluated.
b.
(1) Establish, as appropriate, boards to coordinate credit management and debt collection activities and to ensure full consideration of credit management and debt collection issues by all interested and affected organizations. Representation should include, but not be limited to, the agency Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the senior official(s) for program offices with credit activities or non-tax receivables. The Board may seek from the agency's Inspector General, input based on findings and conclusions from past audits and investigations.
(2) Ensure that the statutory and regulatory requirements and standards set forth in this Circular, Treasury regulations, and supplementary guidance set forth in the Treasury/FMS Managing Federal Receivables are incorporated into agency regulations and procedures for credit programs and debt collection activities;
(3) Propose new or revised legislation, regulations, and forms as necessary to ensure consistency with the provisions of this Circular;
(4) Submit legislation and testimony affecting credit programs for review under the OMB Circular No. A-19 legislative clearance process, and budget proposals for review under the Circular No. A-11 budget justification process;
(5) Periodically evaluate Federal credit programs to assure their effectiveness in achieving program goals;
(6) Assign to the agency CFO, in accordance with the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, responsibility for directing, managing, and providing policy guidance and oversight of agency financial management personnel, activities, and operations, including the implementation of asset management systems for credit management and debt collection;
(7) Prepare, as part of the agency CFO Financial Management 5-Year Plan, a Credit
(8) Ensure that data in loan applications and documents for individuals are managed in accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988, and the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, as amended. The Privacy Act of 1974 does not apply to loans and debts of commercial organizations.
Federal credit assistance should be provided only when it is necessary and the best method to achieve clearly specified Federal objectives. Use of private credit markets should be encouraged, and any impairment of such markets or misallocation of the nation's resources through the operation of Federal credit programs should be minimized.
Proposals submitted to OMB for new programs and for reauthorizing, expanding, or significantly increasing funding for existing credit programs should be accompanied by a written review which examines, at a minimum, the following factors:
a. The Federal objectives to be achieved, including:
(1) Whether the credit program is intended to:
(a) Correct a capital market imperfection, which should be defined; and/or
(b) Subsidize borrowers or other beneficiaries, who should be identified, or encourage certain activities, which should be specified.
(2) Why they cannot be achieved without Federal credit assistance, including:
(a) A description of existing and potential private sources of credit by type of institution and the availability and cost of credit to borrowers; and
(b) An explanation as to whether and why these private sources of financing and their terms and conditions must be supplemented and subsidized.
b. The justification for use of a credit subsidy. The review should provide an explanation of why a credit subsidy is the most efficient way of providing assistance, including how it provides assistance in overcoming capital market imperfections, how it would assist the identified borrowers or beneficiaries or would encourage the identified activities, and why it would be preferable to other forms of assistance such as grants or technical assistance.
c. The estimated benefits of the program or program change. The review should estimate or, when the program exists, measure the benefits expected from the program or program change, including the amount by which the distribution of credit is expected to be altered and the favored activity is expected to increase. Information on conducting a cost-benefit analysis can be found in OMB Circular No. A-94.
d. The effects on private capital markets. The review should estimate the extent to which the program substitutes directly or indirectly for private lending, and analyze any elements of program design that encourage and supplement private lending activity, with the objective that private lending is displaced to the smallest degree possible by agency programs.
e. The estimated subsidy level. The review should provide an explicit estimate of the subsidy, as required by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, and an estimate of the expected annual administrative costs (including extension, servicing, and collection) of the credit program. If loan assets are to be sold or are to be included in a prepayment program for programmatic or other reasons, then the subsidy estimate should include the effects of the loan asset sales. For guidance on loan asset sales, see the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, OMB Circular No. A-11, and the Treasury/FMS’ Managing Federal Receivables. Loan asset sales/prepayment programs must be conducted in accordance with policies in this Circular and procedures in “Managing Federal Receivables,” including the prohibitions against the financing of prepayments by tax-exempt borrowing and sales with recourse except where specifically authorized by statute. The cost of any guarantee placed on the asset sold requires budget authority.
f. The administrative resource requirements. The review should include an examination of the agency's current capacity to administer the new or expanded program and an estimation of any additional resources that would be needed.
When Federal credit assistance is necessary to meet a Federal objective, loan guarantees should be favored over direct loans, unless attaining the Federal objective requires a subsidy, as defined by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, deeper than can be provided by a loan guarantee.
a. Loan guarantees may provide several advantages over direct loans. These advantages include: private sector credit servicing (which tends to be more efficient), private sector analysis of the borrowers creditworthiness, (which tends to allocate resources more efficiently), involvement of borrowers with private sector lenders (which promotes their movement to private credit), and lower portfolio management costs for agencies.
b. Loan guarantees, by removing part or all of the credit risk of a transaction, change the allocation of economic resources. Loan guarantees may make credit available when private financial sources would not otherwise do so, or they may allocate credit to borrowers under more favorable terms than would otherwise be granted. This reallocation of credit may impose a cost on the Government and/or the economy.
c. Direct loans usually offer borrowers lower interest rates and longer maturities than loans available from private financial sources, even those with a Federal guarantee. The use of direct loans, however, may displace private financial sources and increase the possibility that the terms and conditions on which Federal credit assistance is offered will not reflect changes in financial market conditions. The costs to the Government and the economy are therefore likely to be greater.
d. Direct or indirect guarantees of tax-exempt obligations are prohibited under Section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code. Guarantees of tax-exempt obligations are an inefficient way of allocating Federal credit. Assistance to the borrower, through the tax exemption and the guarantee, provides interest savings to the borrower that are smaller than the tax revenue loss to the Government. It is generally thought that the cost to the taxpayer is greater than the benefit to the borrower. The Internal Revenue Code provides some exceptions to this requirement; see Section 149(b) of the Internal Revenue Code for further details.
e. To preclude the possibility that Federal agencies will guarantee tax-exempt obligations, either directly or indirectly, agencies will:
(1) Not guarantee federally tax-exempt obligations;
(2) Provide that effective subordination of a direct or guaranteed loan to tax-exempt
(3) Prohibit use of a Federal guarantee as collateral to secure a tax-exempt obligation;
(4) Prohibit Federal guarantees of loans funded by tax-exempt obligations; and
(5) Prohibit the linkage of Federal guarantees with tax-exempt obligations. For example, such prohibited linkage occurs if the project is unlikely to be financed without the Federal guarantee covering a portion of the cost. In such cases, the Federal guarantee is, in effect, enabling the tax-exempt obligation to be issued, since without the guarantee the project would not be viable to receive any financing. Therefore, the tax-exempt obligation is dependent on and linked to the Federal guarantee.
f. Where a large degree of subsidy is justified, comparable to that which would be provided by guaranteed tax-exempt obligations, agencies should consider the use of direct loans.
In accordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, agencies must analyze and control the risk and cost of their programs. Agencies must develop statistical models predictive of defaults and other deviations from loan contracts. Agencies are required to estimate subsidy costs and to obtain budget authority to cover such costs before obligating direct loans and committing loan guarantees. Specific instructions for budget justification and subsidy cost estimation under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 are provided in OMB Circular No. A-11, and instructions for budget execution are provided in OMB Circular No. A-34.
Agencies shall follow sound financial practices in the design and administration of their credit programs. Where program objectives cannot be achieved while following sound financial practices, the cost of these deviations shall be justified in agency budget submissions in comparison with expected benefits. Unless a waiver is approved, agencies should follow the financial practices discussed below.
a. Lenders and borrowers who participate in Federal credit programs should have a substantial stake in full repayment in accordance with the loan contract.
(1) Private lenders who extend credit that is guaranteed by the Government should bear at least 20 percent of the loss from a default. Loan guarantees that cover 100 percent of any losses on a loan encourage private lenders to exercise less caution than they otherwise would in evaluating loan requests. The level of guarantee should be no more than necessary to achieve program purposes. Loans for borrowers who are deemed to pose less of a risk should receive a lower guarantee.
(2) Borrowers should have an equity interest in any asset being financed with the credit assistance, and business borrowers should have substantial capital or equity at risk in their business (see Section III.A.3.b for additional discussion).
(3) Programs in which the Government bears more than 80 percent of any loss should be periodically reviewed to determine whether the private sector has become able to bear a greater share of the risk.
b. Agencies should establish interest and fee structures for direct loans and loan guarantees and should review these structures at least annually. Documentation of the performance of these annual reviews for credit programs is considered sufficient to meet the review requirement described in Section 902(a)8 of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.
(1) Interest and fees should be set at levels that minimize default and other subsidy costs, of the direct loan or loan guarantee, while supporting achievement of the program's policy objectives.
(2) Agencies must request an appropriation in accordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 for default and other subsidy costs not covered by interest and fees.
(3) Unless inconsistent with program purposes, and where authorized by law, riskier borrowers should be charged more than those who pose less risk. In order to avoid an unintended additional subsidy to riskier borrowers within the eligible class and to support the extension of credit to those riskier borrowers, programs that, for public policy purposes, do not adhere to this guideline, should justify the extra subsidy conveyed to the higher-risk borrowers in their annual budget submissions to OMB.
c. Contractual agreements should include all covenants and restrictions (
(1) Maturities on loans should be shorter than the estimated useful economic life of any assets financed.
(2) The Government's claims should not be subordinated to the claims of other creditors, as in the case of a borrower's default on either a direct loan or a guaranteed loan. Subordination increases the risk of loss to the Government, since other creditors would have first claim on the borrower's assets.
d. In order to minimize inadvertent changes in the amount of subsidy, interest rates to be charged on direct loans and any interest supplements for guaranteed loans should be specified by reference to the market rate on a benchmark Treasury security rather than as an absolute level. A specific fixed interest rate should not be cited in legislation or in regulation, because such a rate could soon become outdated, unintentionally changing the extent of the subsidy.
(1) The benchmark financial market instrument should be a marketable Treasury security with a similar maturity to the direct loans being made or the non-Federal loans being guaranteed. When the rate on the Government loan is intended to be different than the benchmark rate, it should be stated as a percentage of that rate. The benchmark Treasury security must be cited specifically in agency budget justifications.
(2) Interest rates applicable to new loans should be reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect changes in the benchmark interest rate. Loan contracts may provide for either fixed or floating interest rates.
e. Maximum amounts of direct loan obligations and loan guarantee commitments should be specifically authorized in advance in annual appropriations acts, except for mandatory programs exempt from the appropriations requirements under Section 504(c) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990.
f. Financing for Federal credit programs should be provided by Treasury in accordance with the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. Guarantees of the timely payment of 100 percent of the loan principal and interest against all risk create a debt obligation that is the credit risk equivalent of a Treasury security. Accordingly, a Federal agency other than the Department of the Treasury may not issue, sell, or guarantee an obligation of a type that is ordinarily financed in investment securities markets, as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, unless the terms of the obligation provide that it may not be held by a person or entity other than the Federal Financing Bank (FFB) or another Federal agency. In
g. Federal loan contracts should be standardized where practicable. Private sector documents should be used whenever possible, especially for loan guarantees.
The provisions of this Section II will be implemented through the OMB Circular No. A-19 legislative review process and the OMB Circular No. A-11 budget justification and submission process. For accounting standards for Federal credit programs, see Accounting for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards Number 2, developed by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
a. Proposed legislation on credit programs, reviews of credit proposals made by others, and testimony on credit activities submitted by agencies under the OMB Circular No. A-19 legislative review process should conform to the provisions of this Circular.
Whenever agencies propose provisions or language not in conformity with the policies of this Circular, they will be required to request in writing that OMB waive the requirement. The request will be submitted on a standard waiver request form, available from OMB. Such requests will identify the waiver(s) requested, and will state the reasons for the request and the time period for which the exception is required. Exceptions, when allowed, will ordinarily be granted only for a limited time in order to allow for an evaluation by OMB. The waiver request form should be submitted to the OMB examiner with primary responsibility for the account.
b. A checklist for reviews of legislative and budgetary proposals is included as Appendix B to this Circular. Agencies should use the model bill language provided in Appendix C in developing and reviewing legislation unless OMB has approved the use of alternative language that includes the same substantive elements.
c. Every four years, or more often at the request of the OMB examiner with primary responsibility for the account, the agency's annual budget submission (required by OMB Circular No. A-11, Section 15.2) should include:
(1) A plan for periodic, results-oriented evaluations of the effectiveness of the program, and the use of relevant program evaluations and/or other analyses of program effectiveness or causes of escalating program costs. A program evaluation is a formal assessment, through objective measurement and systematic analysis, addressing the manner and extent to which credit programs achieve intended objectives. This information should be contained in agencies' annual performance plans submitted to OMB. (For further detail on program evaluation, refer to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and related guidance);
(2) A review of the changes in financial markets and the status of borrowers and beneficiaries to verify that continuation of the credit program is required to meet Federal objectives, to update its justification, and to recommend changes in its design and operation to improve efficiency and effectiveness; and
(3) Proposed changes to correct those cases where existing legislation, regulations, or program policies are not in conformity with the policies of this Section II. When an agency does not deem a change in existing legislation, regulations, or program policies to be desirable, it will provide a justification for retaining the non-conformance.
1.
b.
Processing of applications shall be suspended when applicants are delinquent on Federal tax or non-tax debts, including judgment liens against property for a debt to the Federal Government, and are therefore not eligible to receive Federal loans, loan guarantees or insurance. (See 31 U.S.C. 3720B regarding non-tax debts.) This provision does not apply to disaster loans. Agencies should review and comply with 31 U.S.C. 3720B and 31 CFR 285.13 before extending credit. Processing should continue only when the debtor satisfactorily resolves the debts (
c.
d.
e.
2.
3.
a.
(1) Agencies should require that all appraisals be consistent with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. Agencies shall prescribe additional appraisal standards as appropriate.
(2) Agencies should ensure that a State licensed or certified appraiser prepares an appraisal for all credit transactions over $100,000 ($250,000 for business loans).
(This does not include loans with no cash out and those transactions where the collateral is not a major factor in the decision to extend credit).
Agencies shall determine which of these transactions, because of the size and/or complexity, must be performed by a State licensed or certified appraiser. Agencies may also designate direct or guaranteed loan transactions under $100,000 ($250,000 for business loans) that require the services of a State licensed or certified appraiser.
b.
c.
d.
1.
(1) Requirements that the lender is not currently debarred/suspended from participation in a Government contract or delinquent on a Government debt;
(2) Qualification requirements for principal officers and staff of the lender;
(3) Fidelity/surety bonding and/or errors and omissions insurance with the Federal Government as a loss payee, where appropriate, for new or non-regulated lenders or lenders with questionable performance under Federal guarantee programs;
(4) Financial and capital requirements for lenders not regulated by a Federal financial institution regulatory agency, including minimum net worth requirements based on business volume.
b.
c.
d.
(1) Significant and/or continuing non-conformance with agency standards; and/or
(2) Failure to meet financial and capital requirements or other eligibility criteria.
Agency procedures should define the process and establish timetables by which decertified lenders can apply for reinstatement of eligibility for Federal guaranteed loan programs.
e.
2.
a.
(1) Requirements for lender eligibility, including participation criteria, eligibility reviews, fees, and decertification (see
(2) Agency and lender responsibilities for sharing the risk of loan defaults (see
(3) Maximum delinquency, default and claims rates for lenders, taking into account individual program characteristics.
b.
Agencies should ensure, through the claims review process, that lenders have met these standards prior to making a claim payment. Agencies should reduce claim amounts or reject claims for lender non-performance.
c.
(1)
(2)
Agencies may have several sources for such data, but some or all of the information may best be obtained from lenders and servicers. Lender agreements should require lenders to report necessary information on a quarterly basis (or other reporting period based on the level of lending and payment activity).
d.
3.
Reviews should be conducted biennially where possible; however, agencies should conduct annual on-site reviews all lenders and servicers with substantial loan volume or whose:
a. Financial performance measures indicate a deterioration in their guaranteed loan portfolio;
b. Portfolio has a high level of defaults for guaranteed loans less than one year old;
c. Overall default rates rise above acceptable levels; and/or
d. Poor performance results in collecting monetary penalties or an abnormally high number of reduced or rejected claims.
Agencies are encouraged to develop a lender/servicer classification system which assigns a risk rating based on the above factors. This risk rating can be used to establish priorities for on-site reviews and monitor the effectiveness of required corrective actions.
Reviews should be conducted by guarantor agency program compliance staff, Inspector General staff, and/or independent auditors. Where possible, agencies with similar programs should coordinate their reviews to minimize the burden on lenders/servicers and maximize use of scarce resources. Agencies should also utilize the monitoring efforts of GSEs and similar organizations for guaranteed loans that have been “pooled”.
4.
Agencies must service and collect debts, including defaulted guaranteed loans they have acquired, in a manner that best protects the value of the assets. Mechanisms must be in place to collect and record payments and provide accounting and management information for effective stewardship. Agencies should collect data on the status of their portfolios on a monthly basis although they are only required to report quarterly. These servicing activities can be carried out by the agency, or by third parties (such as private lenders or guaranty agencies), or a contract with a private sector firm. Unless otherwise exempt, the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA), codified at 31 U.S.C. 3711, requires Federal agencies to transfer any non-tax debt which is over 180 days delinquent to the Department of the Treasury/FMS for debt collection action (31 CFR Part 285). Under certain conditions, it may be advantageous to sell loans or other debts to avoid the necessity of debt servicing.
1. Accounting and Financial Reporting:
a.
b.
Agencies are also required to report periodically to Treasury on the status and condition of their non-tax delinquent portfolio on the TROR. Due to a timing difference between the submissions of fiscal year-end data for the TROR, and data used for agency financial statements (the fiscal year-end receivables report is due in November and agency financial statements are not due until February/March of the following year), the data in these two reports may not be identical. Agencies should be able to explain differences and show the relationship of information contained in the two reports, but the reports are not required to reconcile.
2.
a.
b.
c.
d.
a. The DCIA, as codified at 31 U.S.C. 3711(i) authorizes agencies to sell any non-tax debt owed to the United States that is more than 90 days delinquent, subject to the provisions of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The Administration's budget policy is that agencies are required to sell any non-tax debts that are delinquent for more than one year for which collection action has been terminated, if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the sale is in the best interest of the United States Government. Agencies are required to sell the debts for cash or a combination of cash and profit participation, if such an arrangement is more advantageous to the government, and make the sales without recourse. Loan sales should result in shifting agency staff resources from servicing to mission critical functions.
Beginning in FY 2000, for programs with $100 million in assets (unpaid principal balance) that are delinquent for more than two years, the agency is expected to dispose of assets expeditiously. (See OMB Circular No. A-11.) Agencies may request from OMB, an exception for the following:
(1) Loans to foreign countries and entities;
(2) Loans in structured forbearance, when conversion to repayment status is expected within 24 months or after statutory requirements are met;
(3) Loans that are written off as unenforceable
(4) Loans that have been submitted to Treasury for offset and are expected to be extinguished within three (3) years;
(5) Loans in adjudication or foreclosure; and
(6) Student loans.
Agencies shall provide to OMB an annual list of loans that are exempted.
b.
(1)
(2)
(3)
c.
d.
Agencies shall have a fair but aggressive program to recover delinquent debt, including defaulted guaranteed loans acquired by the Federal Government. Each agency will establish a collection strategy consistent with its statutory authority that seeks to return the debtor to a current payment status or, failing that, maximize collection on the debt.
The Federal Claims Collections Standards define delinquent debt in general terms. Agency regulations may further define delinquency to meet specific types of debt or program requirements.
a.
b.
c.
Agencies shall promptly act on the collection of delinquent debts, using all available collection tools to maximize collections. Agencies shall transfer debts delinquent 180 days or more to the Treasury/FMS or Treasury-designated debt collection centers for further collection actions and resolution. Exceptions to this requirement (
a.
b.
(i)
For consumer accounts, the first demand letter or initial billing notice should include the 60 day notification requirement of the agency's intent to refer to a credit bureau. Once the 60 day period has passed, the agency should initiate reporting if the account has not been resolved. This will also enable uninterrupted reporting to credit bureaus by cross-servicing agencies. The 60 day notification of intent to refer to a credit bureau is not required for commercial accounts. (See Treasury/FMS' Guide to the Federal Credit Bureau Program.)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
c.
(i)
(ii)
Once Treasury has received a debt for servicing, the appropriate debt collection actions will be taken. These actions may include sending demand letters; phone calls to delinquent debtors; credit bureau reporting; referring debtors to the Treasury Offset Program; referring debtors to private collection agencies; administrative wage garnishment; and any other available debt collection tool.
Agencies, including Treasury/FMS or Treasury-designated debt collection centers, shall refer delinquent accounts to the Department of Justice, or use other litigation authority that may be available, as soon as there is sufficient reason to conclude that full or partial recovery of the debt can best be achieved through litigation. Referrals to Justice should be made in accordance with the Federal Claims Collection Standards. If the debtor does not come forward with a voluntary payment after the claim has been referred for litigation, a lawsuit shall be initiated promptly.
1. In consultation with the Department of Justice, agencies shall establish a system to account for: (a) Claims referred to Justice, and (b) claims closed by Justice and returned to the respective agencies.
2. Agencies shall accelerate claim referrals to the Department of Justice in those districts where the Department of Justice contracts with private law firms for debt collection.
3. Agencies shall stop the use of any collection activities including TOP and refrain from further contact with the debtor once a claim has been referred to the Department of Justice, unless the Department of Justice agrees to allow the debtor(s) to remain in TOP for offset while they pursue other legal remedies.
4. Agencies shall promptly notify the Department of Justice of any payments received on a debtor's account after referral of the claim for litigation.
5. The Department of Justice shall account to agencies for monies or property collected on claims referred by the agencies.
Agencies may compromise a debt within their jurisdiction when the principal balance of the debt is less than $100,000 (or any higher amount authorized by the U.S. Attorney General). Unless otherwise provided by law, when the principal balance of the debt is greater than $100,000 (or any higher amount authorized by the U.S. Attorney General), the compromise authority rests with the Department of Justice. 31 CFR Part 902.
Agencies may terminate collection on a debt within their jurisdiction when the principal balance of the debt is less than $100,000 (or any higher amount authorized by the U.S. Attorney General). Unless otherwise provided by law, when the principal balance of the debt is greater than $100,000 (or any higher amount authorized by the U.S. Attorney General), the authority to terminate rests with the Department of Justice. (See 31 CFR Part 902.)
Interest, penalties and administrative costs should be added to all debts unless a specific statute, regulation, loan agreement, contract, or court order prohibits such charges or sets criteria for their assessment. Agencies shall assess late payment interest on delinquent debts. Further, agencies shall assess a penalty charge of not more than six percent (6%) per year for failure to pay a debt more than ninety (90) days past due, unless a statute, regulation required by statute, loan agreement, or contract prohibits charging interest or assessing charges or explicitly fixes the interest rate or charges. (See 31 U.S.C. 3717 (e) and (g)). A debt is delinquent when the scheduled payment is not paid in full by the payment due date contained in the initial demand letter or by the date specified in the applicable agreement or instrument. Agencies shall assess administrative costs to cover the cost of processing and handling delinquent debt. Agencies must adjust the interest rate on delinquent debt to conform with the rate established by a U.S. Court when a judgment has been obtained.
All debt must be adequately reserved for in the allowance account. All write-offs must be made through the allowance account. Under no circumstances are debts to be written off directly to expense. Generally, write-off is mandatory for delinquent debt older than two years unless documented and justified to OMB in consultation with Treasury. Once the debt is written-off, the agency must either classify the debt as currently not collectible (CNC) or close-out the debt. Cost effective collection efforts should continue, specifically, if an agency determines that continued collection efforts after mandatory write-off are likely to yield higher returns. In such cases the written-off debt is not closed out but classified as CNC. The collection process continues until the agency determines it is no longer cost effective to pursue collection. At that point, the debt should be closed-out.
Under no circumstances should internal controls be compromised by the write-off or reclassification of debt. Very small percentages of debt older than two years can frequently result in amounts that, while immaterial to the overall debt and write-off balances, are large enough to pose a risk of fraud and abuse. If collection efforts are on-going then adequate internal controls must be maintained.
In those cases where material collections can be documented to occur after two years, debt cannot be written off until the estimated collections become immaterial.
During the period debts are classified as CNC, agencies should maintain the debt for administrative offset and other collection tools, as described in the FCCS until: (1) The debt is paid; (2) the debt is closed out; or (3) all collection actions are legally precluded; or (4) the debt is sold, whichever occurs first. When an agency closes out a debt, the agency must file a Form 1099C with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and notifiy the debtor in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. 6050P and IRS regulations 26 CFR 1.6050P-1. The 1099C reports the uncollectible debt as income to the debtor which may be taxable at the debtor's current tax rate. Reporting the discharge of indebtedness to the IRS results in a potential benefit to the Federal Government, because any payments made to the IRS augment government receipts. Agencies should report closed-out debts on the Treasury Report on Receivables Due from the Public (TROR). Agencies must stop all collection activity, including the sale of debts, once debts are closed out. Agencies must not close out debts which have been sold or are scheduled to be sold.
“Termination” and “suspension of collection” are legal procedures, which are separate and distinct from the accounting procedure of “write-off.” Agencies shall consult the Federal Claims Collection Standards, Part 903 for requirements which must be met prior to terminating or suspending collection. (See the attached Write-off/Close-out Process Flowchart for Receivables.)
The following checklist provides guidelines to be followed in reviewing credit program legislation, testimony, and budget submissions.
The checklist is to be used by agencies and OMB in proposing legislation, reviewing credit proposals, and preparing testimony on credit activities. If the proposed provisions or language are not in conformity with the policies of this Circular as listed in these checklists, agencies will be required to request in writing that the Office of Management and Budget modify or waive the requirement. Waiver request forms are available from OMB for this purpose. Such requests will identify the modification(s) or waiver(s) requested, and also will state the reasons for the request and the time period for which the exception is required. Exceptions, when allowed, will ordinarily be granted only for a limited time, in order to allow for continuing review by OMB.
Agencies are to use the checklist in the budget submission process for the evaluation of existing legislation, regulations, or program policies. The OMB program examiner with primary responsibility for the credit account will determine the use of this checklist. Use of the list includes review of changes in financial markets and the status of borrowers and beneficiaries to ensure that Federal objectives require continuation of the credit program. If these policies are found to be not in conformity with the policies of this Circular, agencies will propose changes to correct the inconsistency in their annual budget submission and justification to OMB and the Congress. When an agency does not deem a change in existing legislation, regulations, or policies to be desirable, it will provide a justification for retaining the existing non-conforming legislation or policies in its budget submission to OMB at the request of the budget examiner.
1. Program title: ____
2. Form of Assistance (direct or guarantee): ___
3. Federal objectives of this program: (II.1.a.).
4. Reasons why Federal credit assistance is the best means to achieve these objectives: (II.1.a.).
5. Any draft bill establishing a credit program should contain the following:
6. Describe briefly the existing and potential private sources of credit (and type of institution): (I.1.a.(2)(a)).
7. Explain reasons why private sources of financing and their terms and conditions must be supplemented and subsidized, including:
• To correct a defined capital market imperfection;
• To subsidize identified borrowers or other beneficiaries; and/or
• To encourage certain specified activities. (II.1.a.(1)).
8. State reasons why a federal credit subsidy is the most efficient way of providing assistance, how it provides assistance in overcoming market imperfections, and how it assists the identified borrowers or beneficiaries or encourages the identified activities. (II.1.b.).
9. Summarize briefly the benefits expected from the program. Can the value of these benefits (or some of these benefits) be estimated in dollar terms? If so, state the estimate of their value. Further information on conducting cost-benefit analysis can be found in OMB Circular No. A-94. (II.1.c.).
10. Describe any elements of program design which encourage and supplement private lending activity, such that private lending is displaced to the smallest degree possible by agency programs. (II.1.d.).
11. Estimate the expected administrative (including origination, servicing, and collection) resource requirements and costs of the credit program (dollar amounts over next 5 fiscal years). (II.1.f.).
12. Prohibitions: (II.2.c.&d.).
Risk sharing: (II.3.a.).
• Lenders and borrowers share a substantial stake in full repayment according to the loan contract.
• Private lenders who extend Government guaranteed credit bear at least 20 percent of any potential losses.
• Borrowers deemed to pose less of a risk receive a lower guarantee as a percentage of the total loan amount.
• Borrowers have an equity interest in any asset being financed by the credit assistance.
Fees and interest rates: (II.3.b).
• Interest and fees are set at levels that minimize default and other subsidy costs.
• Interest rates charged to borrowers (or interest supplements) not set at an absolute level, but instead set by reference to the rate (yield) on benchmark Treasury.
Protecting the Government's interest:
• Contractual agreements include all covenants and restrictions (
• Maturities on loans shorter than the estimated useful economic life of any assets financed. (II.3.c.(1)).
• The Government's claims on assets not subordinated to the claim of other lenders in the case of a borrower's default. (II.3.c.(2)).
• Loan contracts to be standardized and private sector documents used to the extent possible. (II.3.f.).
13. Describe the methods used to evaluate the program and the results of evaluations that have been made. (II.4.c.(1)).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That, this Act may be cited as “ ”.
Sec. 2.(a) The Administrator is authorized to make or guarantee loans to * * * (Define eligible applicants).
(b) There are authorized to be appropriated $___ for the cost of direct loans or loan guarantees authorized in subsection (1) and $___ for administrative expenses for fiscal year ___ and such sums as shall be necessary for each fiscal year thereafter. [The amounts authorized must be consistent with the amounts proposed in the President's budget for that fiscal year. Generally, a specific amount should be specified for the first fiscal year and sums for subsequent fiscal years (see OMB Circular No. A-19.)]
Within the resources and authority available, gross obligations for the principal amount of direct loans offered by the Administrator will not exceed $___ , or the amount specified in appropriations acts for fiscal year ___ and such sums as shall be necessary for each fiscal year thereafter. Commitments to guarantee loans may be made by the Administrator only to the extent that the total loan principal, any part of which is guaranteed, will not exceed $___ , or the amount specified in appropriations acts for fiscal year ___ and such sums as shall be necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.
Sec. 3. Loans made or guaranteed under this Act will be on such terms and conditions as the Administrator may prescribe, except that:
(a) The Administrator will allow credit to any prospective borrower only when it is necessary to alleviate a credit market imperfection, or when it is necessary to achieve specified Federal objectives by providing a credit subsidy and a credit subsidy is the most efficient way to meet those objectives on a borrower-by-borrower basis.
(b) The final maturity of loans made or guaranteed within a period shall not exceed ___ years, or ___ percent of the useful life of any physical asset to be financed by the loan, whichever is less as determined by the Administrator.
(c) No loan guaranteed to any one borrower will exceed 80% of the loss on the loan. Borrowers who are deemed to pose less of a risk will receive a lower guarantee as a percentage of the loan amount.
(d) No loan made or guaranteed will be subordinated to another debt contracted by the borrower or to any other claims against the borrowers in the case of default.
(e) No loan will be guaranteed unless the Administrator determines that the lender is responsible and that adequate provision is made for servicing the loan on reasonable terms and protecting the financial interest of the United States.
(f) No loan will be guaranteed if the income from such loan is excluded from gross income for the purposes of Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or if the guarantee provides significant collateral or security, as determined by the Administrator, for other obligations the income from which is so excluded.
(g) Direct loans and interest supplements on guaranteed loans will be at an interest rate that is set by reference to a benchmark interest rate (yield) on marketable Treasury securities with a similar maturity to the direct loans being made or the non-Federal loans being guaranteed. The minimum interest rate of these loans will be (at) (___ percent above) (no more than ___ percent below) the interest rate of the benchmark financial instrument.
(h) The minimum interest rate of new loans will be adjusted every quarter (month(s)) (weeks) (days) to take account of changes in the interest rate of the benchmark financial instrument. (see
(i) Fees or premiums for loan guarantee or insurance coverage will be set at levels that minimize the cost to the Government (as defined in Section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended) of such coverage, while supporting achievement of the program's objectives. The minimum guarantee fee or insurance premium will be (at) (no more than ___ percent below) the level sufficient to cover the agency's costs for paying all of the estimated costs to the Government of the expected default claims and other obligations. Loan guarantee fees will be reviewed every ___ month(s) to ensure that the fees assessed on new loan guarantees are at a level sufficient to cover the referenced percentage of the agency's most recent estimates of its costs.
(j) Any guarantee will be conclusive evidence that said guarantee has been properly obtained; that the underlying loan qualified for such guarantee; and that, but for fraud or material misrepresentation by the holder, such guarantee will be presumed to be valid, legal, and enforceable.
(k) The Administrator will prescribe explicit standards for use in periodically assessing the credit risk of new and existing direct loans or guaranteed loans. The Administrator must find that there is a reasonable assurance of repayment before extending credit assistance.
(l) New direct loans may not be obligated and new loan guarantees may not be committed except to the extent that appropriations of budget authority to cover their costs are made in advance, as required in Section 504 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended.
Sec. 4(a). If, as a result of a default by a borrower under a guaranteed loan, after the holder thereof has made such further collection efforts and instituted such enforcement proceedings as the Administrator may require, the Administrator determines that the holder has suffered a loss, the Administrator will pay to such holder ___ percent of such loss, as specified in the guarantee contract. Upon making any such payment, the Administrator will be subrogated to all the rights of the recipient of the payment. The Administrator will be entitled to recover from the borrower the amount of any payments made pursuant to any guarantee entered into under this Act.
(b) The Attorney General will take such action as may be appropriate to enforce any right accruing to the United States as a result of the issuance of any guarantee under this Act.
(c) Nothing in this section will be construed to preclude any forbearance for the benefit of the borrower which may be agreed upon by the parties to the guaranteed loan and approved by the Administrator, provided that budget authority for any resulting subsidy costs as defined under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended, is available.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of law relating to the acquisition, handling, or disposal of property by the United States, the Administrator will have the right in his discretion to complete, recondition, reconstruct, renovate, repair, maintain, operate, or sell any property acquired by him pursuant to the provisions of this Act.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice of funding availability (NOFA).
This NOFA announces the availability of approximately $3.0 million for the Community Development Work Study Program (CDWSP).
The information collection requirements contained in this NOFA have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB Control Number 2528-0175. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays a valid control number.
Up to $3 million, plus any additional funds recaptured from prior appropriations.
CDWSP funds two-year grants to institutions of higher education, area-wide planning organizations, and States to provide assistance to economically disadvantaged and minority graduate students who participate in a community development work study program and are enrolled full-time in a graduate community building academic degree program. Grants will cover the academic period August 2001 through August 2003.
You must demonstrate that you are eligible to apply for the program. You are an eligible applicant if (a) you are an institution of higher education offering graduate degrees in a community development academic program, (b) an Area-wide Planning Organization (APO) applying on behalf of two or more eligible institutions of higher education located in the same SMSA or non-SMSA as the APO (as a result of a final rule for the program published at 24 CFR 570.415, institutions of higher education are permitted to choose whether to apply independently or through an APO); or (c) a State applying on behalf of two or more eligible institutions of higher education located in the State. If a State is approved for funding, institutions of higher education located in the State are not eligible recipients.
You may request no more than $15,000 per year per student, for a total of two years. The total is broken down as follows: An administrative allowance of $1,000 per student per year; a work stipend of no more than $9,000 per student per year; and tuition, fees, and additional support of no more than $5,000 per student per year.
You must comply with all statutory and regulatory requirements applicable to this program. CDWSP regulations can be found at 24 CFR part 570.415. Copies of the regulations are available on request from HUD User.
An eligible community building academic degree program includes but is not limited to graduate degree programs in community and economic development, community planning, community management, public administration, public policy, urban economics, urban management, and
You are encouraged to contact Jane Karadbil at the above listed telephone number if you have any questions about eligibility of a proposed degree program.
You are not required to respond to HUD's affirmatively furthering fair housing requirements.
Two types of reviews will be conducted—a threshold review to determine applicant eligibility and a rating based on the selection criteria for all applications that pass the threshold review.
(1)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
To review and rate applications, the Department may establish panels including persons not currently employed by HUD to obtain certain expertise and outside points of view, including views from other Federal agencies. You will be evaluated competitively and ranked against all other applicants that have applied for the same funding program.
The factors for rating and ranking your application, and maximum points for each factor, are provided below. The maximum number of points for each program is 100. The rating of your organization and staff, unless otherwise specified, will include any sub-contractors, consultants, sub-recipients, and members of consortia that are firmly committed to your project, to the extent of their participation.
(1)
HUD will evaluate the quality of the academic program you offer (or in the case of an application from an APO or State, those offered by the institutions included in your application) including, without limitation, the:
(i) Quality of your course offerings in terms of their depth, sophistication, quality, and emphasis on applied coursework;
(ii) Appropriateness of your course offerings for preparing students for careers in community building; and
(iii) Qualifications of your faculty and percentage of their time devoted to teaching and research in community building.
(2)
HUD will evaluate the extent to which participating students will receive a sufficient number and variety of work placement assignments, the assignments will provide practical and useful experience to students participating in your program, and the assignments will further the participating students' preparation for professional careers in community building. In applying this factor, HUD will consider the quality in terms of relevance to community building and variety of work placement agencies and the quality and variety of projects/experiences at each agency and overall. You must have a plan for rotating students among work placement agencies. In order to receive full points on this factor, you must propose at least three different work placement experiences (typically, one each school year and one during the summer between the two school years.) Students engaging in community building projects
(3)
HUD will evaluate the degree to which you will be able to coordinate and administer your program. HUD will
(i) The strength and clarity of your plan for placing CDWSP students on rotating work placement assignments and for monitoring CDWSP students' progress both academically and in their work placement assignments;
(ii) The degree to which the individual who will coordinate and administer your program has clear responsibility, ample available time, and sufficient authority to do so;
(iii) The effectiveness of your prior coordination and administration of a CDWSP-funded program, where applicable (including the timeliness and completeness of your compliance with CDWSP reporting requirements). In addressing the timeliness of reports, you should review your prior CDWSP grant agreements and reports and compare when reports were due with when the reports actually were submitted. A chart of your report submissions for each grant by submission time should be included. You should also describe your timeliness in drawing down grant funds.
(4)
HUD will evaluate your commitment to meeting the needs of economically disadvantaged and minority students as demonstrated by your policies and plans, and past efforts and successes in, recruiting, enrolling and financially assisting economically disadvantaged and minority students, including the provision of reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. If you are an APO or State, HUD will consider the demonstrated commitment of each institution of higher education on whose behalf you are applying; HUD will also consider your demonstrated commitment to recruit and hire economically disadvantaged and minority students.
(5)
HUD will evaluate the rates of students previously enrolled in a community building academic degree program, specifically (where applicable) graduation rates from any previously funded CDWSP academic programs or similar programs. This factor measures the rate of graduation for all applicable years and awards points based on the extent to which the applicant exceeds a 50% graduation rate each applicable year.
(6)
HUD will evaluate your commitment and ability to assure that CDWSP students will receive sufficient financial assistance above and beyond the CDWSP funding to complete their academic program in a timely manner and without working in excess of 20 hours a week during the school year. When addressing this issue, you should, among other responsive information, delineate the full costs budgeted annually for a student (including living expenses, fees, etc), explain the basis for your budget and explain how the financial assistance package you will offer to each CDWSP student will meet that budget. You should have an adequate means of addressing reasonable variations in budget needs among students and for addressing emergency financial needs of students.
(7)
HUD will evaluate the extent to which your proposed program will lead participating students directly and immediately to permanent employment in community building, as indicated by:
(i) Your past success in placing your graduates (particularly CDWSP-funded and similar program graduates, where applicable) in permanent employment in community building; and
(ii) The amount of faculty/staff time and resources you devote to assisting students (particularly students in CDWSP-funded and similar programs, where applicable) in finding permanent employment in community building.
Your application should include an original and two copies of the items listed below. In order to be able to recycle paper, you should not submit applications in bound form; binder clips or loose leaf binders are acceptable. Also, please do not use colored paper.
(1) Transmittal Letter, which must be signed by your Chief Executive Officer, or his or her designee. If a designee signs, your application must contain a copy of the official delegation of signatory authority. The letter must contain an assurance that you were not awarded a CDWSP grant in Fiscal Year 1998 (which was to cover the school years August 1998 to August 2000) or were awarded a Fiscal Year 1998 grant and had a 50 percent or higher rate of graduation of CDWSP students funded through the grant.
(2) Designation of your degree program(s) under which students will be educated.
(3) Executive Summary.
(4) Narrative statement addressing the Factors for Award in Section V. No attachments are permitted.
(5) Management/Work Plan.
(6) Recipient/Student Binding Agreement. HUD does not provide a model or sample format for this document.
(7) Recipient/Work Placement Agreement. HUD does not provide a model or sample format for this document. If you include executed agreements with your application, they belong here.
(8) Budget. Using the forms provided for the August 2001 through August 2003 funding period.
(9) Application for Federal Assistance (HUD-424).
(10) Standard Form for Assurances—Non-Construction Programs (SF-424B).
(11) Drug-Free Workplace Certification (HUD-50070).
(12) Certification of Payments to Influence Transactions (Form HUD-50071).
(13) Applicant/Recipient Disclosure Update Report (HUD-2880).
(14) Assurance regarding the applicant's financial management systems.
If your application passes the threshold requirements, it will be rated and then ranked based on its total score on the selection factors. Your application will be considered for selection based on its rank order. HUD may make awards out of rank order to achieve geographic diversity, and may provide assistance to support a number of students that is less than the number requested under your application or a lower funding level per student, in order to provide assistance to as many highly ranked applications as possible.
If there is a tie in the point scores of two applications, the rank order will be determined by the scores on the selection factor entitled “Quality of the Academic Program.” The application with the most points on this factor will be given the higher rank. If there is still a tie, the rank order will be determined by the applicants' scores on the selection factor entitled “Effectiveness of program administration.” The application with the most points for this
If there are insufficient funds to fund an application, even if the request is reduced to the minimum number of students which could be funded (i.e., three students per institution of higher education), HUD may select the next ranked application which would not exceed the funding left available and still fund the minimum number of students allowed.
HUD reserves the right to make selections out of rank order to provide for geographic distribution of funded CDWSPs. If HUD decides to use this option, it will do so only if two adjacent HUD (Hubs) (formerly referred to as regions) do not yield at least one fundable CDWSP on the basis of rank order. If this occurs, HUD will fund the highest ranking applicant within the two Hubs.
HUD reserves the right to reduce your amount of funding in order to fund as many highly ranked applications as possible. Additionally, if funds remain after funding the highest ranked application, HUD may fund part of the next highest ranking application (as long as it would provide assistance to the minimum number of students required to be served) in a given program area. If you turn down the award offer, HUD will make the same determination for the next highest-ranking application. If funds remain after all selections have been made, the remaining will be carried over to the next funding cycle's competition.
After selections have been made, HUD may require winners to participate in negotiations to determine the Grant Budget. In cases where HUD cannot successfully conclude negotiations, or you fail to provide HUD with requested information, an award will not be made. In such instances, HUD may elect to offer an award to the next highest ranking applicant, and proceed with negotiations with the next highest applicant.
After the application due date, HUD may not, consistent with its regulations in 24 CFR part 4, subpart B, consider any unsolicited information you, the applicant, may want to provide. HUD may contact you, however, to clarify an item in your application or to correct technical deficiencies. You should note, however, that HUD may not seek clarification of items or responses that improve the substantive quality of your response to any selection factors. In order not to unreasonably exclude applications from being rated and ranked, HUD may, however, contact applicants to ensure proper completion of the application and will do so on a uniform basis for all applicants. Examples of curable (correctable) technical deficiencies include your failure to submit the proper certifications or your failure to submit an application that contains an original signature by an authorized official. In each case, HUD will notify you in writing by describing the clarification or technical deficiency. HUD will notify applicants by facsimile or by return receipt requested. You must submit clarifications or corrections of technical deficiencies in accordance with the information provided by HUD within 14 calendar days of the date of receipt of the HUD notification. If your deficiency is not corrected within this time period, HUD will reject your application as incomplete, and it will not be considered for funding.
This NOFA does not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Accordingly, under 24 CFR 50.19(c)(1), this NOFA is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321) and no Finding of No Significant Impact is needed. In addition, the provision of assistance under this NOFA is categorically excluded from environmental review under § 50.19(b)(3) and (b)(9).
This notice does not have federalism implications and does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”).
Applicants for funding under this NOFA (except Indian Housing Authorities established by tribal governments exercising their sovereign powers with respect to expenditures specifically permitted by Federal law) are subject to the provision of Section 319 of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1991, 31 U.S.C. 1352 (the Byrd Amendment) and to the provisions of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Public Law 104-65 (December 19, 1995).
The Byrd Amendment, which is implemented in regulations at 24 CFR part 87, prohibits applicants for Federal contracts and grants from using appropriated funds to attempt to influence Federal Executive or legislative officers or employees in connection with obtaining such assistance, or with its extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification. The Byrd Amendment applies to the funds that are the subject of this NOFA. Therefore, applicants must file a certification stating that they have not made and will not make any prohibited payments and, if any payments or agreement to make payments of nonappropriated funds for these purposes have been made, a form SF-LLL disclosing such payments must be submitted. The certification and the SF-LLL are included in the application kit.
The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Public Law 104-65 (December 19, 1995), which repealed section 112 of the HUD Reform Act and resulted in elimination of the regulations at 24 CFR part 86, requires all persons and entities who lobby covered Executive or Legislative Branch officials to register with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives and file reports concerning their lobbying activities.
Section 102 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (HUD Reform Act) and the final rule codified at 24 CFR part 4, subpart A, published on April 1, 1996 (61 FR 1448), contain a number of provisions that are designed to ensure greater accountability and integrity in the provision of certain types of assistance administered by HUD. On January 14, 1992, HUD published, at 57 FR 1942, a notice that also provides information on the implementation of section 102. The documentation, public access, and disclosure requirements of section 102 are applicable to assistance awarded under this NOFA as follows:
(1)
(2)
HUD's regulations implementing section 103 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (42 U.S.C. 3537a), codified in 24 CFR part 4, apply to this funding competition. The regulations continue to apply until the announcement of the selection of successful applicants. HUD employees involved in the review of applications and in the making of funding decisions are limited by regulations from providing advance information to any person (other than an authorized employee of HUD) concerning funding decisions, or from otherwise giving any applicant an unfair competitive advantage. Persons who apply for assistance in this competition should confine their inquiries to the subject areas permitted under 24 CFR part 4.
Applicants or employees who have ethics-related questions, such as whether particular subject matter can be discussed with persons outside the Department, should contact HUD's Ethics Law Division (202) 708-3815 (voice), (202) 708-1112 (TTY). (These are not toll-free numbers.) For HUD employees who have specific program questions, the employee should contact the appropriate Field Office Counsel or Headquarters Counsel for the program to which the question pertains.
The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance number is: 14.234.
Section 107(c) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5301