Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Navy Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Care Financing Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
Internal Revenue Service
Public Debt Bureau
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with a memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
The effective date of the final rule amending 14 CFR part 405 and revising 14 CFR part 406 published in the
Mardi Ruth Thompson, Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC-200A), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591: telephone (202) 267-3073, facsimile (202) 267-5106, or e-mail:
In accordance with a memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. section 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the FAA's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
Postal Service.
Final rule.
The Postal Service is revising U.S. Postal Service Standard 7A,
This rule shall be effective on February 8, 2001.
Annamarie Gildea, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 7142, Washington, DC 20260-1127. (202) 268-3558.
The revised standard, which shall be designated U.S. Postal Service Standard 7B,
Changes incorporated in the proposed new standard include the following:
1. Eliminated the requirement that “Traditional” mailboxes must be built in conformance with USPS drawings (formerly designated T1, T2, & T3). All three USPS drawings were eliminated and replaced with a new figure, which gives manufacturers more design flexibility.
2. Removed all requirements to comply with military and federal specifications and standards.
3. Deleted flammability, solar exposure, and color intensity test requirements that were determined to be invalid or unnecessary.
4. Dropped requirement that manufacturers comply with the National Motor Freight Classification Rule 222.
5. Introduced a new “Locked” mailbox classification with two new figures. This design will provide customers with an option to purchase mailboxes that offer increased security for their mail.
6. Incorporated quality assurance provisions.
7. Added a figure depicting three new alternative flag designs.
8. Included new guidelines and a figure for acceptable door handle/knob designs.
9. Clarified application requirements and introduced independent laboratory testing.
The Postal Service makes this revision after consideration of the single substantive comment submitted in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in Vol. 65
Although the commenter recommends that retrofit locking devices be permitted only if they do not otherwise violate any provision of the new standard, the Postal Service and the Consensus Committee have concluded that the recommended modification should not be made.
The Postal Service has evaluated numerous locking devices intended to be retrofitted on customers' curbside mailboxes. In every case, mailboxes equipped with those devices required significant additional carrier effort. In addition, all were susceptible to incorrect homeowner installation and/or incorrect operation by carriers. These pervasive problems would decrease the effectiveness of mail security afforded by these devices and increase the operational difficulty of servicing mailboxes equipped with those devices. For these reasons, the Postal Service has consistently determined that retrofit locking devices should not be permitted on curbside mailboxes, and all members of the Committee opposed adoption of the change recommended by the commenter.
In response to concerns about mail security, the Consensus Committee recommended new design requirements for locked mailboxes. The new locked mailboxes permitted under the revised standard will not present any of the inherent problems associated with retrofit locking devices, and will provide increased mail security to customers.
The re-approval process for manufacturers with mailbox designs that were approved before the final publication date of USPS STD 7B will be conducted as follows. The approval process for all other mailbox designs will be conducted in accordance with USPS STD 7B, part 5.
1. The USPS will notify currently approved manufacturers within five business days after final publication of USPS STD 7B in the
2. Manufacturers will have 90 days after receipt of this notification to submit a sample of each of their previously approved mailboxes. In addition, manufacturers shall submit their quality assurance manual, and each mailbox must be accompanied with a compliance certificate, one set of drawings, product information, and instructions. Mailboxes will be tested on a first-come, first-served basis.
3. If a previously approved mailbox is not submitted within the 90-day period, it will automatically lose its approval status. A manufacturer may receive an extension of up to 45 days, provided reasonable justification is demonstrated to the USPS. Manufacturers seeking an extension must write to: ATTN: Delivery & Retail Systems, USPS Information Platform, 8403 Lee Hwy, Merrifield VA 22082-8101.
4. The USPS will have up to 90 days to respond to submissions, during which time manufacturers can continue to sell their mailboxes.
5. If a submitted mailbox does not pass the revised standard's requirements, the manufacturer may make modifications and re-submit their mailbox one additional time. The manufacturer will have 45 days after the date of USPS's notice of denial of the manufacturer's first application to submit a second sample. Should the second sample fail testing, the manufacturer has up to 180 days from notification of failure to cease selling it. The manufacturer is also to cease production immediately and use the 180 days to deplete existing inventory.
6. If a mailbox fails two testing attempts, manufacturers may still make modifications and re-submit in accordance with the new application requirements specified in the revised standard. However, the conditions identified in #5 above remain in effect.
Postal Service.
5 U.S.C. § 552(a), 39 U.S.C. §§ 101, 401, 403, 404, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.
2. Revise USPS STD 7A as set forth below:
USPS-STD-7B.
February 8, 2001.
Supersedes Rev A.
Dated: December 17, 1992.
This standard covers all curbside mailboxes. Curbside mailboxes are defined as any design made to be served by a carrier from a vehicle on any city, rural or highway contract route. This standard is not applicable to mailboxes intended for door delivery service (see 6.1).
Based on their size and design, curbside mailboxes are classified as either:
Manufacturers whose mailboxes have been approved by the United States Postal Service (USPS) will be listed in the Postal Operations Manual (POM) and published in the Postal Bulletin.
Manufacturing standards and current information concerning the manufacture of curbside mailboxes may be obtained by writing to: USPS, Information Platform, Delivery & Retail Operation Equipment, 8403 Lee Highway, Merrifield, VA 22082-8101.
Except where specifically noted, the specifications set forth herein shall apply to all curbside mailbox designs.
The following documents of the latest issue are incorporated by reference as part of this standard.
Copies of the Postal Operations Manual can be obtained from the USPS New Jersey Material Distribution Center, 2 Brick Plant Road, South River, NJ 08877-9998.
The following documents of the latest issue are incorporated by reference as part of this standard.
Copies of the preceding documents can be obtained from the American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959.
Copies of the preceding document can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062-2096
Copies of the preceding documents can be obtained from the American Society for Quality, PO Box 3066, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3066.
Mailbox manufacturers must ensure and be able to substantiate that units manufactured conform to the requirements of this specification.
The Postal Service reserves the right to inspect units for conformance to this specification at any stage of manufacture. Inspection by the Postal Service does not relieve the manufacturer of the responsibility to provide performance that conforms to the requirements set forth in this specification. Prior to any visits, the Postal Service will provide a minimum notice of 30 business days. The Postal Service may, in its discretion, suspend the approval status of any manufacturer's model that is found to be out of conformance with approved drawings (see 5.2.2).
The manufacturer shall use a documented quality system acceptable to the Postal Service. As a minimum, the manufacturer's quality system shall include controls and record keeping in the following areas: (A quality system in compliance with ANSI/ASQC Q9002-1994 meets this requirement).
The Postal Service has the right to evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of the manufacturer's quality system before approval and during tenure as approved source.
All of the manufacturer's records pertaining to the approved product shall be kept for a minimum of three (3) years after shipment of product.
Mailboxes must meet regulations and requirements as stipulated by USPS collection and delivery, operation and policy (see 2.2). This includes carrier door operation as stated in 3.4, flag operation as stated in 3.7, in-coming mail openings and the retrieval of out-going mail. The opening style, design and size are determined by the manufacturer, however, the carrier must be able to deposit the customer's mail. Out-going mail of all designs must be able to be pulled straight out of the mailbox without interference from protrusions, hardware, etc. Mailboxes must be capable of passing the applicable testing requirements in 3.15. Mailboxes must not be made of any transparent, toxic, or flammable material (see 3.3). The mailbox must protect mail from potential water damage that may result from wet weather conditions (see section 3.15.3). Any advertising on a mailbox or its support is prohibited. Additional specific requirements follow.
Figure 1 and meet capacity requirements specified in 3.15.1 will be classified as Traditional. Designs incorporating a carrier signal flag (see 3.7) will be classified as full service mailboxes. Designs with no flag will be classified as limited service (see 3.12). As specified in 3.5, a rear door is permitted to enable the customer to remove mail without standing in the street. The use of locks, locking devices or inserts is prohibited.
Mailbox designs that do not conform to the dome-rectangular shape of Traditional designs but meet capacity requirements specified in 3.15.1 will be classified as Contemporary. In addition, Contemporary designs shall not exceed the maximum limitations on dimensions A, D, E, F and G in Figure 1. Designs incorporating a carrier signal flag (see 3.7) will be classified as full service mailboxes. Designs with no flag will be classified as limited service (see 3.12). Although the shape and design is less restrictive, Contemporary mailboxes must meet the same applicable functional requirements. Contemporary designs can also incorporate a rear door, as specified in 3.5, to enable the customer to remove mail without standing in the street. The use of locks, locking devices or inserts is prohibited.
Mailbox designs that provide security for customer's in-coming mail will be classified as Locked mailboxes (see Figures 2 & 3). Although the shape and design is less restrictive, Locked mailboxes must meet the same applicable functional requirements. Designs having a slot for in-coming mail must be at least 1.75 inches high by 10 inches wide. If a slot has a protective flap it must operate inward to ensure mail can be inserted in a horizontal manner without requiring any additional effort of carriers (see Figure
Locked mailbox designs of this class allow for both in-coming and out-going mail as depicted in Figure 2. It is preferred
Locked mailbox designs of this class only allow for in-coming mail as shown in Figure 3.
Decorative art and devices can be attached to the exterior of approved mailbox designs provided they do not interfere with mail delivery or present a safety hazard. Devices can also be mounted in the interior of approved mailboxes provided they do not cause the intended mailbox to fail capacity test described in 3.15.1 and do not interfere with mail delivery or present a safety hazard. Any advertising on a mailbox or its support is prohibited. Unrestricted spring-loaded devices and designs are prohibited. Auxiliary flags or devices used to signal the customer that the mail has arrived must operate automatically without requiring additional carrier effort.
Ferrous or nonferrous metal, wood (restrictions apply), plastic, or other materials may be used, as long as their thickness, form, mechanical properties, and chemical properties adequately meet the operational, structural, and performance requirements set forth in this standard. Materials used must not be toxic, flammable or transparent.
The entire bottom area of all mailboxes where mail would rest shall be fabricated to prevent mail from damage due to condensation or moisture. Except for the internal mail compartment of locked style mailboxes, all designs must not present a lip or protrusion that would prevent the mail from being inserted or pulled straight out of the mailbox. The surface of the floor cannot be made of wood material. The floor shall be ribbed as shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 or dimpled, embossed, or otherwise fabricated provided the resulting surface area (touching mail) does not exceed .25 square inch (per dimple/impression) and is a minimum of .12 inch high on centers not exceeding 1 inch. A mat insert having a raised surface contour may be used for the internal mail compartment of locked style mailboxes only (see Figures 2 & 3).
Cannot be made of wood. Plastic is the preferred material.
Cannot be made of wood. Plastic is the preferred material.
There shall be only one carrier service door which must provide access for mail delivery and collection intended by the unit and meet USPS delivery operational requirements (see 2.2). The door must meet the applicable testing requirements specified in 3.15.2. The carrier service door must operate freely and solely by pulling outward and downward with a convenient handle or knob. The design of the door, including hinges and handles must provide protection against wind, rain, sleet, or snow (see 3.15.3). Door latches must hold the door closed but allow easy opening and closing requiring no more than 5 pounds of force. Action of the latch must be a positive mechanical one not relying solely on friction of the hinge parts. The door shall not be spring-loaded. Magnetic latches are acceptable provided adequate closure power is maintained during ambient conditions specified in 3.15.6 and applicable testing described in 3.15. It is preferred that by either tactile or by sound (i.e. “snap” or “click”) carriers are alerted that door is properly shut. The door, once opened, must remain in the open position until the carrier pushes it closed. The door must rotate a minimum of 100 degrees when opened and it is preferred that the maximum rotation be limited to 120 degrees or less. When in a fully opened and rest position, the opening angle of the door cannot measure more than 180 degrees. No protrusions other than the handle/knob, door catch, alternate flag design, decorative features or markings are permitted on the carrier service door. Protrusions of any kind that reduce the usable volume within the mailbox when closed are not acceptable. See section 3.2.3 for carrier service door requirements for Locked mailbox designs.
The handle or knob shall have adequate accessibility to permit quickly grasping and pulling it with one hand (with or without gloves) to open the door. The handle or knob shall be located within the top 1/3 of the door. Various acceptable handle/knob designs with required dimensions are depicted in Figure 5. Other designs may be acceptable provided they allow enough finger clearance and surface area for carriers to grasp.
Mailboxes may have a rear door, provided that it does not interfere with the normal delivery and collection operation provided by the carrier or require the carrier to perform any unusual operations. The rear door must not be susceptible to being forced open as a result of large mail items such as newspapers and parcels being inserted through the carrier door. The rear door must meet the applicable testing requirements specified in 3.15.
Locked mailbox designs shall have an effective means to ensure that in-coming mail is only accessible by the customer. The use of locks on Contemporary and Traditional mailbox designs is prohibited. Manufacturers must include the following statement in their instructions to customers: IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MAIL CARRIERS TO OPEN MAILBOXES THAT ARE LOCKED, ACCEPT KEYS FOR THIS PURPOSE, OR LOCK MAILBOXES AFTER DELIVERY OF THE MAIL.
Traditional, Contemporary, and Locked mailbox designs classified as Full Service shall have a carrier signal flag. The flag design must be one of the approved concepts depicted in Figures 1, 2, and 4. As shown in each figure, the flag must be mounted on the right side when facing the mailbox from the front. The flag must not require a lift or more than 2 pounds of force to retract. Additionally, when actuated (signaling out-going mail) the flag must remain in position until retracted by the carrier. The color of the flag must be in accordance with requirements described in 3.10. The operating mechanism of the
The mailbox must bear two inscriptions on the carrier service door: “U.S. MAIL” in a minimum of .50 inch high letters and “Approved By The Postmaster General” in a minimum of .18 inch high letters. These inscriptions may be positioned beneath the in-coming mail slot for Limited Service Locked Mailboxes as shown in Figure 3. Markings must be permanent and may be accomplished by applying a decal, embossing on sheet metal, raised lettering on plastic, engraving on wood or other methods that are suitable for that particular unit. The manufacturer's name, address, date of manufacture (month and year), and model number or nomenclature must be legible and permanently marked or affixed on a panel (rear, backside of door, bottom or side interior near the carrier service door) of the mailbox that is readily accessible and not obscured.
Mailboxes that use previously approved units in their design must include marking stating the new manufacturer's name, address, date of manufacture and model nomenclature in a permanent fashion and location as described above. Additionally, The “U.S. MAIL” and “Approved By The Postmaster General” marking shall be reapplied if it is obscured or obliterated by the new design.
Choice of coatings and finishes is optional, provided all requirements of this standard are met. All coatings and finishes must be free from flaking, peeling, cracking, crazing, blushing, and powdery surfaces. Coatings and finishes must be compatible with the mailbox materials. Accept for small decorative accents, mirror-like coatings or finishes are prohibited. The coating or finish must meet the applicable testing requirements described in 3.15.5.
The color of the mailbox and flag must be in accordance with the following requirements. The mailbox may be any color. The carrier signal flag can be any color except any shade of green, brown, white, yellow or blue. The preferred flag color is fluorescent orange. Also, the flag color must present a clear contrast with predominant color of the mailbox.
The mailbox shall be provided with means for convenient and locked mounting that meets all applicable requirements of the POM. The manufacturer may offer various types of mounting accessories such as a bracket, post or stand. Although the USPS does not regulate the design of mounting accessories, it is pointed out that no part of them is permitted to project beyond the front of the mounted mailbox. Mounting accessories must not interfere with delivery operations as described in 3.2 or present hazardous features as described in 3.14. See section 6 for additional important information.
A complete set of instructions for assembling and mounting the mailbox shall be furnished with each unit. The instructions must include the following conspicuous message: CUSTOMERS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE LOCAL POST OFFICE BEFORE INSTALLING THE MAILBOX TO ENSURE ITS CORRECT PLACEMENT AND HEIGHT AT THE STREET. GENERALLY, MAILBOXES ARE INSTALLED AT A HEIGHT OF 41-45 in. FROM THE ROAD SURFACE TO INSIDE FLOOR OF THE MAILBOX OR POINT OF MAIL ENTRY (LOCKED DESIGNS) AND ARE SET BACK 6-8 in. FROM FRONT FACE OF CURB OR ROAD EDGE TO THE MAILBOX DOOR.
The following conspicuous note shall be included with each mailbox: THIS IS A LIMITED SERVICE MAILBOX (WITHOUT FLAG) AND IT IS ONLY INTENDED FOR CUSTOMERS WHO DO NOT WANT POSTAL CARRIERS TO PICK-UP THEIR OUT-GOING MAIL. UNLESS POSTAL CARRIERS HAVE MAIL TO DELIVER THEY WILL NOT STOP AT LIMITED SERVICE MAILBOXES.
A receptacle for the delivery of newspapers may be attached to the post of a curbside mailbox provided no part of the receptacle interferes with the delivery of mail, obstructs the view of the flag, or presents a hazard to the carrier or the carrier's vehicle. The receptacle must not extend beyond the front of the box when the door is closed. No advertising may be displayed on the outside of the receptacle, except the name of the publication.
The mailbox shall be properly assembled and utilize the best commercial practice workmanship standards in the fabrication of all components and assemblies. All movable parts shall fit and operate properly with no unintended catch or binding points. The unit must be free from harmful projections or other hazardous devices. The unit must not have any sharp edges, sharp corners, burrs or other features (on any surfaces) that may be hazardous to carriers/customers, or that may interfere with delivery operations as described in 3.2 (General Design).
Mailboxes will be subjected to all applicable testing described herein (specific requirements follow). A mailbox that fails to pass any test will be rejected. Testing will be conducted in sequence as listed herein and in Table III.
Traditional and Contemporary designs must meet minimum capacity requirements tested by insertion and removal of a standard test gauge which measures 18.50″ long x 5.00″ wide x 6.00″ high. The test gauge is inserted with its 6.00″ dimension aligned in the vertical axis (perpendicular to the mailbox floor). The gauge must be capable of easy insertion and removal; and while inserted, allow for the door(s) to be completely closed without interference. The capacity of Locked designs, which have slots, chutes or similar features, will be tested and approved based upon whether standard USPS mail sizes (see Table I) can be easily inserted through the mail slot or opening. Retrieval of this mail from the locked compartment shall be equally as easy.
Carrier service doors, auxiliary doors, door catches/mechanisms, carrier signal flags and applicable accessory devices must be capable of operating 7,500 normal operating cycles (1 cycle = open/close) at room temperature, continuously and correctly, without any failures such as breakage of parts. Testing may be performed either manually or by means of an automated mechanically driven test fixture which essentially mimics a manual operation. This test is applicable to all mailbox designs.
A rain test in accordance with UL 771, section 47.7 shall be performed to determine a mailbox's ability to protect mail from water. The rain test shall be operated for a period of 15 minutes for each side. At the conclusion of the test, the outside of the unit is wiped dry and all doors are opened. The inside of the compartment must contain no water other than that produced by high moisture condensation. This test is applicable to all mailbox designs.
A salt spray test shall be conducted in accordance with method A5 of ASTM G85, Standard Practice for Modified Salt Spray (Fog) Testing. The salt test shall be operated for 25 continuous cycles with each cycle consisting of 1-hour fog and 1-hour dry-off. The mailbox shall be tested in a finished condition, including all protective coating, paint, and mounting hardware and shall be thoroughly washed when submitted to remove all oil, grease, and other nonpermanent coatings. No part of the mailbox may show finish corrosion, blistering or peeling, or other destructive reaction upon conclusion of test. Corrosion is defined as any form of property change such as rust, oxidation, color changes, perforation, accelerated erosion, or disintegration. The build-up of salt deposits upon the surface shall not be cause for rejection. However, any corrosion, paint blistering, or paint peeling is cause for rejection. This test is primarily applicable to ferrous metal mailbox designs. It is also valid for mailbox designs made of plastic, wood, or other materials which use any metal hardware.
The Mailbox's coating/finish shall be tested for resistance to abrasion in accordance with method A of ASTM D968. The rate of sand flow shall be 2 liters of sand in 22 ± 3 seconds. The mailbox will have failed the sand abrasion test if less than 15 liters of sand penetrates its coating or if less than 75 liters of sand penetrates its plating. This test is applicable to metal mailbox designs only.
The mailbox under test shall be placed in a cold chamber at
Forces of specified magnitude (see Table II) shall be slowly applied at specific points on the mailbox under test (see Figure 6). These forces shall be held for a minimum of one minute and then released. After their release, the deformation caused by the forces shall be measured. If the deformation exceeds the limit specified in Table II, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural rigidity requirement. The doors shall remain closed for test positions 1 through 6. The application of the forces at positions 1 and 2 shall be applied with the mailbox in its normal upright position, supported by a horizontal board. The application of the forces at positions 3, 4, and 5 shall be applied with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side down). The mailbox shall be supported, on the under side, by a flat board that is relieved in the immediate area of the flag mechanism. The application of force at position 6 (Traditional style flags only) shall be applied with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side up). The application of force at position 6 shall be repeated at the top of the flag with the mailbox in its normal upright position. If visible cracks, in the material, have developed as a result of the testing, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural rigidity requirement. At the conclusion of the Structural Rigidity testing, if the mailbox under test fails to operate normally, as defined by this document, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the structural Rigidity requirement. This test is applicable to all mailbox designs.
Refer to the Figure 6 for load positions. Precondition the mailbox for 4 hours at −20° Fahrenheit. The following testing shall be performed within 3 minutes of removing the mailbox from the temperature chamber. At both load positions 3 and 4, with the mailbox lying on its side (flag side down) with the door(s) closed, apply an impact load equivalent to a 10-pound weight dropped from a height of 3-feet above the mailbox surface onto a bolster plate having a surface not larger than 2 inches by 2 inches. The mailbox shall be supported, on the underside, by a flat board that is relieved in the immediate area of the flag mechanism. If any noticeable perforation, occurrence of sharp edges, or cracking of the material, either inside or outside the mailbox, develops as a result of the impact; or if the door becomes inoperable or fails to close normally, the mailbox under test has failed to meet the impact resistance requirement. This test is applicable to all mailbox designs.
Requests for application materials, and all other correspondence and inquiries, shall be directed to the address in 1.3.2. The application process consists of:
Manufacturers must first satisfy requirements of a preliminary review prior to submitting any sample mailboxes or accessories. The preliminary review consists of a review of the manufacturer's conceptual design drawings. Computer generated drawings are preferred, but hand drawn sketches are acceptable provided they clearly depict the overall shape and interior size of the proposed mailbox design. Drawings must also include details on design of applicable features such as the carrier service door, latch, handle, flag, floor, and slot. In addition to drawings, proposed accessories shall show or
Upon receiving written notification from the USPS that their design satisfies requirements of the preliminary review, manufacturers shall at their own expense submit one sample of their mailbox or accessory to an independent laboratory for testing along with a copy the preliminary review letter from the USPS. See Appendix A for a list of USPS approved independent test labs. Manufacturers with more than one unique model shall have each one tested independently. Models which are generally of the same size, shape, and material of previously approved designs but only have different decorative features (
Manufacturers shall submit one sample mailbox or accessory to the USPS for final review and approval. The sample shall be accompanied with a certificate of compliance and a copy of the laboratory test results (see 4.1.3.3). Mailboxes submitted to the USPS (see 1.3.2) for final evaluation must be identical in every way with the mailboxes to be marketed, and must be marked as specified in 3.8. Manufacturers may be subject to a verification of their quality system prior to approval. This may consist of a review of the manufacturer's quality manual (see 4.1.3.4) and an on-site quality system evaluation (see 3.1).
Submit a copy of the instructions conforming to 3.12 including the statement concerning locks in 3.6.
The unit submitted for approval shall be accompanied by one complete set of manufacturing drawings consisting of black on white prints (blueprints or sepia are unacceptable). The drawings shall be dated and signed by a manufacturer's representative(s). The drawings must completely document and represent the design of the unit tested. The drawings must include sufficient details to allow the USPS to inspect all materials, construction methods, processes, coatings, treatments, finishes (including paint types and colors), control specifications, parts and assemblies used in the construction of the unit. Additionally, the drawings must fully describe any purchased materials, components and hardware including their respective finishes. The USPS may request individual piece parts to verify drawings.
Manufacturers shall furnish a written certificate of compliance indicating that their design fully complies with the requirements of this specification. In addition, the manufacturer shall submit the lab's original report which clearly shows results of each test conducted (see Table III). The manufacturer bears all responsibility for their unit(s) meeting these requirements and the USPS reserves the right to retest any and all units submitted including those which are available to the general public.
Manufacturer shall submit its quality policy manual. The manual should be structured in accordance with ISO 10013 and with the requirements of ISO 9002.
Written notification, including reasons for disapproval, will be sent to the manufacturer within 30 days of completion of the final review of all submitted units. All correspondence and inquiries shall be directed to the address listed in 1.3.2.
Mailboxes disapproved will be disposed of in 30 calendar days from the date of the written notification of disapproval or returned to the manufacturer, if requested, provided the manufacturer pays shipping costs.
One set of manufacturing drawings with written notification of approval will be returned to the manufacturer. The drawings will be stamped and identified as representing each unit.
Mailboxes that are approved will be retained by the USPS.
Manufacturer's production units shall be constructed in accordance with the identified (stamped) drawings and provisions of this specification and be of the same materials, construction, coating, workmanship, finish, etc. as the approved units. Within 60 days upon
Changes which affect the form, fit, and/or function (
If any substantive part of the approved manufacturer's structure change from what existed when the manufacturer became approved, the manufacturer shall notify the USPS and may be subject to a re-evaluation of product or quality system. Examples of substantive structural changes are: change in executive or quality management; major change in quality policy or procedures; relocation of manufacturing facilities; major equipment or manufacturing process change (
Within 60 days upon sale to public, manufacturers shall submit one copy of their product(s) brochure(s) representing approved mailbox design(s) to the address listed in 1.3.2 and to: USPS, Delivery Policy & Programs, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, Rm 7142, Washington, DC 20260-0004
Mailboxes intended to be used in delivery to customer's doors are not currently “approved” by the United States Postal Service as referenced in this standard. However, it is recommended that these boxes conform to the intentions of this specification, particularly the safety of the carrier/customer and the protection of the mail. Local postmaster shall be contacted prior to installation and use of any door mailbox.
The United States Postal Service does not approve mailbox posts or regulate mounting of mailboxes other than the requirements specified in sections 3.11 and 3.12. Please note that mailbox posts are often subject to local restrictions, state laws and federal highway regulations. Further information may be obtained from:
(1) ACTS Test Labs, Contact: Dennis Maclaughlin, Phone: 716-505-3547 Fax: 716-505-3301, 100 Northpointe Parkway, Buffalo, NY 14228-1884.
(2) The Coatings Lab, Contact: Tom Schwerdt, Phone: 713-981-9368 Fax: 713-776-9634, 10175 Harwin Drive, Suite 110, Houston, TX 77036.
(3) Ithaca Materials Research & Testing, Inc. (IMR), Contact: Jeff Zerilli, Vice President, Phone: 607-533-7000, Lansing Business and Technology Park, 31 Woodsedge Drive, Lansing, NY 14882.
(4) Independent Test Laboratories, Inc., Contact: Robet Bouvier, Phone: 800-962-Test Fax: 714-641-3836, 1127B Baker Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626.
(5) Environ Labs L.L.C., Contact: Chuck Mapes, Phone: 1-800-826-3710, Fax: 612-888-6345, 9725 Girard Ave S., Minneapolis, MN 55431.
(6) Midwest Testing Laboratories, Inc., Contact: Cherie Ulatowski, Phone: 248-689-9262, Fax: 248-689-7637, 1072 Wheaton, Troy, MI 48083.
Additional test laboratories may be added provided they satisfy USPS certification criteria. Interested laboratories should contact: USPS, Engineering, Test Evaluation & Quality, 8403 Lee Highway, Merrifield, VA 22082-8101.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maryland. This revision requires major sources of nitrogen oxides (NO
This final rule is effective on March 12, 2001.
Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and the Maryland Department of the Environment, 2500 Broening Highway, Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.
Kelly L. Bunker, (215) 814-2177 or by e-mail at bunker.kelly@epamail.epa.gov.
Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), Maryland is required to implement RACT for all major NO
On July 11, 1995, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the control of NO
The September 8, 2000, SIP revision is the subject of this action. The September 8, 2000, submittal included the new version of regulation, COMAR 26.11.09.08, which requires major sources of NO
On October 19, 2000 (65 FR 62668), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the Maryland NO
Pursuant to its October 19, 2000 NPR, EPA received one letter of comment from the EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund. A summary of EarthJustice's comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
Moreover, on October 19, 2000, the very same day as EPA proposed approval of Maryland's September 8, 2000 SIP revision to amend its NO
A more detailed description of Maryland's NO
As a point of information, EPA further notes that the 1990 total NO
While not directly responsive to a specific comment, it should be noted that the 1990 total NO
EPA is fully approving Maryland's revised NO
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
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant. 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 et seq.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
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 April 9, 2001. 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 approving the Maryland NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
(c) * * *
(155) Revisions to the Maryland Regulations for NO
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letter of September 8, 2000 from the Maryland Department of the Environment transmitting the Maryland NO
(B) The Maryland NO
(C) Addition of COMAR 26.11.09.01B(3-1) (definition of the term “high heat release unit”), effective September 18, 2000.
(ii) Additional Material.—Remainder of September 8, 2000 submittal.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” 66 FR 7701 (January 24, 2001), this document temporarily delays for 60 days the effective date of the rule entitled “Oil and Gas Leasing: Onshore Oil and Gas Operations,” published in the
The effective date of the Oil and Gas Leasing: Onshore Oil and Gas Operations Final Rule, amending 43 CFR 3100, 3106, 3108, 3130, and 3160; published in the
Donnie Shaw, Fluid Minerals Group, Bureau of Land Management, Mail Stop 401LS, 1849 “C” Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240; telephone (202) 452-0382 (Commercial or FTS). Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Services at 1-800-877-8339, seven days a week, 24 hours a day, except holidays, for assistance in reaching Mr. Shaw.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, the action is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the Department's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) continues to develop, adopt and implement a number of strategies to ensure that the numbering resources of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) are used efficiently, and that all carriers have the numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly expanding telecommunications marketplace.
Section 52.15(f)(1)(vi) is effective December 29, 2000. Section 52.15(h) is effective May 8, 2001. All other amendments are effective March 12, 2001 except for §§ 52.15(g)(4) and 52.15(k)(1), which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the
Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554.
Sanford Williams, (202) 418-2320 or email at
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. With the rules adopted in the
2. The
3. The rules adopted herein facilitate increased carrier accountability and incentives to use numbers efficiently, and promote the judicious conservation of numbering resources.
4. This
5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the
6. In the
7. In doing so, we sought to (1) ensure that the limited numbering resources of the NANP are used efficiently; (2) protect customers from the expense and inconvenience that result from the implementation of new area codes; (3) forestall the enormous expense that will be incurred from expanding the NANP; and (4) ensure that all carriers have the numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly growing telecommunications marketplace.
8. In this
9. Commenters expressed support and opposition to several issues addressed in this
10.
11.
12.
13. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate for its activities. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 15 U.S.C. 632.
14. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission publishes in its
15. The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing “Radiotelephone Communications” and “Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone” to be small businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees. 13 CFR 121.201.
16. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
17.
18.
19.
20.
21. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
22.
23.
24.
25. In the alternative, we could have mandated state commissions to impose all-services area code overlays as the primary method for area code relief. As discussed in Section B, small businesses that incur additional costs related to geographic splits may have benefited from this alternative proposal. However, the Commission believes that states should have the flexibility to determine the best method for area code relief given their unique knowledge of their geographic region.
26. In addition, we will continue to require ten-digit dialing within and throughout the geographic area covered by an all-services overlay. Such a requirement ensures that no dialing disparity exists to disadvantage competitors, including small businesses.
27.
28.
29.
30. The Commission will send a copy of this
31. Pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, and 251, the Second Report and Order is hereby
32. Section 52.15(f)(1)(vi) is effective December 29, 2000. Section 52.15(h) is effective May 8, 2001. All other amendments are effective March 12, 2001 except for §§ 52.15(g)(4) and 52.15(k)(1), which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the
33. The establishment of a five year term for the Thousands-Block Pooling Administrator is effective on December 7, 2000, the date of adoption of the
34. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial and Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of Small Business Administration.
35. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 155 unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 3, 4, 201-05, 207-09, 218, 225-7, 251-2, 271 and 332, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 153, 154, 201-205, 207-09, 218, 225-7, 251-2, 271 and 332 unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 52.15, revise paragraphs (f)(1)(vi), (f)(3)(ii), (g)(3)(iv) and add paragraphs (g)(4), (h) and (k) to read as follows:
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Reserved numbers are numbers that are held by service providers at the request of specific end users or customers for their future use. Numbers held for specific end users or customers for more than 180 days shall not be classified as reserved numbers.
(3) * * *
(ii) Reporting shall be by separate legal entity and must include company name, company headquarters address, Operating Company Number (OCN), parent company OCN, and the primary type of business in which the reporting carrier is engaged. The term “parent company” refers to the highest related legal entity located within the state for which the reporting carrier is reporting data.
(g) * * *
(3) * * *
(iv) The NANPA shall withhold numbering resources from any U.S. carrier that fails to comply with the reporting and numbering resource application requirements established in this part. The NANPA shall not issue numbering resources to a carrier without an OCN. The NANPA must notify the carrier in writing of its decision to withhold numbering resources within ten (10) days of receiving a request for numbering resources. The carrier may challenge the NANPA's decision to the appropriate state regulatory commission. The state commission may affirm or overturn the NANPA's decision to withhold numbering resources from the carrier based on its determination of compliance with the reporting and numbering resource application requirements herein.
(4)
(h)
(k)
(2) All telecommunications service providers shall be prepared to demonstrate compliance with Commission regulations and applicable industry guidelines at all times. Service providers shall be prepared to demonstrate compliance with Commission regulations and applicable industry guidelines at all times. Service providers found to be in violation of Commission regulations and applicable industry guidelines relating to numbering administration may be subject to enforcement action.
(a) Calculate, assess, bill and collect payments for all numbering administration functions and distribute funds to the NANPA, or other agent designated by the Common Carrier Bureau that performs functions related to numbering administration, on a monthly basis;
(c)
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department of Transportation.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, titled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
The effective date of the final rule is delayed for 60 days, from March 31, 2001, to a new effective date of May 29, 2001.
Mike Israni, (202) 366-4571, or by e-mail: mike.israni@rspa.dot.gov, regarding the subject matter of this final rule, or the Dockets Facility for copies of this final rule or other material in the docket. All materials in this docket may be accessed electronically at http://dms.dot.gov.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. section 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the RSPA's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department of Transportation.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
The effective date of the final rule is delayed for 60 days, from February 20, 2001, to a new effective date of April 21, 2001.
Christina Sames at (202) 366-4561 or christina.sames@rspa.dot.gov. Copies of this document or other material in the docket can be obtained from the Dockets Facility, U.S. DOT, Room #PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590-0001. The Dockets Facility is open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays when the facility is closed. The public may review material in the docket by accessing the Docket Management System's home page at http://dms.dot.gov.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. section 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the RSPA's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
The effective date of the “Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Electric-Powered Vehicles: Electrolyte Spillage and Electrical Shock Protection,” published in the
For non-legal issues, contact Charles Hott, Office of Safety Performance Standards, NHTSA (202-366-0427). For legal issues, contact Taylor Vinson, Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (202-366-5263).
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. section 553(b)(A). Alternatively, NHTSA's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30166; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
The effective date of the Boating Infrastructure Grant Program rule, adding 50 CFR part 86, published in the
Steve Farrell, Project Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Aid, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 140, Arlington, VA 22203; telephone (703) 358-2156; fax (703) 358-1705; email steve_farrell@fws.gov.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies to this action, this action is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. section 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the Department's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Change of date of public hearing; extension of time to submit outlines of oral comments.
This document changes the date of the public hearing on the proposed regulations that relate to an election to have certain revocable trusts treated and taxed as part of an estate. It also extends the time to submit outlines of oral comments for the hearing.
The public hearing will be held April 11, 2001, beginning at 10 a.m. Additional outlines of oral comments must be received by March 21, 2001.
The public hearing will be held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. Send submissions to: Regulations Unit CC (REG-106542-98), room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand delivered between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: Regulations Unit CC (REG-106542-98), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington DC. Alternatively, taxpayers may submit outlines of oral comments electronically directly to the IRS Internet site at http://www.irs.gov/tax_regs/reglist.html.
Concerning the regulations, Faith Colson, (202) 622-3060; concerning submissions, LaNita Van Dyke, (202) 622-7190 (not toll-free numbers).
A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, appearing in the
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of the public comment period.
USEPA is reopening and extending the public comment period for a proposed rule published on December 27, 2000 (65 FR 81799). In the December 27, 2000 proposed rule, USEPA proposed to approve Illinois' emissions trading program provided Illinois resolves certain issues prior to the end of the public comment period. Specifically, USEPA proposed that Illinois must: Clarify the timeline and penalties for violating sources, satisfy USEPA's policy on environmental justice, provide for full-year offsets for new sources, commit to discount credits where emissions reductions are potentially accompanied by emission increases elsewhere, and commit to remedy any problems identified in its periodic program review. USEPA solicited public comment on Illinois' proposed trading program and on USEPA's proposed action. At the request of several environmental groups, USEPA is reopening the comment period through March 26, 2001. All comments received before March 26, 2001, including those received between the close of the comment period on January 26, 2001 and the publication of this proposed rule reopening the comment period, will be entered into the public record and considered by USEPA before taking final action on the proposed rule.
Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2001.
Written comments should be addressed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
John Summerhays, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067, (
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
In this document the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) continues to develop, adopt and implement a number of strategies to ensure that the numbering resources of the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) are used efficiently, and that all carriers have the numbering resources they need to compete in the rapidly expanding telecommunications marketplace.
Comments for the NPRM are due February 14, 2001 and reply comments are due March 7, 2001. Comments for the proposed information collection are due the same date as the comments on the NPRM and must be submitted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on or before April 9, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission, Secretary, 445 12th Street, SW, Room TW-B204F, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the proposed information collection contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725—17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.
Sanford Williams, (202) 418-2320 or email at
This is a summary of the Commission's Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 99-200 (
This
1. In the
2. We seek comment on how the perceived advantages of service or technology-specific overlays relate to the specific conditions under which they are permitted. We also seek comment on whether it is appropriate to allow the creation of transitional technology-specific overlays that distinguish between carriers based on whether or not they have implemented
3. We further seek comment on whether there should be any limitations on when states are permitted to implement transitional technology-specific overlays, and whether we should permit states that wish to designate transitional service or technology-specific area codes for groups besides non-LNP capable carriers to do so. We also seek comment on whether it would be appropriate for states to establish long-term overlays for certain services.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. We also seek comment on whether our authority under section 254 enables us to implement a market-based number allocation system as a means for funding universal services. We further seek comment on how the Commission could structure an efficient market-based allocation system that would work within the constraints of existing statutory authority. We also seek comment on how to structure a numbering resources market mechanism that treats all users of numbering resources and their customers in an equitable manner.
12. We tentatively conclude that any market-based allocation system for numbering resources that we consider should include both primary and secondary markets for numbering resources. We seek comment on whether the most direct approach for implementing a primary market, an auction, should be implemented, and whether it is cost effective. We also seek comment on whether the NANPA or the national thousands-block pooling administrator would be in the best position to conduct such auctions, and how an auction methodology should be designed. We further seek comment on how the supply of numbers to be
13. We also seek comment on whether prices for numbers in the primary market should be structured as a one-time charge, a recurring charge, or a combination of flat non-recurring and recurring charges, and on the feasibility of auctions under these scenarios. We tentatively conclude that it would be preferable for carriers to pay for all of the resources that they hold, and we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
14. We also seek comment on whether there will be a continuing need to retain existing administrative measures for allocating numbers in conjunction with the implementation of a market-based approach. We seek comment on the appropriate geographic scope of secondary markets, including areas where there is only one or no competitive LEC. We seek comment on the extent to which the Commission should regulate transactions in the secondary market, and whether we should determine how the market is organized.
15. We also seek comment on the types of reporting requirements that might be necessary to ensure that secondary markets are open, competitive, and effective. We seek comment on whether implementation of a market-based allocation system should be delayed until covered CMRS carriers are required to become LNP-capable, and whether we should limit implementation to areas where LNP has been deployed. We also seek comment on whether primary and secondary markets should be implemented simultaneously.
16.
17.
18. We further seek comment on whether we should limit any additional pooling requirements to certain classes of carriers, and if so, what exemptions should be made. In addition, if we were to impose pooling requirements on carriers irrespective of their LNP status, we seek comment on whether rural carriers should be exempt from any such requirements.
20. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in
21. In the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress gave the Commission plenary jurisdiction over the NANP within the United States. 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1). In discharging our authority over numbering resources, we seek to balance two competing goals. First, we must ensure that carriers have the numbering resources that they need to compete and bring new and innovative services to the consumer marketplace. Second, we must ensure that, to the extent possible, numbering resources are used efficiently. Inefficient use of numbering resources speeds the exhaust of area codes, imposing on carriers and consumers alike the burdens and costs of implementing new area codes. It also shortens the life of the NANP as a whole.
22. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, and 251.
23. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3). The RFA defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 5 U.S.C. 601(6). The term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more definitions that are appropriate for its activities. 5 U.S.C. 601(3). Under the Small Business Act, a “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. 15 U.S.C. 632.
24. The most reliable source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the
25. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that,
26.
27. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37. None.
38. Pursuant to Sections 1, 3, 4, 201-205, 251 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 153, 154, 201-205, and 251, this
39. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center,
Communications common carriers, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe (
If this proposal is made final, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies ensure that actions they fund, permit, or carry out are not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The regulatory effect of the critical habitat designation does not extend beyond those activities funded, permitted, or carried out by Federal agencies. State or private actions, with no Federal involvement, are not affected.
Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider the economic and other relevant impacts of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicit data and comments from the public on all aspects of this proposal, including data on the economic and other impacts of the designation. We may revise this proposal to incorporate or address comments and other information received during the comment period.
We will consider comments received by April 9, 2001. Requests for public hearings must be received, in writing, at the address shown in the
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments and information to the State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.
2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Asheville Field Office, at the above address, or fax your comments to 828/258-5330.
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to john_fridell@fws.gov. For directions on how to submit electronic filing of comments, see the “Public Comments Solicited” section.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
John A. Fridell, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, (828)258-3939.
The Appalachian elktoe (
The Appalachian elktoe is known only from the mountain streams of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee. Although the complete historical range of the Appalachian elktoe is unknown, available information suggests that the species once lived in the majority of the rivers and larger creeks of the upper Tennessee River system in North Carolina. In Tennessee, the species is known only from its present range in the main stem of the Nolichucky River.
Currently, the Appalachian elktoe has a very fragmented, relict distribution. The species still survives in scattered pockets of suitable habitat in portions of the Little Tennessee River system, Pigeon River system, the Little River in North Carolina, and the Nolichucky River system in North Carolina and Tennessee. In the Little Tennessee River system in North Carolina, populations survive in the reach of the main stem of the Little Tennessee River, between the city of Franklin and Fontana Reservoir, in Swain and Macon Counties (Service 1994, 1996; McGrath 1999; J.A. Fridell, pers. observation 2000), and in scattered reaches of the main stem of the Tuckasegee River in Jackson and Swain Counties (M. Cantrell, Service, pers. comm. 1996; J.A. Fridell, pers. observation 1996, 1997; McGrath 1998), from below the town of Cullowhee downstream to Bryson City. A single live individual and one shell have also been recently recorded from the Cheoah River, below Santeetlah Lake, in Graham County (W. Pennington, Pennington and Associates, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee, pers. comm. 2000).
In the Pigeon River system in North Carolina, a small population of the Appalachian elktoe occurs in small scattered sites in the West Fork Pigeon River and in the main stem of the Pigeon River, above Canton, in Haywood County (J.A. Fridell, pers. observation 1999; McGrath 1998). The Little River (upper French Broad River system) population of the species, in Transylvania County, North Carolina (J.A. Fridell, pers. observation 2000; C. McGrath, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), pers.
In the Nolichucky River system, the Appalachian elktoe survives in a few scattered areas of suitable habitat in the Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina (Service 1994, 1996; McGrath 1996, 1999); Cane River, Yancey County, North Carolina (Service 1994, 1996; McGrath 1997); and the main stem of the Nolichucky River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, extending downstream to the vicinity of Erwin in Unicoi County, Tennessee (Service 1994, 1996). Two individuals have also recently been found in the North Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, below the confluence of Crabtree Creek (McGrath 1999), and 15 live individuals, with no more than 2 to 3 at each site (J.A. Fridell, pers. observation 1998, 2000) and one shell (S. Fraley, Tennessee Valley Authority, Norris, Tennessee, pers. comm. 1999) have been recorded from the South Toe River, Yancey County, North Carolina. The majority of the surviving occurrences of the Appalachian elktoe appear to be small to extremely small and restricted to scattered pockets of suitable habitat.
Historically, the species has been recorded from Tulula Creek (Tennessee River drainage), the main stem of the French Broad River, and the Swannanoa River (French Broad River system) (Clarke 1981), but has apparently been eliminated from these streams (Service 1994, 1996). There is also a historical record of the Appalachian elktoe from the North Fork Holston River in Tennessee (S. S. Haldeman collection); however, this record is believed to represent a mislabeled locality (Gordon 1991). If the historical record for the species in the North Fork Holston River was a good record, the species has apparently been eliminated from this river as well.
We know very little about the life history and microhabitat requirements of the Appalachian elktoe. The species has been reported from relatively shallow, medium-sized creeks and rivers with cool, clean, well-oxygenated, moderate-to fast-flowing water. The species is most often found in riffles, runs, and shallow flowing pools with stable, relatively silt-free, coarse sand and gravel substrate associated with cobble, boulders, and/or bedrock. Stability of the substrate appears to be critical to the Appalachian elktoe, and the species is seldom found in stream reaches with accumulations of silt or shifting sand, gravel, or cobble. Individuals that have been encountered in these areas are believed to have been scoured out of upstream areas during periods of heavy rain, and have not been found on subsequent surveys (C. McGrath, pers. comm. 1996; J.A. Fridell, pers. observation 1995, 1996, 1999).
Like other freshwater mussels, the Appalachian elktoe feeds by filtering food particles from the water column. The specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other freshwater mussels have been documented to feed on detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton (Churchill and Lewis 1924). The reproductive cycle of the Appalachian elktoe is similar to that of other native freshwater mussels. Males release sperm into the water column; the sperm are then taken in by the females through their siphons during feeding and respiration. The females retain the fertilized eggs in their gills until the larvae (glochidia) fully develop. The mussel glochidia are released into the water, and within a few days they must attach to the appropriate species of fish, which they then parasitize for a short time while they develop into juvenile mussels. They then detach from their fish host and sink to the stream bottom where they continue to develop, provided they land in a suitable substrate with the correct water conditions. Personnel with the Tennessee Technological University at Cookeville, Tennessee, identified the banded sculpin (
Available information indicates that several factors adversely affect water and habitat quality of our creeks and rivers and have contributed to the decline and loss of populations of the Appalachian elktoe and threaten the remaining populations. These factors include pollutants in wastewater discharges (sewage treatment plants and industrial discharges); habitat loss and alteration associated with impoundments, channelization, and dredging operations; and the run-off of silt, fertilizers, pesticides, and other pollutants from poorly implemented land-use activities (Service 1994, 1996).
Freshwater mussels, especially in their early life stages, are extremely sensitive to many pollutants (chlorine, ammonia, heavy metals, high concentrations of nutrients, etc.) commonly found in municipal and industrial wastewater effluents (Havlik and Marking 1987, Goudreau
Activities such as impoundments, channelization projects, and in-stream dredging operations eliminate mussel habitat. These activities can also alter the quality and stability of the remaining stream reaches by affecting the flow regimes, water velocities, and water temperature and chemistry.
Agriculture (both crop and livestock) and forestry operations, mining activities, highway and road construction, residential and industrial developments, and other construction and land-clearing activities that do not adequately control soil erosion and storm-water run-off contribute excessive amounts of silt, pesticides, fertilizers, heavy metals, and other pollutants. These pollutants suffocate and poison freshwater mussels. The run-off of storm water from cleared areas, roads, rooftops, parking lots, and other developed areas, which is often ditched or piped directly into streams, not only results in stream pollution but also results in increased water volume and velocity during heavy rains. The high volume and velocity cause channel and stream-bank scouring that leads to the degradation and elimination of mussel habitat. Construction and land-clearing operations are particularly detrimental when they result in the alteration of flood plains or the removal of forested stream buffers that ordinarily would help maintain water quality and the stability of stream banks and channels by absorbing, filtering, and slowly releasing rainwater. When storm water run-off increases from land-clearing activities, less water is absorbed to recharge ground water levels. Therefore, flows during dry months can decrease and adversely affect mussels and other aquatic organisms.
We recognized the Appalachian elktoe in the May 22, 1984, Animal Notice of Review published in the
On September 3, 1993, we published in the
In response to the proposed rule, we received four comments, one supporting the listing and three requesting a public hearing. In the
Following our review of all the comments and information received throughout the listing process, by final rule (59 FR 60324) dated November 23, 1994, we listed the Appalachian elktoe as endangered. We addressed the comments received throughout the listing process and incorporated changes into the final rule, as appropriate. That decision included our determination that the designation of critical habitat was not prudent for the Appalachian elktoe because, after a review of all the available information, we determined that such designation would not be beneficial to the species (see “Prudency Determination” section below).
On June 30, 1999, the Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project and the Foundation for Global Sustainability filed a lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Columbia against the Service, the Director of the Service, and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, challenging the Service's “not prudent” critical habitat determinations for four species in North Carolina—the Appalachian elktoe (
This proposal is the product of our reexamination of our prudency determination for the Appalachian elktoe and reflects our interpretation of the recent judicial opinions on critical habitat designation and the standards placed on us for making a not prudent determination. If additional information becomes available on the species' biology and distribution and threats to the species, we may reevaluate this proposal to designate critical habitat, including proposing additional critical habitat, proposing the deletion or boundary refinement of existing proposed critical habitat, or withdrawing our proposal to designate critical habitat.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time a species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Regulations under 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species. In our November 23, 1994, final rule, we determined that the designation of critical habitat was not
A critical habitat designation has no effect on actions in which a Federal agency is not involved, including actions on private or State land unless these actions require Federal funds or a Federal permit. The regulations that provide for the protection of designated critical habitat come into play through section 7 of the Act. Requirements under section 7 of the Act apply only to Federal actions and activities. They require Federal agencies to ensure, in consultation with us, that activities they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Regulations for the implementation of section 7 of the Act (50 CFR 402.2) provide for both a “jeopardy” standard and an “adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat” standard. 50 CFR 402.2 defines “jeopardize the continued existence of” as meaning to engage in an action that would reasonably be expected, directly or indirectly, to appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the “survival and recovery” of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species. “Destruction or adverse modification” is defined as a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the “survival and recovery” of a listed species. These regulations require that the analysis of adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat, like the jeopardy analysis, consider the detrimental effects of a proposed Federal action to both the survival and recovery of the listed species. Because of the restricted range and limited amount of suitable habitat available to the Appalachian elktoe, we determined in the November 23, 1994, final rule that any action that would likely result in the destruction or adverse modification of the species' habitat would also likely jeopardize the species' continued existence. Since Federal actions resulting in jeopardy are also prohibited by section 7, we determined that the designation of critical habitat would not provide any additional protection benefitting the species beyond that provided by the jeopardy standard.
In addition, we were concerned that the rarity and uniqueness of the Appalachian elktoe could generate interest in the species and that the publicity associated with the designation of critical habitat, together with the publication of maps and descriptions of critical habitat, could increase the vulnerability of the species to collection, vandalism, or other disturbance. Although we did not base our “not prudent” determination on increased threat to the Appalachian elktoe, we did consider the potential increased threat to the species from critical habitat designation in making our determination that the designation of critical habitat was not prudent for the Appalachian elktoe because it would not benefit the species.
However, in the past few years, several of our determinations that the designation of critical habitat would not be prudent have been overturned by court decisions. For instance, in
We continue to be concerned that the Appalachian elktoe is vulnerable to unrestricted collection or disturbance of its habitat and that these threats might be increased by the publication of critical habitat maps and further dissemination of location and habitat information. Although we have received one unconfirmed report since the Appalachian elktoe was listed as endangered, where Appalachian elktoes have been collected and used as fish bait, at this time we do not have specific evidence for the taking, collection, trade, vandalism, or other unauthorized human disturbance specific to the Appalachian elktoe. Consequently, we hereby propose to withdraw our previous determination that the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species.
The courts also have ruled that, in the absence of a finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, the existence of another type of protection, even if it offers potentially greater protection to the species, does not justify a “not prudent” finding
Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the Act as (i) the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) that may require special management consideration or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Areas outside the geographic area currently occupied by the species shall be designated as critical habitat only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species. “Conservation” is defined in section 3(3) of the Act as the use of all methods and procedures necessary to bring endangered or threatened species to the point where listing under the Act is no longer necessary. Regulations under 50 CFR 424.02(j) define “special management considerations or protection” to mean any methods or procedures useful in protecting the physical and biological features of the environment for the conservation of listed species.
In order to be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must first be “essential to the conservation of the species.” Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Section 4 requires that we designate critical habitat at the time of listing and based on what we know at the time of the designation. When we designate critical habitat at the time of listing or under short court-ordered deadlines, we
Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will designate only areas currently known to be essential. Essential areas should already have the features and habitat characteristics that are necessary to sustain the species. We will not speculate about what areas might be found to be essential if better information became available, or what areas may become essential over time. If the information available at the time of designation does not show that an area provides essential life cycle needs of the species, then the area should not be included in the critical habitat designation. Within the geographic area occupied by the species, we will not designate areas that do not now have the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b), that provide essential life cycle needs of the species.
Our regulations state that, “The Secretary shall designate as critical habitat areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its present range would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.” (50 CFR 424.12(e)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific and commercial data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require designation of critical habitat outside of occupied areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the
Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, all should understand that critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery. Areas outside the critical habitat designation will continue to be subject to conservation actions that may be implemented under section 7(a)(1) and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard and the section 9 take prohibition, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. We specifically anticipate that federally funded or assisted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to base critical habitat proposals on the best scientific and commercial data available, after taking into consideration the economic impact, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We may exclude areas from critical habitat designation when the benefits of excluding those areas outweigh the benefits of including the areas within the critical habitat, provided the exclusion will not result in the extinction of the species.
The proposed areas of critical habitat described below constitute our best assessment of the areas needed for the conservation and recovery of the Appalachian elktoe in accordance with the goals outlined in our recovery plan for the species (Service 1996), and are based on the best scientific and commercial information currently available to us concerning the species' known present and historical range, habitat, biology, and threats. All of the areas we propose to designate as critical habitat are within what we believe to be the geographic area occupied by the Appalachian elktoe, include all known surviving occurrences of the species, and are essential for the conservation of the species. To the extent feasible, we will continue, with the assistance of other Federal, State, and private researchers, to conduct surveys and research on the species and its habitat. If new information becomes available indicating that other areas within the Appalachian elktoe's historical range are essential to the conservation of the species, we will revise the proposed critical habitat or designated critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe accordingly.
In accordance with sections 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we are required to base critical habitat determinations on the best scientific and commercial data available and to consider those physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. Such requirements include, but are not limited to: space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical geographical and ecological distribution of a species.
When considering areas for designation as critical habitat, we are required to focus on the principal biological and physical constituent elements within the defined area that are essential to the conservation of the species (50 CFR 424.12 (b)). Although additional information is needed to better define the habitat requirements of the species, particularly the microhabitat requirements, based on the best available information, the primary constituent elements essential for the conservation of the Appalachian elktoe are:
1. Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water;
2. Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks;
3. Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel;
4. Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment;
5. Moderate to high stream gradient;
6. Periodic natural flooding; and
7. fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
The proposed designation of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe includes 38.5 kilometers (km)—24.0 river miles (rm)—of the Little Tennessee River in Swain and Macon Counties, North Carolina; 41.6 km (26.0 rm) of the Tuckasegee River in Jackson and Swain Counties, North Carolina; 14.6 km (9.1 rm) of the Cheoah River in Graham County, North Carolina; 7.5 km (4.7 rm) of the Little River in Transylvania County, North Carolina; 17.8 km (11.1 rm) of the West Fork Pigeon River and the Pigeon River in Haywood County, North Carolina; 22.6 km (14.1 rm) of the South Toe River and 26.4 km (16.5 rm) of the Cane River in Yancey County, North Carolina; 5.9 km (3.7 rm) of the North Toe River and 34.6 km (21.6 rm) of the Toe River in Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina; and 21.6 km (13.5 rm) of the Nolichucky River in Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, and Unicoi County, Tennessee.
Approximately 67 percent—14.4 km (9.0 rm)—of the portion of the Nolichucky River that is proposed for designation as critical habitat is bordered by the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina and the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee; 88 percent—12.8 km (8.0 rm)—of the portion of the Cheoah River proposed for designation as critical habitat is bordered by the Nantahala National Forest; and a small percentage of the portion of the Tuckasegee River proposed for designation as critical habitat is bordered by land belonging to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. The remainder of the land along the portions of the Nolichucky River, Cheoah River, and Tuckasegee River proposed for designation as critical habitat, and all of the land along the portions of the Little Tennessee River, Little River, West Fork Pigeon River, Pigeon River, North Toe River, South Toe River, and Cane River that are proposed for designation as critical habitat are privately owned.
We are proposing the following areas for designation as critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe; these areas provide all of the above primary constituent elements. The lateral extent of proposed critical habitat is up to the ordinary high water line on each bank. In addition, given the threats to the species' habitat discussed in the final listing rule (59 FR 60324) and summarized above, we believe these areas may need special management considerations or protection:
Unit 1 encompasses the main stem of the Little Tennessee River (Tennessee River system), from the Lake Emory Dam at Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina, downstream to the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir in Swain County, North Carolina. This unit is part of the currently occupied range of the Appalachian elktoe and, based on the best available information, provides the physical and biological habitat elements necessary for the life cycle needs of the species. In accordance with the recovery goals and criteria outlined in the recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Service 1996), protection of this unit is essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit 2 encompasses the main stem of the Tuckasegee River (Little Tennessee River system), from the N.C. State Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina, downstream to the N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, North Carolina. This unit is part of the currently occupied range of the Appalachian elktoe and, based on the best available information, provides the physical and biological habitat elements necessary for the life cycle needs of the species. In accordance with the recovery goals and criteria outlined in the recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Service 1996), protection of this unit is essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit 3 encompasses the main stem of the Cheoah River (Little Tennessee River system), from the Santeetlah Dam, downstream to its confluence with the Little Tennessee River. This unit is part of the currently occupied range of the Appalachian elktoe and, based on the best available information, provides the physical and biological habitat elements necessary for the life cycle needs of the species. In accordance with the recovery goals and criteria outlined in the recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Service 1996), protection of this unit is essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit 4 encompasses the main stem of the Little River (French Broad River system), from the Cascade Lake Power Plant, downstream to its confluence with the French Broad River. This unit is part of the currently occupied range of the Appalachian elktoe and, based on the best available information, provides the physical and biological habitat elements necessary for the life cycle needs of the species. In accordance with the recovery goals and criteria outlined in the recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Service 1996), protection of this unit is essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit 5 encompasses the main stem of the West Fork Pigeon River (French Broad River system), from the confluence of the Little East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the confluence of the East Fork Pigeon River, and the main stem of the Pigeon River, from the confluence of the West Fork Pigeon River and the East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the N.C. Highway 215 Bridge crossing, south of Canton, North Carolina. This unit is part of the currently occupied range of the Appalachian elktoe and, based on the best available information, provides the physical and biological habitat elements necessary for the life cycle needs of the species. In accordance with the recovery goals and criteria outlined in the recovery plan for the Appalachian elktoe (Service 1996), protection of this unit is essential to the conservation of the species.
Unit 6 encompasses the main stem of the North Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, from the confluence of Big Crabtree Creek, downstream to the confluence of the South Toe River; the main stem of the South Toe River, Yancey County, North Carolina, from the N.C. State Route 1152 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the North Toe River; the main stem of the Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, from the confluence of the North Toe River and the South Toe River, downstream to the confluence of the Cane River; the main stem of the Cane River, Yancey County, North Carolina, from the N.C. State Route 1381 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the Toe River; and the main stem of the Nolichucky River from the confluence of the Toe River and the Cane River in Yancey County and Mitchell County, North Carolina, downstream to the U.S. Highway 23/19W Bridge southwest of Erwin, Unicoi County, Tennessee. This unit is part of
Designating critical habitat does not, in itself, lead to the recovery of a listed species. The designation does not establish a reserve, create a management plan, establish numerical population goals, prescribe specific management practices (inside or outside of critical habitat), or directly affect areas not designated as critical habitat. Specific management recommendations for areas designated as critical habitat are most appropriately addressed in recovery and management plans and through section 7 consultation and section 10 permits.
Critical habitat receives regulatory protection only under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat by actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 also requires conferences on Federal actions that are likely to result in the adverse modification or destruction of proposed critical habitat. Aside from the protection that may be provided under section 7, the Act does not provide other forms of protection to land designated as critical habitat. Because consultation under section 7 of the Act does not apply to activities on private or other non-Federal land that do not involve a Federal action, the critical habitat designation would not afford any protection under the Act against such activities. Accordingly, the designation of critical habitat on private land will not have any regulatory effect on private or State activities in these areas unless those activities require a Federal permit, authorization, or funding.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 402.10 require Federal agencies to confer with us on any action that is likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. “Destruction or adverse modification” is defined as a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. These conferences, which consist of informal discussions, are intended to assist responsible agencies and the applicant, if applicable, in identifying and resolving potential conflicts. Conference reports resulting from these discussions provide conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The conservation recommendations in a conference report are advisory. We may issue a formal conference opinion if requested by a Federal agency. Formal conference opinions on proposed critical habitat are prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14 as if critical habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference opinion as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated if no significant new information or changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)).
If this proposal is finalized, activities on Federal land, activities on private or State land carried out by a Federal agency, or activities receiving funding or requiring a permit from a Federal agency that may affect the designated critical habitat of the Appalachian elktoe will require consultation under section 7 of the Act. However, section 7 of the Act also requires Federal agencies to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species and to consult with us on any action that may affect a listed species. Activities that jeopardize listed species are defined as actions that “directly or indirectly, reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species” (50 CFR 402.02). Federal agencies are prohibited from jeopardizing listed species through their actions, regardless of whether critical habitat has been designated for the species. Where critical habitat is designated, section 7 also requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out do not result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. Activities that destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are defined as an action that “appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species” (50 CFR 402.02). Common to the definitions of both “jeopardy” and “destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat” is the concept that the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of the species are appreciably reduced by the action. Because of the small size of the majority of the surviving populations of the Appalachian elktoe, the species' restricted range, and the limited amount of suitable habitat available to the species, actions that are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are also likely to jeopardize the species. Accordingly, even though Federal agencies will be required to evaluate the potential effects of their actions on any habitat that is designated as critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe, this designation would not be likely to change the outcome of section 7 consultations.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat, those activities that may adversely modify such habitat or may be affected by such designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are, as discussed above, those that alter the primary constituent elements to the extent that the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of the Appalachian elktoe is appreciably diminished. This may include any activity, regardless of the activity's location in relation to designated or proposed critical habitat, that would significantly alter the natural flow regime, channel morphology or geometry, or water chemistry or temperature of any of the six proposed critical habitat units, as described by the constituent elements, or any activity that could result in the significant discharge or deposition of sediment, excessive nutrients, or other organic or chemical pollutants into any of the six proposed critical habitat units. Such activities include (but are not limited to) carrying out or issuing permits, authorization, or funding for reservoir construction; stream alterations; wastewater facility development; hydroelectric facility construction and operation; pesticide/herbicide applications; forestry operations; and road, bridge, and utility construction. Please note that these same activities also have the potential to jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe, and Federal agencies are already required to consult with us on these types of activities, or any other activity, that may affect the species.
Requests for copies of the regulations on listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits, or questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute adverse modification of critical habitat, may be addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville Field Office, 160 Zillicoa Street, Asheville, North Carolina 28801.
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires us to designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific and commercial information available and to consider the economic and other relevant
In accordance with the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, and E.O. 13175 we are required to assess the effects of critical habitat designations on tribal land and tribal trust resources. A portion of the Tuckasegee River that we consider to be essential to the conservation of the Appalachian elktoe and that we are proposing for designation as critical habitat for the species is partially bordered by land owned by the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. The short amount of time allowed to us under the settlement agreement (see “Previous Federal Actions” section above) for preparing this proposal has precluded us from coordinating the proposal with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians. However, subsequent to this proposal, we will consult with them before making a final determination as to whether this reach of the Tuckasegee River should be designated as critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe.
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
1. The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
2. Specific information on the numbers and distribution of the Appalachian elktoe and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and why;
3. Information on specific characteristics of habitat essential to the conservation of the Appalachian elktoe;
4. Land-use practices and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible effects on proposed critical habitat;
5. Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designation of critical habitat, in particular, any impacts on small entities or families;
6. Economic and other values associated with designating critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe, such as those derived from nonconsumptive uses (e.g., hiking, camping, bird-watching, enhanced watershed protection, improved air quality, “existence values,” and reductions in administrative costs); and
7. Potential adverse effects to the Appalachian elktoe and/or its habitat associated with designating critical habitat for the species; e.g., increased risk to the species from collecting or the destruction of its habitat.
8. Whether our approach to critical habitat designation could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concern and comments.
Please submit comments as an ASCII file format and avoid the use of special characters and encryption. Please also include “Attn: [RIN number]” and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Asheville Field Office (see
Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold also from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such a review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following publication in the
We will consider all comments and information received during the 60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be filed within 45 days of the date of this proposal. Such requests must be made in writing and should be addressed to the State Supervisor, Asheville Field Office (see
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this notice easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the notice clearly stated? (2) Does the notice contain unnecessary technical language or jargon that interferes with the clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity? (4) Is the description of the notice in the “Supplementary Information” section of the preamble helpful in understanding the notice? (5) What else could we do to make the notice easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this notice easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to the following address: Execsec@ios.doi.gov.
In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is a significant regulatory action and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(a) In the economic analysis, we will determine whether this rule will have an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. The Appalachian elktoe was listed as an endangered species in 1994. Since that time we have conducted, and will continue to conduct, formal and informal section 7 consultations with other Federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe.
Under the Act, critical habitat may not be adversely modified by a Federal agency action; critical habitat does not impose any restrictions on non-Federal persons unless they are conducting activities funded or otherwise sponsored or permitted by a Federal agency (see Table 1 below). Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that they do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Based on our experience with the species and its needs, we believe that any Federal action or authorized action that could potentially cause an adverse modification of the proposed critical habitat would currently be considered as “jeopardy” to the species under the Act.
Accordingly, we do not expect the designation of areas as critical habitat within the geographical range occupied by the species to have any incremental impacts on what actions may or may not be conducted by Federal agencies or non-Federal persons that receive Federal authorization or funding. Non-Federal persons who do not have a Federal “sponsorship” of their actions are not restricted by the designation of critical habitat. (However, they continue to be bound by the provisions of the Act concerning “take” of the species, which came into play in 1994 when the species was listed as endangered.)
(b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' actions. Federal agencies have been required to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the Appalachian elktoe since the listing in 1994. As shown in Table 1 (below), no additional effects on agency actions are anticipated to result from the critical habitat designation. However, we will continue to review this proposed action for any inconsistencies with other Federal agency actions.
(c) The proposed rule, if made final, will not significantly impact entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. Federal agencies currently are required to ensure that their activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of the species, and we do not anticipate that the adverse modification prohibition (resulting from the critical habitat designation) will have any incremental effects in areas of proposed critical habitat.
(d) This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. The proposed rule follows the requirements for determining critical habitat contained in the Act.
In the draft economic analysis (under section 4 of the Act), we will determine whether the designation of critical habitat will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities. As discussed under “Regulatory Planning and Review” above, this rule is not expected to result in any restrictions in addition to those currently in existence for areas of proposed critical habitat.
In the economic analysis, we will determine whether the designation of critical habitat will cause (a) any effect on the economy of $100 million or more, (b) any increases in costs or prices for consumers; individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or geographical regions, or (c) any significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. As discussed above, we anticipate that the designation of critical habitat will not have any additional effects on these activities in areas of critical habitat that are within the geographical range occupied by the species.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
a. This rule will not “significantly or uniquely” affect small governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. Small governments will not be affected unless they propose an action requiring Federal funds, permits, or other authorization. Any such activity will require that the involved Federal agency ensure that the action will not adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.
b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or greater in any year; that is, it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The designation of critical habitat imposes no new obligations on State or local governments.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment is not required. This proposed rule, if made final, will not “take” private property. The designation of critical habitat affects only Federal agency actions. Federal actions on private land could be affected by the critical habitat designation; however, we expect no regulatory effect from this designation since all proposed areas are considered to be within the geographical range occupied by the species and would be reviewed under both the jeopardy and adverse modification standards under section 7 of the Act.
This rule will not increase or decrease the current restrictions on private property concerning taking of the Appalachian elktoe as defined in section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.31). Additionally, critical habitat designation does not preclude the development of habitat conservation plans and the issuance of incidental take permits. Any landowner in areas that are included in the designated critical habitat will continue to have opportunity to utilize his or her property in ways consistent with the survival of the Appalachian elktoe.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have significant federalism effects. A Federalism Assessment is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated the development of this critical habitat proposal with, appropriate State natural resources agencies in North Carolina and Tennessee. We will continue to coordinate any future designation of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe with the appropriate State agencies. The designation of critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe imposes few, if any, additional restrictions to those currently in place and therefore has little incremental impact on State and local governments and their activities. The designation may provide some benefit to these governments in that the areas essential to the conservation of the species are more clearly defined and, to the extent currently feasible, the primary constituent elements of the habitat necessary to the survival of the species are specifically identified. While making this definition and identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored activities may occur, doing so may assist these local governments in long-range planning (rather than waiting for case-by-case section 7 consultations to occur).
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. The Office of the Solicitor will review the final determination for this proposal. We will make every effort to ensure that the final determination contains no drafting errors, provides clear standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burdens, and is clearly written, such that the risk of litigation is minimized.
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 3501
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is available upon request from the Asheville Field Office (see
The primary author of this document is John Fridell (see
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons given in the preamble, we propose to amend 50 CFR part 17, as set forth below.
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.11(h), revise the entry for the “Elktoe, Appalachian” under “CLAMS” to read as follows:
(h) * * *
3. Amend § 17.95(f) by adding critical habitat for the Appalachian elktoe (
(f)
1. Critical habitat units proposed for designation as critical habitat are described below and depicted in the maps that follow, with the lateral extent of each designated unit bounded by the ordinary high water line:
Unit 1: Macon County and Swain County, North Carolina—the main stem of the Little Tennessee River (Tennessee River system), from the Lake Emory Dam at Franklin, Macon County, North Carolina, downstream to the backwaters of Fontana Reservoir in Swain County, North Carolina.
Unit 2: Jackson County and Swain County, North Carolina—the main stem of the Tuckasegee River (Little Tennessee River system), from the N.C. State Route 1002 Bridge in Cullowhee, Jackson County, North Carolina, downstream to the N.C. Highway 19 Bridge, north of Bryson City, Swain County, North Carolina.
Unit 3: Graham County, North Carolina—the main stem of the Cheoah River (Little Tennessee River system), from the Santeetlah Dam, downstream to its confluence with the Little Tennessee River.
Unit 4: Transylvania County, North Carolina—the main stem of the Little River (French Broad River system), from the Cascade Lake Power Plant, downstream to its confluence with the French Broad River.
Unit 5: Haywood County, North Carolina—the main stem of the West Fork Pigeon River (French Broad River system), from the confluence of the Little East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the confluence of the East Fork Pigeon River, and the main stem of the Pigeon River, from the confluence of the West Fork Pigeon River and the East Fork Pigeon River, downstream to the N.C. Highway 215 Bridge crossing, south of Canton, North Carolina.
Unit 6: Yancey County and Mitchell County, North Carolina, and Unicoi County, Tennessee—the main stem of the North Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, from the confluence of Big Crabtree Creek, downstream to the confluence of the South Toe River; the main stem of the South Toe River, Yancey County, North Carolina, from the N.C. State Route 1152 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the North Toe River; the main stem of the Toe River, Yancey and Mitchell Counties, North Carolina, from the confluence of the North Toe River and the South Toe River, downstream to the confluence of the Cane River; the main stem of the Cane River, Yancey County, North Carolina, from the N.C. State Route 1381 Bridge, downstream to its confluence with the Toe River; and the main stem of the Nolichucky River from the confluence of the Toe River and the Cane River in Yancey County and Mitchell County, North Carolina, downstream to the U.S. Highway 23/19W Bridge southwest of Erwin, Unicoi County, Tennessee.
2. Within these areas, the primary constituent elements include:
(i) Permanent, flowing, cool, clean water;
(ii) Geomorphically stable stream and river channels and banks;
(iii) Pool, riffle, and run sequences within the channel;
(iv) Sand, gravel, cobble, boulder, and bedrock substrates with no more than low amounts of fine sediment;
(v) Moderate to high stream gradient;
(vi) Periodic natural flooding; and
(vii) Fish hosts, with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas for them.
Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA) intention to request an extension and revision of a currently approved information collection in support of the reporting and recordkeeping requirements under regulations under the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181,
Comments on this notice must be received by April 10, 2001.
Contact Sharon Vassiliades, GIPSA, USDA, STOP 3604, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-3604, FAX 202 690-2755, or telephone: 202 720-1738.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Sharon Vassiliades at 202 720-1738.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of hearings.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Commission Amendments Act of 1994, Section 3, Public Law 103-419, 108 Stat. 4338, as amended, and 45 CFR 702.3., that public hearings before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will commence on Friday, February 16, 2001, beginning at 9:00 a.m., in the morning in Miami, FL, and on subsequent days in Jacksonville, FL, and in Tampa, FL. The February 16, 2001, hearing will take place at the Wyndham Miami Biscayne Bay Hotel, 1601 Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33132. The purpose of these hearings is to collect information within the jurisdiction of the Commission, under Public Law 98-183, Section 5(a)(1) and Section 5(a)(5), related particularly to allegations that eligible persons in Florida were denied the right to vote or to have their votes properly counted in the election of the Presidential electors on November 7, 2000.
The original notice for the hearings was announced in the
Hearing impaired persons who will attend the hearings and require the services of a sign language interpreter, should contact Pamela Dunston, Administrative Services and Clearinghouse Division at (202) 376-8105 (TDD (202) 376-8116), at least five (5) working days before the scheduled date of the hearings.
Les Jin, Office of the Staff Director (202) 376-7700.
Pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we invite comments on the question of whether instruments of equivalent scientific value, for the purposes for which the instruments shown below are intended to be used, are being manufactured in the United States.
Comments must comply with 15 CFR 301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and be filed within 20 days with the Statutory Import Programs Staff, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230. Applications may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
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 public meetings of its Groundfish Committee, Groundfish Advisory Panel and Social Sciences Advisory Committee(SSAC) in February, 2001 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 Thursday, February 22 and Wednesday, February 28, 2001. See
The meetings will be held in Peabody and Newburyport, MA. See
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; (978)465-0492.
Location: Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street, Route 1, Peabody, MA 01960; telephone: (978) 535-4600.
The Groundfish Advisory Panel will review the proposed management alternatives for Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Plan. These alternatives have been developed by the Groundfish Plan Development Team and the Groundfish Oversight Committee during the past year. The
Location: Council Office, 50 Water Street, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will review information collected from public meetings about the social and community impacts of Amendment 5, Amendment 7 and subsequent framework adjustments to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Multispecies FMP). The Committee also will review economic information developed by the Council staff about the impacts of these measures. The information about the social, economic, and community impacts will be used in the development of Amendment 13 to the Multispecies FMP. The Committee also will discuss the organization of workshops for improving social and economic analyses.
Location: Holiday Inn, One Newbury Street, Route 1, Peabody, MA 01960; telephone: (978) 535-4600.
The Groundfish Oversight Committee Panel will review the proposed management alternatives for Amendment 13 to the Northeast Multispecies Plan. These alternatives have been developed by the Groundfish Plan Development Team and the Groundfish Oversight Committee during the past year. The Committee will finalize its recommendation on management alternatives that will be presented to the Council for consideration at the March Council meeting. The Committee will identify issues that it believes may need further attention by the Plan Development Team, and may develop additional alternatives to the management measures under development. The Committee may discuss all elements of the alternatives, including the biological objectives. The Committee will also receive a report on the social impacts of management measures that have adopted since 1994, based on information collected by the Council staff in late 2000. Staff will also present an analysis of groundfish fishing vessel gross revenues since 1994. This information will be used by the Committee in choosing and evaluating management alternatives.
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.
Notice of public meetings.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory entities will hold public meetings.
The Council and its advisory entities will meet March 5-9, 2001. The Council meeting will begin on Tuesday, March 6, at 8 a.m., reconvening each day through Friday. The Council will meet as late as necessary each day to complete its scheduled business.
The meetings hearing will be held at the Double Tree Hotel - Columbia River, 1401 N Hayden Island Drive, Portland, OR 97217; telephone: (503) 283-2111.
Dr. Donald O. McIsaac, Executive Director; telephone: (503) 326-6352.
All meetings are open to the public, except a closed session will be held from 8 a.m. until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 7 to address litigation and personnel matters. The following items are on the Council agenda, but not necessarily in this order:
1. Opening Remarks, Introductions
2. Roll Call
3. Executive Director’s Report
4. Approve Agenda
5. Approve September and November Meeting Minutes
1. Report on Federal Regulation Implementation
2. Review of 2000 Fisheries and Summary of 2001 Stock Abundance Estimates
3. Inseason Management Recommendations for Openings Prior to May 1 off Oregon
4. Identification of Management Objectives and Preliminary Definition of 2001 Options
5. Progress Report on the Queets Coho Overfishing Status Review
6. Update on Snake River Spring Chinook Salmon Recovery
7. Council Recommendations for 2001 Management Option Analysis
8. Appointment of Officers for March Salmon Hearings
9. Adoption of 2001 Management Options for Public Review
Ongoing and New Habitat Issues
1. Status of NMFS Research Programs and Other Nonregulatory Activities
2. Exempted Fishing Permit Applications
3. Future Groundfish Management Process and Schedule
4. Implementation of the Groundfish Strategic Plan
5. Groundfish Informational Reports
1. International Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Discussions and Actions
2. First Draft of the HMS Fishery Management Plan
1. Halibut Informational Reports
2. Proposed 2001 Incidental Catch Regulations for the Troll Salmon Fishery
1. Status of Legislation
2. Appointments of Remaining Vacancies to Advisory Bodies for 2001 Through 2003
3. April 2001 Council Meeting Agenda
4. Council Staff Workload Priorities
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
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Carolyn Porter at (503) 326-6352 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Receipt of application to modify permits (1254); issuance of permits (1268, 1209, 1251).
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 received an application for permit modification from Mr. Martin Daley, Dynegy Northeast Generation (Dynegy) (1254); NMFS has issued permit 1268 to Mr. James Anderson, of National Aquarium in Baltimore (NAB) (1268); NMFS has issued permit 1251 to Mr. Steven Fields, of Magnolia Springs State Park - GADNR (GADNR) (1251), NMFS has issued permit 1209 to Mr. Ken Alfieri, of Cypress Gardens (CG) (1209).
Comments or requests for a public hearing on any of the new applications or modification requests must be received at the appropriate address or fax number no later than 5 p.m. eastern standard time on March 12, 2001.
Written comments on any of the new applications or modification requests should be sent to the appropriate office as indicated below. Comments may also be sent via fax to the number indicated for the application or modification request. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. The applications and related documents are available for review in the indicated office, by appointment:
For permits 1254, 1209, 1251, 1268: Office of Protected Resources, Endangered Species Division, F/PR3, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (ph: 301-713-1401, fax: 301-713-0376).
Terri Jordan, Silver Spring, MD (phone: 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).
Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
The following species is covered in this notice:
Shortnose sturgeon (
Permit 1254: The applicant currently possesses a scientific research permit to conduct a monitoring study as part of an incidental take permit for the operation of the Roseton and Danskammer Point power plants. The applicant will be collecting larvae, juvenile and adult shortnose sturgeon in various location in the Hudson River between the estuary and River mile 65. On January 30, 2001, NMFS was notified that Dynegy had purchased the two power plants from Hudson Central Gas and Electric Company(HCGE) and current co-permittee on permit 1254, and requesting that HCGE be removed from the permit as a holder.
Notice was published on March 25, 1999 (64 FR 14432) that Mr. Ken Alfieri, of Cypress Gardens applied for an enhancement permit (1209). The aquarium proposes to maintain a population of up to eight (8) juvenile shortnose sturgeon in a captive environment for educational purposes. The sturgeon will be captive sturgeon received from the USFWS Bear's Bluff hatchery and have been classified as “non-releasable” by NMFS. In addition the fish will be placed on display, incidental to the research, for public education purposes. Permit 1209 was issued on January 26, 2001, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 1209 expires January 31, 2006.
Notice was published on October 30, 2000 (65 FR 64685) that Mr. Steven Fields, of Magnolia Springs State Park - GADNR, applied for an enhancement permit (1251). The applicant requests an enhancement permit to maintain two five-year old shortnose sturgeon in captivity for educational purposes. The applicant currently possesses two adult shortnose sturgeon received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service hatchery at Bears Bluff, South Carolina in February 1997 under scientific research permit #986. Permit #986 expired on December 31, 2000 and the permit holder did not renew the enhancement aspects of permit 986. Permit 1251 was issued on January 26, 2001, authorizing take of listed species. Permit 1251 expires January 31, 2006.
Notice was published on November 2, 2000 (65 FR 65840) that Mr. James Anderson, of National Aquarium in Baltimore applied for an enhancement permit (1268). The applicant requested a five year permit to continue to maintain one (1) adult shortnose sturgeon in captivity for enhancement purposes. The applicant currently possesses an adult shortnose sturgeon received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service hatchery at Bears Bluff, South Carolina in February 1997 under scientific research permit 986. Permit 986 expired on December 31, 2000 and
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Air Force Medical Operations Agency announces the proposed extension of AF Form 1562, Credentials Evaluation of Health Care Practitioners. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have a practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by April 9, 2001.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to HQ USAF/SG, AFMOA/SGZC, 110 Luke Avenue, Room 405, Bolling AFB, DC 20332-7050, ATTN: Lt Col Sharon Ahrari.
To request more information on this data collection instrument, please write to the above address or call (202) 767-4077.
Title and Associated Form: Credentials Evaluation of Health Care Practitioners, AF Form 1562.
Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to evaluate each health care practitioner's formal education, training, clinical experience, and evidence of physical, moral, and ethical capacities with regard to the practitioner's competence to treat patients in Air Force medical treatment facilities.
Affected Public: Civilian supervisors/peers of health care providers seeking privileges to practice health care in Air Force medical treatment facilities are asked to fill out this form to verify the provider has the necessary clinical experience to practice health care in the Air Force Medical Service.
Respondents are civilian supervisors/peers of health care providers requesting privileges to practice health care in Air Force medical treatment facilities. The completed form is used to assist in making a determination about the health care provider's formal education, training, clinical experience, and evidence of physical, moral, and ethical competence to treat Department of Defense (DoD) beneficiaries as patients in the Air Force Medical Service.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of the general availability of exclusive or partially exclusive licenses under the following pending patent. Any license granted shall comply with 35 USC 209 and 37 CFR part 404. Applications will be evaluated utilizing the following criteria: (1) Ability to manufacture and market the technology; (2) manufacturing and marketing ability; (3) time required to bring technology to market and production rate; (4) royalties; (5) technical capabilities; and (6) small business status.
Patent No. 6,094,599 entitled “RF Diathermy and Faradic Muscle Stimulation” by James Bingham and Richard Olsen issued 25 July 2000. This technology represents an RF diathermy coil assembly, including a generally elastically deformable patient conforming garment and a conductive coil secured to the garment. The conductive coil having a woven wire construction such that the coil can deform as the garment elastically deforms. The RF diathermy coil assembly can be used for wound healing in conjunction with muscle stimulation.
Applications for an exclusive or partially exclusive license may be submitted at any time from the date of this notice.
Navy Medical Research Center (NMRC), 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500.
Dr. Charles J. Schlagel, Office of Technology Transfer, NMRC, phone (301) 319-7427, fax (301) 319-7432, e-mail schlagelc@nmrc.navy.mil.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to T-Wave Corporation, a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice worldwide the Government-owned inventions described in U.S. Patent No. 6,094,599 issued 25 July 2000, entitled “RF Diathermy and Faradic Muscle Stimulation”; in the field of Body-Friendly Radio-Frequency (RF) warming devices.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than February 23, 2001.
Written objections are to be filed with the Office of Technology Transfer, Naval Medical Research Center, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500.
Dr. Charles Schlagel, Director, Office of Technology Transfer, Naval Medical
Idaho Operations Office, DOE.
Notice of Competitive 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 the domestic aluminum industry. The research is to address research priorities identified by the aluminum industry in the Aluminum Industry Technology Roadmap and the Inert Anode Roadmap, (available at the following URL:
The Standard Form 424, and the technical application (20 page maximum), must have an IIPS transmission time stamp of not later than 3:00 p.m. MST on Wednesday, May 2, 2001.
Completed applications are required to be submitted via the U.S. Department of Energy Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS) at the following URL:
Elizabeth Dahl, Contract Specialist at
Approximately $2,500,000 in combined fiscal year 2002 Federal funds is expected to be available to totally fund the first year of selected research efforts. DOE anticipates making six to nine awards each with a duration of four years or less. This solicitation is requiring 50% cost share to ensure industrial involvement in each of the proposals and to ensure that the novel, energy efficient processes developed by this R&D program will be fully implemented by industry. There will be no waivers of this cost share requirement. Multi-partner collaborations between industry, university, and National Laboratory participants are encouraged. The issuance date of Solicitation Number DE-PS07-01ID14050 is on or about February 6, 2001. The solicitation is available in its full text via the Internet at the following address:
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of restricted eligibility.
The Department of Energy announces that it intends to conduct a competitive Program Solicitation and award financial assistance (grants) to U.S. Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) and Other Minority Institutions (OMI) in support of innovative research and development of advanced concepts pertinent to fossil resource conversion and utilization. Applications will be subjected to a review by a DOE technical panel, and awards will be made to a select number of applicants based on the scientific merit of the application, relevant program policy factors, and the availability of funds. Collaboration with private industry is encouraged.
Ms. Cynthia Y. Mitchell, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Acquisition and Assistance Division, P.O. Box 10940, MS 921-107, Pittsburgh PA 15236-0940, Telephone: 412-386-4862, FAX: 412-386-6137, E-mail: mitchell@netl.doe.gov. The solicitation (available in both Word Perfect 6.1 for Windows and Portable Document Format (PDF)) will be released on DOE's NETL World Wide Web Server Internet System (http://www.netl.doe.gov/business/solicit) on or about February 2, 2001. If applicants do not have Internet capability, a 3.5″ double sided/high density diskette copy of the solicitation will be available, upon receipt of a written request submitted via fax or e-mail to Ms. Mitchell. No telephone requests will be honored for request of diskettes.
Applications from HBCU/OMI-affiliated research institutes must be submitted through the college or university with which they are affiliated. The university (not the university-affiliated research institute) will be the recipient of any resultant DOE grant award. Applications submitted in response to the solicitation must meet the following two criteria: the Principal Investigator or a Co-Principal Investigator must be a teaching professor at the submitting university listed in the application; and a minimum of 30% of personnel time invoiced under the grant is to pay for student assistance for each year of the grant. Although it is not required as an application qualification criterion, collaboration with the private sector is encouraged, and applications proposing private sector collaboration may be evaluated more favorably. The solicitation will contain a complete description of the technical evaluation factors and relative importance of each factor. Collaboration by the private sector with the HBCU/OMI may be in the form of cash cost sharing, consultation, HBCU/OMI access to industrial facilities or equipment, experimental data and/or equipment not available at the university, or as a subgrantee/subcontractor to the HBCU/OMI.
Topic 1—Advanced Environmental Control Technologies for Coal
Topic 2—Advanced Coal Utilization
Topic 3—Clean Fuels Technology
Topic 4—Heavy Oil Upgrading and Processing
Topic 5—Advanced Recovery, Completion/Stimulation, and Geoscience Technologies for Oil
Topic 6—Natural Gas Supply, Storage, and Processing
Topic 7—Infrastructure Reliability for Natural Gas
Topic 8—Fuel Cells
Topic 9—Facility/Student Exploratory Research Training Grants
Technical Topic No. 9,
Approximately $900,000 is planned for this solicitation. The total should provide support for four to eight research and development application selections (Topics 1-8), and approximately two to twelve faculty/student exploratory research training application selections (Topic 9).
In the matter of: American Electric Power Service Corporation on behalf of: Appalachian Power Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Wheeling Power Company, The Detroit Edison Company, First Energy Corporation on behalf of: The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, The Toledo Edison Company, Virginia Electric and Power Company, Consumers Energy Company.
Pursuant to the order in
All parties with grandfathered agreements that are the subject of the Commission's order, as described above, are requested to contact the DRS. To contact the DRS, please send an e-mail including the name, telephone number and e-mail address of the party contact as well as the title and description of the grandfathered contract(s) involved to
The DRS is tentatively planning to hold the convening session during the week of March 4, 2001. However, the DRS will be in contact with the parties who respond to this request to select an appropriate date and location for the meeting. A notice of the date and location of the convening session will be issued at a later date.
Take notice that on December 19, 2000, Indiana Michigan Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power (AEP), tendered for filing revised Service Agreements (SAs) with the members of the Indiana and Michigan Municipal Distributors Association (IMMDA). The SAs were revised in accordance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC) August 3, 2000, Letter Order in this docket requesting the filing of rate schedule designations as required in Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,096 (2000).
AEP requests that the revised SAs be accepted for filing in accordance with the FERC's August 3, 2000, Letter Order and in accordance with Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,096 (2000).
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before February 9, 2001. 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
Cottonwood Energy Company LP (Cottonwood) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which Cottonwood will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. Cottonwood also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Cottonwood requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Cottonwood.
On January 30, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Cottonwood should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).
Absent a request for hearing within this period, Cottonwood is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Cottonwood's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is March 1, 2001.
Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at
North Carolina Power Holdings, L.L.C. (NCPH) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which NCPH will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. NCPH also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, NCPH requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by NCPH.
On January 30, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by NCPH should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).
Absent a request for hearing within this period. NCPH is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of NCPH's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene
Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at
Take notice that on January 23, 2001, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a Complaint against the California Power Exchange Corporation (PX). The Complaint requests that the Commission immediately: (1) Order an accounting of recent invoices sent by the PX to PG&E and (2) stay any attempted liquidation of PG&E's Block Forward Market positions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this 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 must be filed on or before February 12, 2001. 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 this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before February 12, 2001. 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 January 26, 2001, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing a notice of a change in rates for the October 18, 2000 Negotiated Rate Agreement between Tennessee and Dynegy Energy Marketing and Trade (Dynegy). The notice substitutes a fixed rate in place of a Margin calculation for certain volumes for TGP Service Package No. 35092. The fixed prices listed in the notice are effective from February 1, 2001 through March 31, 2001.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before February 8, 2001. 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.
Xcel Energy Services, Inc. (Xcel) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which Xcel will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. Xcel also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, Xcel requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by Xcel.
On January 30, 2001, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Corporate Applications, Office of Markets, Tariffs and Rates, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
Within thirty days of date of the order, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by Xcel should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214).
Absent a request for hearing within this period, Xcel is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of Xcel's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is March 1, 2001.
Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, American Electric Power Service Corporation tendered for filing, on behalf of the operating companies of the American Electric Power System, proposed amendments to the Open Access Transmission Tariff, in compliance with the Commission's December 29, 2000 Order Accepting for Filing, as Modified, Revisions to Open Access Transmission Tariff.
AEP requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Copies of AEP's filing have been served upon AEP's transmission customers and the public service commissions of Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia and the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, The Dayton Power and Light Company (DP&L) tendered for filing tariff sheets in compliance with the “Order Accepting For Filing Proposed Tariff Revisions, As Modified,” issued by the Commission on December 29, 2000 in Docket No. ER01-317-000.
Copies of this filing were served upon DPL Energy Resources and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Central Maine Power Company (CMP), tendered for filing as an initial rate schedule pursuant to Section 35.12 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (the Commission) regulations, 18 CFR 35.12, an executed interconnection agreement (the Agreement) between CMP and Greenville Steam Company (Greenville).
The Agreement is intended to replace the Purchased Power Agreement between the parties, which expired on December 31, 2000. As such, CMP is requesting that the Agreement become effective January 1, 2001.
Copies of this filing have been served upon the Commission, the Maine Public Utilities Commission, and Greenville.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Valley Electric Association, Inc. tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), an open access transmission tariff and accompanying rates.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Idaho Power Company (IPC) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a Service Agreement for Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between Idaho Power Company and Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Avista Energy, Inc. (Avista) filed a notice of termination pursuant to Section 18.3 of the California Power Exchange Corporation (PX) FERC Electric Service Tariff No. 2 (PX Tariff) to be effective immediately, relating to Avista's termination of its Participation Agreement with the PX.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Georges Colliers, Inc. (GCI) petitioned the Commission for acceptance of GCI 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 Commission regulations.
GCI intends to engage in wholesale electric power and energy purchases and sales as a marketer. GCI is not in the business of generating or transmitting electric power. GCI is a privately owned corporation involved in coal production and the marketing of electricity.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, New England Power Company (NEP) submitted for filing a service agreement between NEP and PG&E Energy Trading—Power, L.P. (PGE&T) for service under NEP's Wholesale Market Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 10.
Copies of the filing were served upon PGE&T and the Department of Public Utilities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001 Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company (Allegheny Power), filed Service Agreement No. 338 to add AEP Ohio Commercial & Industrial Retail Company, LLC to Allegheny Power's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff.
The proposed effective date under the agreement is January 26, 2001.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the West Virginia Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Network Operating Agreement and a Network Integration Service Agreement for The Village of Pardeeville and Oconto Falls Water & Light Commission.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), tendered for filing three executed Network Integration Transmission Service (NTS) Agreements pursuant to the AEP Companies' Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (OATT). The OATT has been designated as the Operating Companies of the American Electric Power System FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 6. The Agreements provide Network Integration Transmission Service for delivery of energy supplies to Consumers participating in retail supplier choice programs.
A copy of the filing was served upon the Parties and the state utility regulatory commissions of Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Southern Company Services, Inc., acting on behalf of Alabama Power Company (APC), filed an Interconnection Agreement (IA) by and between APC and Caledonia Generating, LLC (Caledonia). The IA allows Caledonia to interconnect its generating facility to be located in Lowndes County, Mississippi to APC's electric system.
An effective date of January 29, 2001 has been requested.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Louisville Gas and Electric Company (LG&E)/Kentucky Utilities (KU) (hereinafter Companies) tendered for filing executed transmission service agreement with LG&E Energy Marketing, Inc. The agreement allows LG&E Energy Marketing, Inc. to take firm point-to-point transmission service from LG&E/KU. The point of receipt is Big Rivers Electric Cooperative (BREC) and the point of delivery is American Electric Power (AEP).
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power), 500 South 27th Street, Decatur, Illinois 65251-2200, filed with the Commission a Service Agreement for Network Integration Transmission Service and a Network Operating Agreement entered into with Dynegy Power Marketing, Incorporated (DPM) pursuant to Illinois Power's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Illinois Power requests an effective date of January 1, 2001 for the Agreements and accordingly seeks a waiver of the Commission's notice requirement.
Illinois Power states that a copy of this filing has been sent to DPM.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, 2001 Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Monongahela Power Company, The Potomac Edison Company and West Penn Power Company (Allegheny Power), filed Service Agreement No. 337 to add AEP Ohio Retail Energy, LLC to Allegheny Power's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff.
The proposed effective date under the agreement is January 26, 2001.
Copies of the filing have been provided to the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, the Maryland Public Service Commission, the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the West Virginia Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, Northern States Power Company and Northern States Power Company (Wisconsin) (jointly NSP Companies), wholly owned utility operating company subsidiaries of Xcel Energy Inc., tendered for filing seven Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements (Agreements) between the NSP Companies and NSP Energy Marketing. The NSP Companies propose the Agreements be included in the Xcel Energy Operating Companies FERC Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff, Original Volume No. 2, as Service Agreement Nos. 180-NSP, 181-NSP, 182-NSP, 183-NSP, 184-NSP, 185-NSP, and 186-NSP, pursuant to Order No. 614. The NSP Companies also submit Seventh Revised Sheet No. 1 (Table of Contents) to the Joint OATT, Original Volume 2, to reflect inclusion of the Agreements.
The NSP Companies request that the Commission accept the Agreements and Seventh Revised Sheet No. 1 effective January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 29, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Generator Interconnection Agreement between ATCLLC, Badger Windpower, LLC and Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of February 12, 2001.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, UtiliCorp United Inc. (UtiliCorp) and Aquila Energy Corporation (Aquila), filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for approval of disposition of jurisdictional facilities pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act and section 33 of the Commission's regulations. The filing contemplates an initial public offering of Aquila common stock.
Take notice that on January 31, 2001 High Desert Power Project, LLC (High Desert) with its principal place of business at 111 Market Place, Suite 200, Baltimore, MD 21202, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
High Desert was previously determined to be an EWG in High Desert Power Project, LLC, 93 FERC 62,244 (2000). In its application, High Desert stated that it intended to own and operate a natural gas-fueled generating facility with a net power production of 750 MW in San Bernardino County, California (the Facility). The instant application modifies the original application to provide that the Facility will be owned by an unaffiliated entity, the High Desert Power Trust (the Trust). High Desert will lease the Facility from the Trust, and will have care, custody, and control of the Facility and sell all of the output from the Facility exclusively at wholesale. The Facility is expected to commence commercial operation in the year 2003.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson) filed executed versions of the Interconnection Agreement (Roseton Plant), Service Agreement No. 260 under the New York Independent System Operator Open Access Transmission Tariff (NYISO OATT) and Interconnection Agreement (Danskammer Plant), Service Agreement No. 261 under the NYISO OATT (Interconnection Agreements). The executed Interconnection Agreements are submitted for substitution of the unexecuted versions of the Interconnection Agreements previously accepted for filing by the Commission in Docket No. ER01-126-000.
The service agreements will become effective on January 31, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001 Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd) submitted for filing a revision to the pagination of Schedule 4, Second Revised Sheet No. 124, of ComEd's Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT). Due to an administrative oversight, Second Revised Sheet No. 124 was incorrectly paginated in the December 21, 2000 amended filing in Docket No. ER01-628-001. Accordingly, consistent with the regulations established in Order No. 614,
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Southern Company Services, Inc., acting on behalf of Alabama Power Company (APC), filed an Interconnection Agreement (IA) by and between APC and Lone Oak Energy Center, L.L.C. (Lone Oak). The IA allows Lone Oak to interconnect its generating facility to be located in Lowndes County, Mississippi to APC's electric system.
An effective date of January 30, 2001 has been requested.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Central Maine Power Company (CMP), tendered for filing as an initial rate schedule pursuant to Section 35.12 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (the Commission) regulations, 18 CFR 35.12, an executed interconnection agreement (the Executed IA) and executed Form of Service Agreement for Non-Firm Local Point-to-Point Transmission Service (the Executed TSA) between CMP and Rocky Gorge Corporation (Rocky Gorge).
These agreements are intended to replace the Purchased Power Agreement between the parties, which expired on December 31, 2000. As such, CMP is requesting that the Executed IA and Executed TSA become effective January 1, 2001.
Copies of this filing have been served upon the Commission, the Maine Public Utilities Commission, and Rocky Gorge.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Metropolitan Edison Company (doing business as and referred to as GPU Energy) submitted for filing and acceptance an amendment (Amendment No. 1) to the Generation Facility Transmission Interconnection Agreement (Agreement) between GPU Energy and Calpine Construction Finance Company L.P. (Calpine). GPU Energy states that the purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to amend the Bonus/Liquidated Damages provisions described in Appendix E, Article VI, Section 2 of the Agreement.
GPU Energy requests waiver of the 60-day prior notice requirement, so that Amendment No. 1 may be accepted for filing and become effective as of January
GPU Energy states that a copy of this filing has been served upon Calpine, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., and regulators in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
8. New England Power Company
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, New England Power Company, successor to Montaup Electric Company, tendered for filing a notice of cancellation of its Wholesale Market Tariff, Original Volume No. 8, effective December 31, 2000, together with a notice of termination, pursuant to its own terms, of its service agreement with PG&E Energy Trading—Power, L.P.
The service agreement was effective for the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000.
9. American Transmission Company LLC
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing Short-Term Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements between ATCLLC and Consolidated Water Power Company.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, American Transmission Company (ATCLLC), tendered for filing a revision to its Open Access Transmission Tariff. The revision would allow self-supply and third party supply of Service Schedule 2 (Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources).
ATCLLC requests an effective date coincident with its commencement of transmission service (January 30, 2001) and waiver of the Commission's notice requirements in order to allow for the self-supply and third-party supply to take effect as soon as possible.
Copies of the filing have been served on all transmission service customers, the Illinois Commerce Commission, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin and the Michigan Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, American Transmission Systems, Inc. filed a Service Agreement to provide Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service for City of Cleveland, Department of Public Utilities, Division of Cleveland Public Power, the Transmission Customer. Services are being provided under the American Transmission Systems, Inc. Open Access Transmission Tariff submitted for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Docket No. ER99-2647-000.
The proposed effective date under the Service Agreement is January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing Network Operating Agreements and a Network Integration Service Agreements for Central Wisconsin Electric Cooperative and Washington Island Electric Cooperative.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing Short-Term Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements between ATCLLC and Upper Peninsula Power Company, Gen-Sys Energy, Minnesota Power, Inc., Wisconsin Public Power Inc., TransAlta Energy Marketing, and Reliant Energy Services Inc.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Kentucky Utilities Company (KU) tendered for filing revisions to existing contracts between KU and its wholesale requirements customers.
KU requests an effective date of January 1, 2001 for these contracts.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Cleco Power LLC, tendered for filing its Notice of Succession pursuant to 18 CFR 35.16, effective December 31, 2000, in which it adopted, ratified, and made its own in every respect all applicable rate schedules, and supplements thereto, heretofore filed with the Commission by Cleco Utility Group Inc.
Effective December 31, 2000, Cleco Utility Group Inc. was converted from a corporate form to a limited liability company form. The conversion was effectuated through a merger with an entity formed solely for purposes of the conversion, namely Cleco Power LLC, with Cleco Power LLC as the surviving entity.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. tendered for filing executed Service Agreements establishing Adams Columbia Electric Cooperative, City of Stoughton, Rock County Electric Cooperative and Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. and unexecuted Service Agreements establishing Central Wisconsin Electric Cooperative, Kiel Electric Utility, Prairie du Sac Electric & Water Utility and Village of Pardeeville as ancillary service customers under the terms of the Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. transmission tariff. Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. also requests cancellation of the associated Network Service and Network Operating Agreements which are no longer required.
Alliant Energy Corporate Services, Inc. requests an effective date of January 1, 2001 and accordingly, seeks waiver of the Commission's notice requirements.
A copy of this filing has been served upon the Illinois Commerce Commission, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the Iowa
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) tendered for filing an executed service agreement for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service with Entergy Power Marketing Corporation (Entergy).
SPP seeks an effective date of January 1, 2001 for this service agreement.
A copy of this filing was served on Entergy.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing four executed service agreements for network integration transmission service, network integration transmission service under state required retail access programs, and point-to-point transmission service under the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff. These agreements are between PJM and Pepco Energy Services, Inc.
Copies of this filing were served upon Pepco Energy Services, Inc. and the state commissions within the PJM control area.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric), tendered for filing an electric service agreement between the Wisconsin Energy Corporation Operating Companies (WEC Operating Companies) and Wisconsin Public Power Inc. (WPPI) under the WEC Operating Companies Joint Ancillary Services Tariff. (WEC Operating Companies FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 2).
Wisconsin Electric respectfully requests an effective date of January 1, 2001
Copies of the filing have been served on WPPI, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric), tendered for filing an electric service agreement between the Wisconsin Energy Corporation Operating Companies (WEC Operating Companies) and American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) under the WEC Operating Companies Joint Ancillary Services Tariff. (WEC Operating Companies FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 2).
Wisconsin Electric respectfully requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Copies of the filing have been served on ATCLLC, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing an Interconnection Agreement with Consolidated Water Power Company.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing two Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Service Agreements, which provide for the continuation of service to Wisconsin Public Power, Inc. and Consolidated Water Power Company under ATCLLC's OATT.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Network Integration Service Agreement for Dairyland Power Cooperative.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of January 1, 2001.
Take notice that on January 26, 2001, Citizens Communications Company (Citizens) filed a Supplemental Agreement with Select Energy, Inc., to sell a portion of Citizens' energy entitlement pursuant to the Firm Energy Contract between NEPOOL Phase II Participants and HydroQuebec, dated October 4, 1984, in addition to the portion sold in an agreement originally filed with the Commission on October 27, 2000 (FERC Electric Rate Schedule No. 42).
A copy of this filing was served on the service list in this docket, and on Select Energy, Inc. In addition, a copy of the rate schedule is available for inspection at the offices of Citizens' Vermont Electric Division during regular business hours.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) tendered for filing a Market-Based Service Agreement under Cinergy's Market-Based Power Sales Standard Tariff-MB (the Tariff) entered into between Cinergy and Engage Energy America LLC (EEA).
Cinergy and EEA are requesting an effective date of January 15, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) Participants Committee filed for acceptance materials to permit NEPOOL to expand its membership to include Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Dominion Marketing I, Inc., and Dominion Marketing II, Inc. (collectively, the Dominion Entities), DTE Energy Trading, Inc. (DTE), and Energy Management, Inc. (EMI).
The Participants Committee requests an effective date of February 1, 2001 for commencement of participation in NEPOOL by the Dominion Entities, DTE, and EMI.
The Participants Committee states that copies of these materials were sent to the New England state governors and regulatory commissions and the Participants in NEPOOL.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) submitted for filing a unilaterally executed service agreement for 15 MW of firm point-to-point transmission service with Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNMP) under the terms of PNM's Open Access Transmission Tariff. PNM's filing is available for public inspection at its offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Copies of the filing have been sent to TNMP and to the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, the American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEPSC), tendered for filing executed Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreements for Ameren Energy Marketing, and an amendment to Service Agreement No. 179, a network transmission service agreement executed by AMP-Ohio, Inc. All of these agreements are 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 Second Revised Volume No. 6.
AEPSC requests waiver of notice to permit the Service Agreements to be made effective for service billed on and after January 1, 2001.
A copy of the filing was served upon the Parties and the state utility regulatory commissions of Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, pursuant to Section 35.15(a), 18 CFR 35.15(a) of the Commission's Regulations, Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a Notice of Termination of its Yadkin Division's market-based rate tariff. APGI is the successor to Yadkin, Inc. APGI's market-based rate tariff will remain on file with the Commission.
APGI requests an effective date for this termination of 60 days from the date of this filing, or March 31, 2001.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, WPS Westwood Generation, LLC (Westwood), formerly CinCap VI, LLC (CinCap), filed a revised market-based rate tariff. Westwood also filed a Notice of Succession in Ownership for the interconnection agreement between CinCap and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL), PPL's First Revised Rate Schedule FERC No. 164.
Westwood requests waiver of the Commission's notice of filing requirements to allow the revised tariff to become effective January 31, 2001, the day after filing. Consistent with the Commission's regulations, Westwood requests that the Notice of Succession in Ownership become effective on January 1, 2001, the date of its name change.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) submitted for filing an Unscheduled Transmission Services Agreement between PJM and the New York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO) (UTS Agreement) and a Notice of Cancellation of the Interconnection Agreement Between The NYPP Group And The PJM Group designated as PJM Group Rate Schedule FERC No. 5 and also as NYPP Group Rate Schedule FERC No. 3.
PJM requests waiver of the Commission's 60-day notice requirement to permit an effective date of January 1, 2001 for the UTS Agreement and the cancellation of the Interconnection Agreement Between The NYPP Group And The PJM Group designated as the PJM Group Rate Schedule FERC No. 5 and also as NYPP Group Rate Schedule FERC No. 3.
Copies of this filing were served upon the NYISO, all PJM and NYISO members, and the state electric utility regulatory commissions within the PJM control area and the NYISO.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of its transmission service agreement with Wisconsin Power & Light Company (WPL), Service Agreement No. 11, under WPSC's T-1 transmission tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 4.
WPSC requests a January 1, 2001 effective date.
Copies of the filing were served upon WPL, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, the Michigan Public Service Commission and the American Transmission Company, L.L.C.
Take notice that on January 30, 2001, SF Phosphates Limited Company, a Utah limited liability company, petitioned the Commission for acceptance of SF Phosphates Rate Schedule FERC No. 1; the granting of certain blanket approvals, including the authority to sell electricity at market-based rates; waiver of certain Commission regulations; and waiver of notice requirement.
SF Phosphates intends to engage in wholesale electric energy and capacity sales. SF Phosphates is owned by JR Simplot Company and Farmland Industries, Limited and is engaged in the manufacture of phosphate-based fertilizers.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 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.
The Commission's Rules of Practice 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.
k. This application has been accepted, but is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2-A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The application may be viewed on http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
n. Anyone may submit a protest or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to theproceeding. Any protests or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified deadline date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application.
Take notice that the following Notice of Intent to File Application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
The Amoskeag Development consists of the following existing facilities: (1) A 29-foot-high, 710-foot-long concrete gravity dam comprised of: (i) A low crest section with 5-foot-high flashboards; and (ii) a high crest section with 3-foot-high flashboards; (2) a 7-mile-long, 478-acre reservoir; (3) a powerhouse, integral with the dam, containing three generating units with a total installed capacity of 16,000 kW; (4) a 415-foot-long, 34.5-kV double circuit transmission line; and (5) other appurtenant facilities.
The Hooksett Development consists of the following existing facilities: (1) A dam comprised of: (i) a 340-foot-long stone masonry section with 2-foot-high flashboards connected to; (2) a 250-foot-long concrete section with 2-foot-high flashboards; (2) a 15-foot by 20-foot Taintor gate; (3) a 5.5-mile-long, 405-acre reservoir; (4) a powerhouse containing a single generating unit with an installed capacity of 1,600 kW; and (5) other appurtenant facilities.
The Garvins Falls Development consists of the following existing
m. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by December 31, 2003.
Take notice that the following Notice of Intent to File Application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by February 28, 2004.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing comments and or motions: 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. 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 website at
Please include the project number (P-349-070) on any comments or motions filed.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issued that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, the intervener also must serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. Description of Amendment: APC proposes to refurbish and upgrade three of the four existing turbine-generator units at Martin Dam powerhouse. The project's fourth unit, a 552.-megawatt (MW) facility installed in 1952, would not be involved.
Specifically, APC proposes to rehabilitate the three 75-year-old, 33-MW units by installing in each the following new components/systems: a modern-design turbine runner; wicket gate; greaseless bushings for the gate operating system; stainless steel sleeves on the turbine shafts; thrust bearing oil coolers; and wedging system for the generator stator coils. In addition, the licensee proposes to re-insulate the generator rotor pole pieces, and to clean the paint all turbine and generator components.
The proposed measures would increase: (1) the generating capacity of each of the three rehabilitated units by 7 to 10 MW; and (2) the combined hydraulic capacity of the three rehabilitated turbines by 900 cubic feet per second (cfs) or by 8.6 percent—from 10,470 cfs currently to 11,370 cfs.
l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is 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
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list for the Martin Dam Project, No. 349, should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene—Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 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 subject application.
o. Filing the Service of Responsive Documents—Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS”, “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS”, “PROTESTS”, OR “MOTION TO INTERVENE”, as applicable, and the project name and number, “Martin Dam Amendment of License No. 349-070”. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon the representative of the APC specified in item h, above.
p. Agency Comments—Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the subject application for amendment of license. If any 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 representative listed in item h, above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before April 9, 2001.
A copy of the proposed ICR will be available to interested persons without charge at the follow address: Betty West, USEPA, Office of Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, ICC Building, Room 7421-H, (Mail Code 4203M), Washington, DC 20460; email address:
Betty West, Telephone: (202)564-8486, Fax (202)564-6392, e-mail address:
Due to the re-estimation of burden for this collection, the burden hours associated with this new ICR have increased slightly from the hours of the previous ICR. This increase is due to more accurate estimates of the implementation of the Agency's monitoring frequency reduction guidance. The change in burden is reflected in higher operation and maintenance costs, due to the cost associated with using the services of outside laboratories. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
EPA would like to solicit comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held February 21-23, 2001 at the Hotel Washington, Washington, DC. The CHPAC was created to advise the Environmental Protection Agency in the development of regulations, guidance and policies to address children's environmental health.
Wednesday, February 21, 2001, Work Group meetings only; plenary sessions Thursday, February 22 and Friday, February 23, 2001.
Hotel Washington, 515 15th Street, NW, Washington, DC.
Contact Paula R. Goode, Office of Children's Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107A, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-2702.
The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. The Science and Research Work Group will meet from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and the 21st Century Work Group will meet from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 21, 2001. The plenary CHPAC will meet on Thursday, February 22 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., with a public comment period at 5:00 p.m., and on Friday, February 23 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
The plenary session will open with introductions and a review of the agenda and objectives for the meeting. Agenda items include highlights of the Office of Children's Health Protection (OCHP) activities and reports from the Work Groups, speakers on States' children's environmental health activities, and a status report on the longitudinal cohort study on children (as found in the Child Health Act of 2000).
Federal Election Commission.
The following item has been added to the agenda:
Final Audit Report on Michigan Republican State Committee.
Tuesday, February 13, 2001 at 10:00 A.M.
999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Thursday, February 15, 2001 at 10:00 A.M.
999 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. (Ninth floor)
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone (202) 694-1220.
Notice is hereby given that the following Ocean Transportation Intermediary licenses have been reissued by the Federal Maritime Commission pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984, as amended by the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, 46 CFR part 515.
The Federal Maritime Commission hereby gives notice that the following ocean transportation intermediary licenses have been revoked pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1718) and the regulations of the Commission pertaining to the licensing of Ocean Transportation Intermediaries, effective on the corresponding dates shown below:.
In the
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR part 515).
Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The meeting will be held on Friday, March 2, 2001, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and is open to the public.
The meeting will be held at 6010 Executive Boulevard, Fourth Floor, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
Anne Lebbon, Coordinator of the Advisory Council, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2101 East Jefferson Street, Suite 600, Rockville, Maryland 20852, (301) 594-7216. For press-related information, please contact Karen Migdail at 301/594-6120.
If sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact Linda Reeves, Assistant Administrator for Equal Opportunity, AHRQ, on (301) 594-6662 no later than February 26, 2001.
Section 921 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 299c) established the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary and the Director, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), on matters related to actions of the Agency to enhance the quality, improve outcomes, reduce costs of health care services, improve access to such services through scientific research, the promotion of improvements in clinical practice and in the organization, financing, and delivery of health care services.
The Council is composed of members of the public appointed by the Secretary and Federal ex-officio members. Donald M. Berwick, M.D., the Council chairman, will preside.
On Friday, March 2, 2001, the meeting will begin at 8:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chairman. The Director, AHRQ, will present the status of the Agency's current research, programs and initiatives. Tentative agenda items include healthcare workers, long term care plan, low income, urban, rural health care, and the shape of U.S. health care in the future. The official agenda will be available on AHRQ's website at
Part C (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (45 FR 67772-76, dated October 14, 1980, and corrected at 45 FR 69296, October 20, 1980, as amended most recently at 66 FR 1363-1364, dated January 8, 2001) is amended to retitle and revise the functional statement of the Hospital Infections Program (HIP), National Center for Infectious Diseases (NCID).
Section C-B, Organization and Functions, is hereby amended as follows:
Delete in its entirety the titles and functional statements for the Hospital Infections Program (CRM) and insert the following:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by April 9, 2001.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information via the Internet at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/edockethome.cfm. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Under section 519 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360i), FDA is authorized to require manufacturers to report medical device related deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions and to require user facilities to report device-related deaths directly to FDA and to manufacturers, and to report serious injuries to the manufacturer. Section 213 of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) amended section 519(b) of the act relating to mandatory reporting by user facilities of deaths and serious injuries and serious illnesses associated with the use of medical devices. This amendment required FDA to, by regulation, replace universal user facility reporting with a system that is limited to a “* * * subset of user facilities that constitutes a representative profile of user reports” for device related deaths and serious injuries. This amendment is reflected in section 519(b)(5)(A) of the act.
FDA is the Federal agency charged with the responsibility for ensuring that marketed medical products are safe and effective. To carry out its responsibilities, the agency needs to be informed whenever an adverse event or product problem occurs. Only if FDA is provided with such information will it be able to evaluate the risk, if any, associated with the product and take whatever action is necessary to reduce or eliminate the public's exposure to this risk. Data collected from user facilities about problems with medical devices assist FDA to carry out that mission as it pertains to medical devices. Prior to implementing the regulation to change from universal user facility reporting to reporting by a subset of user facilities, FDA is planning to conduct a pilot program to evaluate various aspects of the new program. The new user facility program that will be comprised of a subset of user facilities is called the Medical Product Surveillance Network (MedSuN). Two FDA Centers, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) are participating in this project. Data collected from the pilot will aid FDA in fulfilling its mission to monitor the safety and effectiveness of marketed medical devices as they are used in clinical settings and to determine what aspects of the pilot program should be implemented in the national program. The current FDA universal user-facility reporting system remains in place during the piloting of the new program, and will remain until FDA implements the new MedSuN national system by regulation.
An electronic format of the medical device related sections of the mandatory MedWATCH form (form 3500A; OMB Control number 0910-0291) will be accessible to the participating medical device user facilities and the participating blood establishments. The facilities participating in the collection of medical device-related adverse events will use this electronic format in reporting to FDA. The electronic format will include some additional items that are not on the 3500A form. These will be voluntary for participants to complete, such as hospital profile information and several questions related to the use of medical devices.
During this pilot project, FDA is planning to include the electronic collection of voluntary information related to blood products. Currently blood establishments and transfusion centers must investigate and keep records of adverse events regarding blood or blood products arising as a result of blood collection or transfusion (§ 606.170(a) (21 CFR 606.170(a))). In addition, when the event is fatal, FDA must be notified immediately (by phone, fax, express mail, or email) and a written report must be submitted within 7 days of the transfusion (§ 606.170(b). Deviations in the manufacturing of biological products, including blood and blood components, according to the recently published rule entitled “Biological Products: Reporting of Biological Product Deviations in Manufacturing” (November 7, 2000, 65 FR 66621), must also be reported to FDA when the product is distributed (21 CFR 606.171). The form for these reports is pending OMB approval.
However, these mandatory reports do not include errors related to the use of the product and do not include “near-miss” errors, an important way of analyzing weaknesses in the systems. The “Medical Event Reporting System for Transfusion Medicine” (MERS-TM) has been designed to provide this type of information. For this pilot program, blood transfusion centers and blood establishment centers who currently use
Participation in this pilot will be voluntary and will initially include 25 hospitals that will respond to the medical device questions. At the same time, an initial nine blood establishments and transfusion services sites, which currently use the MERS-TM, will be recruited to participate. It is anticipated that during this pilot the number of participants will increase to approximately 250 facilities reporting medical device problems and the number of blood establishments and transfusion-services sites is anticipated to increase to 30. The electronic version will take approximately 45 minutes, or less, to complete. For the blood centers that are participating, the burden of participation will be approximately 15 minutes.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The number of respondents for medical devices was determined by the average number of respondents given that 25 facilities will be enrolled in the first year, up to 100 the second year, and up to 250 the third year. Eighty three is the average of the final complement of 250 facilities. The annual frequency of response is based on FDA's experience with its mandatory and voluntary reporting systems.
The number of respondents for blood transfusions was determined by the average number of respondents given that a total of 30 blood establishments will be enrolled at the end of 3 years. The annual frequency of response was based on the information that the American Red Cross submits about 15 reports per establishment per year. The MERS-TM will yield about a tenfold higher than the American Red Cross rate since it will include close-calls as well as actual adverse events.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by April 9, 2001.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/edockethome.cfm. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA’s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
Section 515 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 360(e)) sets forth the requirements for premarket approval of certain class III medical devices. Class III devices are either preamendments devices that have been classified into class III, postamendments devices which are not substantially equivalent to a preamendments device, or transitional devices. Class III devices are devices such as implants, life sustaining or life supporting devices, or devices which otherwise present a potentially unreasonable risk of illness or injury, or for which are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health. Most premarket approval applications (PMA’s) are for postamendments class III devices.
Under section 515 of the act, an application must contain several pieces of information including full reports of all information concerning investigations showing whether the device is reasonably safe and effective. The application should also include a statement of components, ingredients, and properties and of the principle or principles of operation of such a device and should also include a full description of the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for the manufacture and processing of the device; and labeling specimens.
The implementing regulations, contained in part 814 (21 CFR part 814), further specify the contents of a PMA for a class III medical device and the criteria FDA employs in approving, denying, or withdrawing approval of a PMA and supplements to PMA’s. The regulation’s purpose is to establish an efficient and thorough procedure for FDA's review of PMA's and supplements to PMA’s for certain class III (premarket approval) medical devices. The regulations contained in part 814 facilitate the approval of PMA's and supplements to PMA’s for devices that have been shown to be reasonably safe and effective and otherwise meet the statutory criteria for approval. The regulations also ensure the disapproval of PMA's and supplements to PMA’s for devices that have not been show to be reasonably safe and effective and that do not otherwise meet the statutory criteria for approval.
The Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) (Public Law 105-115) was enacted on November 21, 1997, to implement revisions to the act by streamlining the process of bringing safe and effective drugs, medical devices, and other therapies to the U.S. market. Several provisions of this act affect the PMA process, such as section 515(d)(6) of the act. This section provided that PMA supplements were required for all device changes that affect safety and effectiveness of a device unless such changes are modifications to manufacturing procedures or method of manufacture. This type of manufacturing change requires a 30-day notice, or where FDA finds such notice inadequate, a 135-day PMA supplement.
To make the PMA process more efficient, FDA has in the past 3 years made changes to the PMA program based on comments received, has complied with changes to the program mandated by FDAMA and has worked towards completion of its PMA reinvention efforts.
Respondents to this information collection are persons filing a PMA application or a PMA supplement with FDA for approval of certain class III medical devices. Part 814 defines a person as any individual, partnership, corporation, association, scientific or academic establishment, government agency or organizational unit, or other legal entity. These respondents include entities meeting the definition of manufacturers such as manufacturers of commercial medical devices in distribution prior to May 28, 1976 (the enactment date of the Medical Device Amendments). Additionally, hospitals that re-use single use devices (SUD’s) are also included in the definition of manufacturers. For the next 3 years, it is expected that FDA will receive four PMA applications from hospitals that remanufacture SUD’s. This figure has been included in table 1 of this document as part of the reporting burden in § 814.15.
The total estimated reporting and recordkeeping burden for this information collection is 107,321 hours. FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The industry-wide burden estimate for PMA's is based on an FDA actual average fiscal year annual rate of receipt of 62 PMA original applications and 487 PMA supplements, using fiscal year 1996 through 2000 data.
The burden data for PMA’s is based on data provided by manufacturers by device type and cost element in an earlier study. The specific burden elements for which FDA has data are as follows: (1) Clinical investigations: 67 percent of total burden estimate; (2) submission of additional data or information to FDA during a PMA review: 12 percent; (3) additional device development cost (e.g., testing): 10 percent; and (4) PMA and PMA supplement preparation and submissions, and development of manufacturing and controls data: 11 percent.
The burden estimates were derived by consultation with FDA and industry personnel. FDA’s estimates are based on actual data collected from industry over the past 3 years. An evaluation of the type and scope of information requested was also used to derive some time estimates. For example, disclosure information primarily requires time only to update and maintain existing manuals.
The reporting burden can be broken out by certain sections of the PMA regulation: (1) § 814.15
The majority of the burden—51,894 burden hours—is due to the above three requirements. Included in these three requirements are the conduct of laboratory and clinical trials as well as the analysis, review, and physical preparation of the PMA application. FDA estimates that 62 manufacturers (including hospital re-manufacturers of single use devices) will be affected by these requirements based on actual average FDA receipt of new PMA applications in years 1996 through 2000. FDA’s estimate of the hours per response (837) was derived through FDA’s experience and consultation with industry and trade associations. Included in these three requirements are the conduct of laboratory and clinical trails as well as the analysis, review, and physical preparation of the PMA application. In addition, FDA has based its estimate on the results of an earlier study that these requirements account for the bulk of the burden identified by manufacturers.
FDA believes that the amendments mandated by FDAMA for § 814.39(f), permitting the submission of the 30-day notices in lieu of regular PMA supplements, will result in an approximate ten percent reduction in the total number of hours as compared to regular PMA supplements. As a result, FDA estimates that 32,142 hours of burden are needed to complete the requirements for regular PMA supplements.
Postapproval requirements concern approved PMA’s that were not reclassified and require a periodic report. In the last decade (1991 to 2000), the range of PMA’s that fit this category averaged approximately 43 per year (70 percent of the 62 periodic submissions). Most approved PMA’s have been subject to some post approval study requirement. Approximately half of the average submitted PMA’s (31) require associated postapproval studies (i.e., followup of patients used in clinical trials to support the PMA or additional preclinical information) that is labor-intensive to compile and complete, and the other PMA’s require minimal information. Based on its experience and on consultation with industry, FDA estimates that preparation of reports and information required by this section require 5,805 hours (135 hours per respondent).
Postapproval requirements described in § 814.82 (above) require a periodic report. FDA has determined respondents meeting the criteria of § 814.84 will submit reports on a periodic basis. As stated previously, the range of PMA’s fitting this category averaged approximately 43 per year. These reports have minimal information requirements. FDA estimates that respondents will construct their report and meet their requirements in approximately 10 hours. This estimate is based on FDA’s experience and on consultation with industry. FDA estimates that the periodic reporting required by this section take 430 hours.
The total hours for statutory burden is 1,750. This burden estimate was based on actual real FDA data tracked from January 1, 1998, to the present, and an estimate was derived to forecast future expectations with regard to this statutory data.
The recordkeeping burden in this section involves the maintenance of records used to trace patients and the organization and indexing of records into identifiable files to ensure the device's continued safety and effectiveness. These records would be required only of those manufacturers who have an approved PMA and who had original clinical research in support of that PMA. For a typical year's submissions, 70 percent of the PMA’s are eventually approved and 75 percent of those have original clinical trial data. Therefore, approximately 43 PMA’s a year (62 annual submissions times 70 percent) would be subject to these requirements. Also, because the requirements apply to all active PMA’s, all holders of active PMA applications must maintain these records. PMA’s have been required since 1976, and there are 900 active PMA’s that could be subject to these requirements, based on actual FDA data. Each study has approximately 200 subjects, and, at an average of 5 minutes per subject, there is a total burden per study of 1,000 minutes, or 17 hours. The aggregate burden for all 900 holders of approved original PMA’s, therefore, is 15,300 hours (900 approved PMA’s with clinical data x 17 hours per PMA).
The applicant determines which records should be maintained during product development to document and/or substantiate the device's safety and effectiveness. Records required by the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Public Health Service Guideline on Infectious Disease Issues in Xenotransplantation” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
JonnaLynn P. Capezzuto, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4659.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by March 12, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Wendy Taylor, Desk Officer for FDA.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Section 404 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) is intended to ensure that FDA has effective processes to resolve the scientific disputes that occasionally arise between FDA and the regulated industry. Section 404 of FDAMA added new section 562 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) which requires FDA to establish, by regulation, a procedure under which a person who is a sponsor, applicant, or manufacturer may request a review of a scientific controversy, when no other provision of the act or regulation provides such review.
In a final rule issued in the
The likely respondents to this collection of information are medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers who have a scientific dispute with FDA and who request a review of the matter by the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel represents a new process for resolving scientific disputes. In arriving at the estimates in table 1 of this document for the burden imposed in connection with a request for review by the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel, FDA considered the number and substance of similar appeals of various types made to FDA in recent years, knowledge of similar submissions, and discussions with manufacturers.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by March 12, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Wendy Taylor, Desk Officer for FDA.
Peggy Schlosburg, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1223.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
FDA has reclassified over-the-counter (OTC) test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing from class III (premarket approval) into class I (general controls) subject to restrictions established in accordance with section 520(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360j)(e).
The labeling requirements for certain in vitro diagnostic products require that manufacturers of OTC test sample collection systems for drugs of abuse testing provide certain information to consumers for the proper use of the test sample collection system and for interpreting the results. The purpose of this regulation is to ensure that lay persons collecting samples for testing have adequate instructions for sample collection and handling and for receiving and understanding the test results reported by laboratories performing the analyses.
The most likely respondents to this information collection will be manufacturers of over-the-counter drugs of abuse test kits.
In the
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Based upon submissions to the agency (premarket notifications, premarket approval applications, registration and listing), FDA estimates that there will be about 20 manufacturers of these devices.
FDA estimates, based upon discussions with manufacturers of similar devices required to comply with 21 CFR 809.10, that it will take approximately 40 hours to gather the information required by the rule, 40 hours to design and prepare the labeling, and an additional 20 hours per year to review and revise the labeling as necessary.
Health Care Financing Administration.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 60 days of this notice directly to the HCFA Paperwork Clearance Officer designated at the following address: HCFA, Office of Information Services, Security and Standards Group, Division of HCFA Enterprise Standards, Attention: Julie Brown, HCFA-6401, Room N2-14-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Health Care Financing Administration, DHHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 60 days of this notice directly to the HCFA Paperwork Clearance Officer designated at the following address: HCFA, Office of Information Services, Security and Standards Group, Division of HCFA Enterprise Standards, Attention: Julie Brown, HCFA-R-0299, Room N2-14-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Health Care Financing Administration, DHHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Wendy Taylor, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Health Care Financing Administration, DHHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Wendy Taylor, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Health Care Financing Administration, DHHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability of funds.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces the availability of up to $40 million to assist communities and their safety net providers in developing integrated health care delivery systems that serve the uninsured and underinsured with greater efficiency and improved quality of care. This funding is part of the $125 million appropriated for the Community Access Program (CAP) under the FY 2001 HHS Appropriations Act, of which $8.4 million is allocated for special projects and Agency-wide programmatic investments. For those applications that were approved, but not funded in FY 2000, approximately $56 million will be made available pending the results of their validation site visits. The remaining $20 million will be made available later in the fiscal year in the form of grants to new communities or in the form of supplemental/expansion awards to FY 2000 grantees.
In FY 2000, DHHS provided about $23 million in funding for 23 communities for infrastructure development. In FY 2001, HRSA will provide grants to about 50 more communities which were approved but not funded in the FY 2000 application cycle. FY 2001 funding will also be used to support up to 40 additional communities to further their development of integrated delivery systems for the uninsured and underinsured. Grants will vary in size, based on the scope of the project and the size of the service area, and will be for one year.
Through this program, HRSA will support infrastructure development in communities that have already begun to reorganize and integrate their health care delivery systems. Funding described in this notice is not intended to support those communities that have not yet begun the planning and development of necessary organizational structure.
This program shares some of the same goals of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation's Community Voices Program and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Communities in Charge Program. These foundations have also funded communities to develop integrated health care delivery systems for the uninsured, and CAP intends to build on the learning from their experiences.
The timeline for application submission, review, and award is as follows:
January 26, 2001: Application kits and additional guidance will be available through the HRSA Grants Application Center (GAC).
February 12-16, 2001: There will be a series of six pre-application workshops conducted across the country:
May 7, 2001: Applications due to HRSA Grants Application Center.
June 11-22, 2001: Applications reviewed.
July/August 2001: Site visits to selected applicants.
September 2001: Grant awards announced.
To receive a complete application kit (i.e., application instructions, necessary forms, and application review criteria), contact the HRSA Grants Application Center at: HRSA GAC, 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA 22209, Phone: 1-877-HRSA-123, Fax: 1-877-HRSA-345, E-Mail:
For further information, contact the Community Access Program Office: Community Access Program Office, Health Resources and Services Administration, Parklawn Building, Suite 11-25, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-0536, Fax: (301) 443-0248.
In 1999, 42.6 million people in the United States did not have health insurance. Of these, 24.2 million were employed—19 million worked full time and 5.2 million worked part time.
The uninsured and underinsured often have complex medical needs, remain outside organized systems of care, and have insufficient resources to obtain care. They may defer care or not receive needed services, and they are about half as likely to receive a routine check-up as insured adults. The uninsured and underinsured also rely heavily on expensive emergency rooms, and because they lack a routine source of care, they often do not receive needed follow-up services.
Many of the uninsured and underinsured rely on the nation's institutions, systems, and individual health professionals that provide a significant volume of health care services without regard for ability to pay. In many communities, these providers are struggling to care for the increasing numbers of uninsured and underinsured individuals. They face many challenges such as an uneven distribution of the burden of uncompensated care, the fragmentation of services for the uninsured, insufficient numbers of certain types of providers, reduced Medicaid revenues due to the market forces of Medicaid managed care, and a growing need for mental health and substance abuse services.
While integration among these providers is critical to serve the uninsured and underinsured with greater efficiency and to improve quality of care, many of these providers are so pressured by basic caregiving tasks, they need assistance to coordinate their efforts with other providers and to develop integrated community-based systems of care.
This vision requires a re-thinking of the relationships, priorities, and desired outcomes for local or regional care delivery. It means adopting the philosophy that care for the ill and injured occurs within the context of a comprehensive system design of population health improvement.
The community being served should be actively involved in the system design. Broad understanding, mutual learning between providers and community, and participation in priority setting and governance by the community are essential components of this vision. This will assure sustainability of the system.
We are seeking to fund a variety of program models in communities that have an established track record for building partnerships and that have completed the basic planning necessary to implement a coordinated system of care. The successful applicant will design a project that builds upon its current capacities and strengths; brings the major players in the political and health delivery systems to the table; uses the federal funds available to plan a transition to an expanded and innovative approach that will ultimately be competitive within its own market; and will sustain the delivery of services and funding after these federal grants expire. The successful applicant will work with its county board, city council, state legislature, and state health programs to assure the coordination and efficient use of all available resources to achieve program goals.
There is no one successful model that we are trying to replicate. Rather, there are many models that already exist and that each community may draw from in creating a project to address its own needs.
In surveying innovative community approaches to the provision of safety net services, we have come across communities that have:
• Coordinated the provision of care through public hospitals, public health departments, and community health centers;
• Linked hospital and clinic services through state of the art data systems which allow transitions between Medicaid, uninsured, and insured status for low income populations;
• Combined the development of managed care networks for the indigent funded through local tax increases and the redirection of funds towards the care network and away from the support of tertiary care at public hospitals;
• Created networks to allocate uncompensated ambulatory care loads among physicians and redistribute caseloads to private providers; and
• Linked behavioral and acute care services.
We are looking for applicants with clear goals, an operational plan for meeting those goals, a history of commitment to serving indigent populations, and a track record which indicates likely success. Innovative proposals for sustaining the service delivery component of projects could include use of local or state taxing authorities, use of tobacco settlement funds, and creative partnerships with the provider and business communities. Applications will be judged from the perspective of whether the financing proposed is realistic—given state and community resources—and appropriate to the project proposed. It is our intent to fund those applicants that either serve a target population that is distinct from the target population of other applicants or current CAP grantees, or propose distinct strategies that are coordinated and complimentary to those applicants or CAP grantees that have overlapping target populations.
Funded projects will address several common elements:
To encourage the development of different models, this program seeks a variety of applicants representing all types of communities. Applicants which receive funding may be large health care systems or small organizations. Applications are encouraged from large urban areas, small rural communities, and tribal organizations.
Applications may be submitted by public and private non-profit entities that demonstrate a commitment to and experience with providing a continuum of care to uninsured individuals. Each applicant must represent a community-wide coalition that is committed to the project and includes safety net providers (where they exist) who have traditionally provided care to the community's uninsured and underinsured regardless of ability to pay. The community-wide coalition
Examples of eligible applicants which may apply on behalf of the community-wide coalition include but are not limited to:
Current CAP grantees are not eligible to apply for this funding.
Review criteria that will be used to evaluate applications include:
Funding through this initiative may be used to support a variety of projects that would improve access to all levels of care for the uninsured and underinsured through coordinated systmes of care. Each community should design a project that best addresses the needs of the uninsured and underinsured, and the providers in their community.
Examples of activities that could be supported with this funding include:
Applicants will be expected to budget for travel to two grantee meetings and to meet interim and final reporting requirements as directed by the Community Access Program.
Funding provided through this program may NOT be used to substitute for or duplicate funds currently supporting similar activities. Grant funds may support costs such as:
With appropriate justification on why funds are needed to support the following costs, up to a total of 15 percent of grant funds may be used for the following:
Grant funds may NOT be used for:
The integration and coordination of services among a community's safety net providers are expected to result in:
The following applicants have applied for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one
The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The application(s) was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203, telephone 703/358-2104 or fax 703/358-2281. These requests must be received within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director.
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife has information collection approval from OMB through February 28, 2001. OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203. Phone: (703/358-2104); Fax: (703/358-2281).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce the availability for public review of a draft recovery plan for the Quino checkerspot butterfly
Comments on the draft recovery plan must be received on or before March 26, 2001 to receive consideration by the Service.
The draft recovery plan is available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Service's Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California, 92008. Persons wishing to review the draft recovery plan may obtain a copy by contacting the Field Supervisor (attention Jim Bartel) at the above address or by calling (760) 431-9440. Comments and materials should be submitted to the above address and are available on request for public inspection by appointment at the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
Alison Anderson at the Service's Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California, 92008. Telephone: (760) 431-9440.
Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the Service's Endangered Species Program. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of the species, establish criteria for the recovery levels for downlisting and delisting species, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Quino checkerspot is found in association with topographically diverse landscapes that contain low to moderate levels of non-native vegetation. Vegetation types that support the Quino checkerspot are coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, juniper woodland, forblands, and native grassland. Soil and climatic conditions, as well as ecological and physical factors, affect the suitability of habitat within the species' range. Urban and agricultural development, invasion of non-native species, habitat fragmentation and degradation, increased fire frequency, and other human-caused disturbances have resulted in substantial losses of habitat throughout the species' historic range. Conservation needs include protection and management of suitable and restorable habitat; habitat restoration and enhancement; and establishment of Quino checkerspot captive breeding program. This plan identifies six Recovery Units. Recovery Units are geographically bounded areas containing extant Quino checkerspot populations that are the focus of recovery actions or tasks. Recovery Units include lands both essential and not essential to the long-term conservation of the Quino checkerspot.
The overall objective of this recovery plan is to reclassify the Quino checkerspot to threatened and ensure the species' long-term conservation. Interim goals include (1) protect habitat supporting known current population distributions (habitat complexes), and (2) stabilize populations within known population distributions (described habitat complexes), and (3) conduct research necessary to refine recovery criteria. Reclassification is appropriate when a taxon is no longer in danger throughout a significant portion of its range.
Downlisting of the Quino checkerspot butterfly in southern California is contingent upon the following criteria: (1) Permanently protect habitat patches supporting known extant population distributions (habitat complexes) and possible landscape connectivity areas among them, (2) Permanently provide for and implement management of described habitat complexes to restore habitat quality, including maintenance of hostplant populations, maintenance of diverse nectar sources and pollinators, control of non-native plant invasion, and maintenance of internal landscape connectivity, (3) Establish and maintain a captive propagation program for purposes of re-introduction and augmentation of wild populations, maintenance of refugia populations, and research, (4) Initiate and implement a cooperative educational outreach program targeting areas where Quino checkerspot populations are most threatened, (5) Two additional populations or metapopulations must be documented or introduced in the remaining undeveloped coastal areas of the Quino checkerspot's historic range, (6) The managed, protected population or metapopulation segments within currently described habitat complexes must demonstrate stability (constancy or resilience) without augmentation, and (7) conduct research needed to refine management strategies and to develop delisting criteria.
The draft plan was developed with primary contributions from a recovery team of scientists from the University of California at Riverside, the University of California at Los Angeles, RECON Inc. (San Diego), the University of Nevada at Reno, and the University of Texas (Austin) with expertise in different aspects of
The Service solicits written comments on the recovery plan described. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of this plan.
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The Alaska Migratory Bird Co-management Council has scheduled a public meeting to develop recommendations for regulations for the spring/summer migratory bird subsistence harvest for the period March 10 to September 1, 2002. In addition to developing recommended regulations, the Co-management Council will finalize by-laws which will guide future deliberations of the Council.
The Co-management Council will meet February 26-28, 2001.
The meeting will be conducted at the Hawthorn Suites Hotel at 1110 W. 8th Avenue in Anchorage, Alaska.
For additional information call Mimi Hogan at 907/786-3673 or Bob Stevens at 907/786-3499. Individuals with a disability who may need special accommodations in order to participate in the public comment portion of the meeting should call one of the above numbers.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formed the Alaska Migratory Bird Co-Management Council, which includes Native, state, and federal representatives as equals, by means of a Notice of Decision published in the
The meeting of the Co-management Council will begin on Monday, February 26 at 1:00 p.m. Sessions on February 27 and 28 will begin at 8:00 a.m. The public is invited to attend. The Co-management Council will provide opportunities for public comment on agenda items. Agendas will be available at the door.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final policy; delay of effective date.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
The effective date of the Policy on Maintaining the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health of the National Wildlife Refuge System published in the
Elizabeth Souheaver, Acting Chief, Division of Natural Resources, National Wildlife Refuge System, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 670, Arlington, Virginia 22203; telephone (703) 358-1744.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. section 553 applies to this action, this action is exempt from notice and comment because it constitutes a rule of procedure under 5 U.S.C. section 553(b)(A). Alternatively, the Department's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Resource Advisory Council meeting locations and times
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C., the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) meeting of the Upper Snake River District Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will be held as indicated below. The agenda for this two-day meeting will include updates on the designation of an expanded Craters of the Moon, Fire Management Planning, the Shoshone Land Use Plan Amendments, Sage Grouse Studies in the Lower Snake River District as a starting point for studies in this District, and Selenium cleanup in the Pocatello Field Office. The agenda may change as other issues warrant between publication of this notice and the meeting. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written or oral comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have a time allocated for hearing public comments. Individuals who plan to attend and need further information about the meetings, or need special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations should contact David Howell at the Upper Snake River District Office, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401, or telephone (208) 524-7559.
The next meeting will be held February 21-22, 2000 at the Best Western Burley Inn, address in Burley, Idaho. An executive session of the RAC will begin at 1 p.m., and the full RAC meeting will begin at 2 p.m. The meeting will conclude no later than 3 p.m. the following day. Public comments, if any, will be scheduled from 2:00 to 2:30 p.m. on February 21, 2001.
The purpose of the Resource Advisory Council is to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the management of the of the public lands.
David Howell, Upper Snake River District, 1405 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, ID 83401, (208) 524-7559.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The Bureau of Land Management has canceled its withdrawal application to protect resource values and open space in southern Washoe County.
Dennis J. Samuelson, BLM Nevada State Office, P.O. Box 12000, Reno, Nevada 89520, 775-861-6532.
A Notice of Proposed Withdrawal was published as FR Doc. 98-18016 in the
The segregative effect for the lands described in the notice terminated in accordance with said notice on July 7, 2000, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law.
Notice is hereby given that an agreed order amending the consent decree in
The original consent decree resolves claims of the United States against 120 defendants under sections 106 and 107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, as amended ( “CERCLA” ), 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, for response costs and actions at the Jack's Creek Superfund Site in Mifflin County, PA. The proposed amendment reduces the amount one
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed amendment. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to
The proposed amendment may be examined and copied at the Office of the United States Attorney, Room 1162, Federal Building, 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17108; or at the Region III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, c/o Daniel Isales, Assistant Regional Counsel, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the proposed amendment may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box No. 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $2.75 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library. Exhibits to the amendment may be obtained for an additional fee.
In accordance with 28 CFR section 50.7 and section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622, notice is hereby given that on January 26, 2001, a proposed consent decree in
In this action the United States sought costs for response activities in connection with the aluminum product manufacturing facility owned by Alcoa, Inc. in Massena, New York. The Complaint alleges that the defendant is liable under section 107(a), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), of CERCLA. Pursuant to the decree, defendant will pay to the United States past unreimbursed response costs in an amount totaling at least $695,117.26, plus interest.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of New York, James T. Foley Federal Building, 445 Broadway, Albany, New York, 12207 and at U.S. EPA, (Region II) 290 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, New York 10007-1866. A copy of the proposed consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that on January 30, 2001, a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) in
Pursuant to the proposed Consent Decree, Avco Corporation will pay $461,500, in reimbursement of past costs, and agrees to pay future response costs of the United States, other than oversight costs.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to,
The Decree may be examined at the office of the U.S. Attorney, Federal Building, 228 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; at U.S. EPA Region 3, Office of Regional Counsel, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA. A copy of the Decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $44.75 for the Decree (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on January 18, 2001, a Consent Decree in
In the Second Amended Complaint the United States sought civil penalties and injunctive relief against BP Exploration & Co., Amoco Oil Company, and Atlantic Richfield Company (hereinafter, “BP”), pursuant to Section 113(b) of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(b) (1983),
Under the settlement, BP will implement innovative pollution control technologies to greatly reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides (“NO
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 1001 Main Street, Suite A, Dyer, Indiana 46311 and at U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $41.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that on January 18, 2001 a proposed Consent Decree ( “Decree” ) in
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Decree may be examined at the offices of the U.S. EPA Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 500 South Tower, Denver, Colorado and at the Office of the United States Attorney, District of Colorado 1961 Stout Street, 11th Floor, Denver, CO 80294. A copy of the proposed consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611 either with or without the multiple signature pages and attachments. In requesting a copy of the proposed consent decree, please enclose a check payable to the Consent Decree Library for $5.25 for a complete copy of the decree (25 cents per page reproduction cost).
Notice is hereby given that the public comment period on a proposed Consent Decree in
Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environmental and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to,
The Decree may be examined at the office of the U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section, 999 18th Street, Suite 945, North Tower, Denver, Colorado; at U.S. EPA Region 8, Office of Regional Counsel, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, South Tower, Denver, Colorado. A copy of the Decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.50 for the Decree (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that the United States, on behalf of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in
The Settlement Agreement provides that pursuant to the Fourth Amended Creditors Committee Plan of Reorganization, H.K. Porter will pay $215,071 as a Class VII unsecured claim to the United States in reimbursement of response costs incurred by the United States at the Site. The Settlement Agreement further provides that the United States covenants not to bring a civil action or take administrative action against H.K. Porter pursuant to CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6973, relating to the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the United States Trustees Office, Western District of Pennsylvania, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Room 319, Pittsburgh, PA 15222. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the reference number given above and enclose a check in the amount of $1.50 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney, Suite 309, Federal Building, Washington and Linden Streets, Scanton, Pennsylvania 18501; and the Region III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029. A copy of the proposed decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. In requesting a copy, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $8.00 (.25 cents per page production costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that on January 19, 2001 a proposed Consent Decree (“Decree”) in
Under the terms of the Decree Williams Field Services Company and Williams Gas Processing Company, Inc., will pay the United States a civil penalty in the amount of $850,000, and meet emission standards and other terms and conditions set forth in the Decree regarding emissions of volatile organic compounds until such time that a PSD permit has been issued to the companies by EPA or other duly authorized State or Tribal agency or commission to which EPA has delegated PSD permitting authority.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Decree may be examined at the offices of the U.S. EPA Region VIII, 999
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Darrin King at (202) 693-4129 or E-Mail King-Darrin@dol.gov.
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ESA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) issued during the period of January, 2001.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met.
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated,
(2) That sales or production, or both, of the firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, and
(3) That increases of important of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met. A survey of customers indicated that increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The workers' firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or production did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification.
The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
Also, pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA) and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act as amended, the Department of Labor presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA issued during the month of January 2001.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA the following group eligibility requirements of Section 250 of the Trade Act must be met:
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, (including workers in any agricultural firm or appropriate subdivision thereof) have become totally or partially separated from employment and either—
(2) That sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely,
(3) That imports from Mexico or Canada of article like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and that the increases imports contributed importantly to such workers' separations or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
(4) That there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the firm or subdivision.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criteria (3) and (4) were not met. Imports from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to workers' separations. There was no shift in production from the subject firm to Canada or Mexico during he relevant period.
The investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as amended:
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision did not decrease during the relevant period.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of January, 2001. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 19, 2000, applicable to workers of Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Jessop Plate Mill, Jessop O&T, Washington Flat Roll (formerly Washington Steel Corporation), Washington, Pennsylvania and Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Houston, Texas. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers produce stainless steel, including slab, coil and plate as well as tool steel. New findings show that there was a previous certification, TA-W-34,026 and TA-W-34,026A, issued on January 14, 1998, for workers of the subject firm who were engaged in employment related to the production of stainless steel products. That certification expired January 14, 2000. To avoid an overlap in worker group coverage, the certification is being amended to change the impact date from August 30, 1999 to January 15, 2000, for workers of the subject firm.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-38,083 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Allegheny Ludlum Corporation, Jessop Plant Mill, Jessop O&T and Washington Flat Roll (formerly Washington Steel Corporation), Washington, Pennsylvania and Houston, Pennsylvania who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 15, 2000 through December 19, 2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on August 1, 2000, applicable to workers of Andover Apparel Group, Incorporated, formerly Andover Togs, Incorporated, Pisgah, Alabama. The notice was published in the
At the request of the petitioners, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The company reports that worker separations occurred at the New York, New York location of Andover Apparel Group, Incorporated, formerly Andover Togs, Incorporated, when the company closed in June, 2000. The New York, New York location provided administrative functions including accounting, designing, sales, and purchasing for the subject firms' production facility located in Pisgah, Alabama. The workers produced children's apparel, primarily girls' tops and bottoms.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending the certification to include workers of Andover Apparel Group, Incorporated, formerly Andover Togs, Incorporated, New York, New York.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Andover Apparel Group, Incorporated, formerly Andover Togs, Incorporated who were adversely affected by increased imports.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-37,786 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Andover Apparel Group, Incorporated, formerly Andover Togs, Incorporated, Pisgah, Alabama (TA-W-37,786) and New York, New York (TA-W-37,786A) who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after June 2, 1999 through August 1, 2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on December 18, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at CENTEC Roll Corporation, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 19, 2001.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 19, 2001.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on January 16, 2001, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Melpack, Inc., Mullins, South Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Signed in Washington, D.C. this 16th day of January, 2001.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C 2273), on March 9, 1999, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration, applicable to all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Company, located in Clare, Michigan. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. Information provided by the State shows that worker separations occurred at the Lamont Group's sister plant, the Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan. The workers provided support services to the Clare, Michigan plant, and were engaged in employment related to the production of automotive soft trim.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, adversely affected by increased imports. Therefore, the Department is amending the certification to cover workers at the subject firm in Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-35,102 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, Clare, Michigan, and workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 2, 1997 through March 9, 2001, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on March 28, 2000, applicable to workers of The Monet Group, Incorporated, East Providence, Rhode Island. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New findings show that some employees of The Monet Group, Incorporated, now known as Monet International, Incoporated, subsidiary of Liz Caliborne, Incorporated, East Providence, Rhode Island were leased from Pomerantz Staffing Alternatives, Providence, Rhode Island to produce fashion jewelry at the East Providence, Rhode Island facility. Information also shows that some workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Pomerantz Staffing Alternatives.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending the certification include workers of Pomerantz Staffing Alternatives leased to The Monet Group, Incorporated, now known as Monet International, Incorporated, subsidiary of Liz Caliborne, Incorporated, East Providence, Rhode Island.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-37,411 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of Monet Group, Incorporated, now known as Monet International, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Liz Caliborne, Incorporated, East Providence, Rhode Island (TA-W-37,411) and leased workers of Pomerantz Staffing Alternatives, Providence, Rhode Island who were engaged in employment related to the production of fashion jewelry for the Monet Group, Incorporated, now known as Monet International, Incorporated, a subsidiary of Liz Caliborne, Incorporated, East Providence, Rhode Island who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after May 5, 2000 through March 28, 2002 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221(a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 20, 2001.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 20, 2001.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221 (a) of the Act.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 20, 2001.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 20, 2001.
The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
By application of August 8, 2000, the petitioner, requested administrative reconsideration of the Department's negative determination regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), applicable to workers and former workers of the subject firm. The denial notice was signed on July 25, 2000 and published in the
The Department initially denied TAA to workers of Pennzoil-Quaker State Company producing refined petroleum products because the “contributed importantly” group eligibility requirement of Section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, was not met. The denial was based on criterion (3) not being met. Aggregate statistics and customer responses indicated that importation of refined petroleum products like and directly competitive with those produced by the subject firm were not major contributing factors to the layoffs at the subject plant.
The petitioners filing the application asserted the following:
(a) That the Rouseville refinery lost their “tote” business to eastern Canadian distribution centers.
(b) In the months preceding the sale of the Rouseville facility, a lot of the neutrals they blended into motor oils essentially came from Canada, Venezuela and South America, thereby eroding the company's competitiveness.
(c) Crude oil needs to be over $20 a barrel to be profitable for crude oil producers; the low price of crude was the reason for the layoffs at Pennzoil-Quaker State Company.
(d) The flooding of the world market with cheap was products by both the Chinese and Japanese added to the demise at the Rouseville facility.
On reconsideration, the Department requested that the Pennzoil-Quaker City State Company provide additional information concerning the factors addressed by the application.
Additional information provided by the company indicated that during April 2000, the Pennzoil-Quaker State Company sold a portion of the Rouseville refinery and earlier in the year the company discontinued operating the balance of the refinery. As a result of this sale/discontinuance of the refinery operations the Rouseville Packaging plant was discontinued and transferred to other domestic packaging plants. The workers in the “tote” business filled the totes with lubricants and shipped them to Canada. The empty totes would then be shipped back to the Rouseville to be refilled and the cycle would begin again. Sometime during 1997 and 1998 the Canadian customer that was receiving the totes began receiving the finished lubricant product via semi-truck. The customer then filled their own totes and retained them in Canada. The business of filling the totes is a service and therefore those workers could only be considered for eligibility if the workers producing the lubricants at the subject firm were certified eligible for TAA.
In response to factors (b) and (c) depicted above, neutrals and crude oil are raw materials in the refinery process
The flooding of world markets with cheap wax is not a factor in the layoff at the subject plant. Waxes accounted for only a small percentage of output at the plant. Wax sales and production at the subject plant increased up to the sale of the wax operation, therefore imports were not an important contributing factor to the layoffs at the subject plant.
After reconsideration, I affirm the original notice of negative determination of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance for workers and former workers of Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, Rouseville, Oil City, and Reno, Pennsylvania, Roosevelt, Utah, Deerfield, Ohio, and Rock Hill, South Carolina.
In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273) the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on January 19, 1999, applicable to workers of The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that some employees of The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas were leased from Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas to produce single cylinder reciprocating compressors for air conditioning units at the Tyler, Texas facility. Information also show that workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending the certification to include workers at Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas leased to The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas.
The amended notice applicable to TA-W-35,361 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers at The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas and leased workers of Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas who were engaged in employment related to the production of single cylinder reciprocating compressors for air conditioning units for The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 1, 1997 through January 19, 2001 are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on December 4, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Centec Roll Corporation, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance (NAFTA-TAA), an investigation was initiated on December 14, 2000 in response to a petition which was filed by the company on behalf of workers at Eel River Sawmills, Inc., Fortuna, California.
The company has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with section 250(a), subchapter D, chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on October 24, 2000, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Facemate Corporation, Somersworth, New Hampshire. Workers produce cotton flannel cloth.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with section 250(a), subchapter D, chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on November 15, 2000, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Lightnin, SPX Corporation, Wytheville, Virginia. Workers produce industrial mixing equipment.
The petitioner has stated that they no longer wish to pursue the petition for the Wytheville facility and wish to withdraw the petition. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C 2331), an investigation was initiated on January 4, 2001, in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Melpack, Inc., Mullins, South Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
In accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), on March 9, 1999, the Department of Labor issued a Notice of Revised Determination on Reconsideration, applicable to all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Company, located in Clare, Michigan. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. Information provided by the State shows that worker separations occurred at the Lamont Group's sister plant, the Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan. The workers provided support services to the Clare, Michigan plant, and were engaged in employment related to the production of automotive soft trim.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, adversely affected by increased imports from Mexico. Therefore, the Department is amending the certification to cover workers at the subject firm in Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim.
The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-2669 is hereby issued as follows:
All workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, Clare, Michigan, and workers of Mitchell Manufacturing Group, A Lamont Group Company, Owosso Division, Owosso, Michigan, engaged in employment related to the production of automotive trim, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after October 2, 1997 through March 9, 2001, are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974.
Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on December 27, 2000, in response to a worker petition which was filed by a company official on behalf of workers at O-Z/Gedney, Pittston, Pennsylvania.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Petitions for transitional adjustment assistance under the North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182), hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), have been filed with State Governors under section 250 (b)(1) of subchapter D, chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, are identified in the Appendix to this Notice. Upon notice from a Governor that a NAFTA-TAA petition has been received, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance (DTAA), Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Department of Labor (DOL), announces the filing of the
The purpose of the Governor's actions and the Labor Department's investigations are to determine whether the workers separated from employment on or after December 8, 1993 (date of enactment of Pub. L. 103-182) are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Subchapter D of the Trade Act because of increased imports from or the shift in production to Mexico or Canada.
The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing with the Director of DTAA at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in Washington, DC provided such request if filed in writing with the Director of DTAA not later than February 19, 2001.
Also, interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the petitions to the Director of DTAA at the address shown below not later than February 19, 2001.
Petitions filed with the Governors are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, DTAA, ETA, DOL, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
In accordance with Section 250(A), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor issued a Certification for NAFTA Transitional Adjustment Assistance on January 19, 1999, applicable to workers of The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas. The notice was published in the
At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. New information shows that some employees of The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas were leased from Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas to produce single cylinder reciprocating compressors for air conditioning units at the Tyler, Texas facility. Information also shows that workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax account for Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated.
Based on these findings, the Department is amending the certification to include workers of Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas leased to The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas.
The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated who were adversely affected by a shift of production to Mexico.
The amended notice applicable to NAFTA-02789 is hereby issued as follows:
“All workers of The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas and leased workers of Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas who were engaged in employment related to the production of single cylinder reciprocating compressors for air conditioning units for The Trane Company, a division of American Standard, Incorporated, Tyler, Texas who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 1, 1997 through January 19, 2001 are eligible to apply for NAFTA-TAA under Section 250 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), and in accordance with section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was initiated on September 19, 2000, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at United States Sugar Corporation, Clewiston, Florida.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
National Council of Disability (NCD).
This notice sets forth the schedule of the forthcoming meeting, in teleconference format, for NCD's Youth Advisory Committee. Notice of this meeting is required under section 10(a)(1)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).
March 14, 2001, 4 p.m.-5 p.m. EST.
This committee is necessary to provide advice and recommendations to NCD on disability issues.
We currently have a membership reflecting our nation's diversity and representing a variety of disabling conditions from across the United States.
Records will be kept of all Youth Advisory Committee meetings calls and will be available after the meeting for public inspection at the National Council on Disability.
National Women's business council.
Notice of Meeting.
In accordance with the Women's Business Ownership Act, Public Law 105-135 as amended, the National Women's Business Council (NWBC) announces a forthcoming Council meeting and joint meeting of the NWBC and Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise. The meetings will cover action items worked on by the National Women's Business Council and the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise included by not limited to procurement, access to capital and training.
February 14, 2001.
Open to the public.
National Women's Business Council, 409 Third Street, SW, Suite 210, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 205-3850—Gilda Presley.
Please call by February 12, 2001.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) has submitted the following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
Copies of the forms and supporting documents can be obtained from Chuck Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rules 8b-1 to 8b-32 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) are the procedural rules an investment company must follow when preparing and filing a registration statement. These rules were adopted to standardize the mechanics of registration under the Act and to provide more specific guidance for persons registering under the Act than the information contained in the statute. For the most part, these procedural rules do not require the disclosure of information. Two of the rules, however, require limited disclosure of information.
The Commission does not estimate separately the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with Rules 8b-1 to 8b-32 because the burden associated with these rules are included in the burden estimates the Commission submits for the investment company registration statement forms (
Rule 206(3)-2 permits investment advisers to comply with Section 206(3) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) by obtaining a blanket consent from a client to enter into agency cross transactions, provided that certain disclosures are made to the client. The information requirements of the rule consist of the following: (1) Prior to obtaining the client's consent appropriate disclosure must be made to the client as to the practice of, and the conflicts of interest involved in, agency cross transactions; (2) at or before the completion of any such transaction the client must be furnished with a written confirmation containing specified information and offering to furnish upon request certain additional information; and (3) at least annually, the client must be furnished with a written statement or summary as to the total number of transactions during the period covered by the consent and the total amount of commissions received by the adviser or its affiliated broker-dealer attributable to such transactions.
The Commission uses the information required by Rule 206(3)-2 in connection with its investment adviser inspection program to ensure that advisers are in compliance with the rule. Adviser clients also use the information to monitor agency cross transactions. Without the information collected under the rule, the Commission would be less efficient and effective in its inspection program and clients would not have information valuable for monitoring the adviser's handling of their accounts.
The Commission estimates that approximately 785 respondents use the rule annually, necessitating about 32 responses per respondent each year, for a total of 25,120 responses. Each response requires about .5 hours, for a total of 12,560 hours.
The estimated average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the PRA and are not derived from a comprehensive or even representative survey or study of the cost of Commission rules and forms.
Written 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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is proposing to establish a marketing fee to fund its payment-for-order-flow program. The fee will be $.75 per contract on all Primary Market Maker (“PMM”) and Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”) executions against customer orders.
In its filing with the Commission, the ISE 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 provide a source of funding for the Exchange's payment-for-order-flow program, recently approved by the Commission.
The basis under the Act for the proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(4)
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 Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
The foregoing rule change, which establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge applicable to members of the Exchange, has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
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 submissions, 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 ISE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-01-01, and should be submitted by March 1, 2001.
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 is proposing to amend its Rules 716(c) and 805(a) to permit market makers to enter block-size orders into the Block Order Mechanism. The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Additions are italicized and deletions are bracketed.
(c) Block Order Mechanism. The Block Order Mechanism is a process by which [an Electronic Access Member]
(a) Options Classes to Which Appointed. Market makers may not place principal orders to buy or sell options in the options classes to which
In its filing with the Commission, the ISE 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 Exchange's Block Order Mechanism permits Electronic Access Members to solicit trading interest for orders of 50 contracts or more. Because market makers do not handle agency orders, the Exchange did not anticipate that they would need a block mechanism. Thus, the Exchange initially limited the Block Order Mechanism to Electronic Access Members. Experience indicates that market makers would find the Block Order Mechanism useful to hedge or liquidate positions resulting from their market making activities on the Exchange.
The ISE provides automatic executions for orders placed by market makers on the Exchange. The ISE trading system enables ISE market makers to individually enter quotations with an associated size representing the number of contracts for which each market maker is firm for Public Customer orders. The trading system also permits ISE market makers to specify how much of this size is available for automatic execution by non-customer orders and other ISE market makers. Because ISE market makers may be reluctant to be exposed to automatic executions from other market makers, the size available for market makers may be substantially lower than that available for Public Customers. Indeed, no other options exchange provides market makers the opportunity to receive automatic execution of their orders; and conversely, no other options exchange requires that its market makers be exposed to automatic executions by other market makers.
The ISE believes that permitting market makers to utilize the Block Order Mechanism will give the trading crowd an opportunity to determine whether they are willing to provide more liquidity to large market maker orders than would be available if the market maker entered a large-size order for automatic execution against existing quotes. Market makers on the floors of the other options exchanges currently are able to trade with each other in this manner.
The Exchange thus proposes to amend Rule 716(c) (Block Order Mechanism) and Rule 805(a) (Market Maker Orders) to extend the Block Order Mechanism to ISE market makers. The Block Order Mechanism permits a participant to solicit trading interest from crowd participants via a text message in a manner that replicates requests for markets in a floor-based trading crowd. Crowd participants receive the message indicating interest to trade in large-size and are given 30 seconds to respond. It is necessary for the Exchange to set a response period only because the communications are made electronically rather than face-to-face as on a floor. In the case of a floor-based crowd, there will be some amount of time between the announcement of the trading interest by the floor broker and the response by the market makers, but there is no need to define a time limit because the market makers are able to communicate directly.
The ISE states that when requests for markets are made on a trading floor, they are not considered the same as bids or offers that are required to be displayed in the exchange's disseminated quotation by Rule 11Ac1-1 under the Act,
It is only after the 30 seconds that an interest entered into the Block Order Mechanism will be executed in whole or in part according to the algorithm contained in 716(c). Again, if no execution takes place, the interest is automatically canceled from the system. In other words, there is no standing limit order in the trading system and there is no ability for any person to execute against the interest during the exposure period.
Permitting ISE market makers to enter trading interest into the Block Order Mechanism is no different from allowing market makers on the floor of the other options exchanges to announce trading interest to the crowd. In fact, an ISE market maker can use a floor broker to assess the liquidity in trading crowds on the other options exchange, but currently has no mechanism to accomplish the same objective on the ISE. This situation places the ISE at a competitive disadvantage, as this trading interest is executed on other exchanges purely because participants communicate directly rather than electronically.
The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5)
This proposed rule change will remove a burden on competition in that it provides a mechanism for ISE market makers to announce indications of interest where currently they only have such capability on other options exchanges. Restricting ISE market makers' ability to seek liquidity for large-size trading interest when they are able to do so on other options exchanges is a substantial burden on competition as it reduces the likelihood that such orders will be executed on the Exchange. It is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act to competitively disadvantage the ISE on the basis that its members communicate electronically rather than in person.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested parties.
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, 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 the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the ISE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-ISE-01-03 and should be submitted by March 1, 2001.
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”),
Nasdaq is proposing to amend its By-Laws regarding the balancing requirements on the Nasdaq Board of Directors (“the Board”) and the composition and operation of certain Nasdaq committees. Nasdaq also seeks to make certain changes to conform to the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (“Delaware law”). Proposed new language is in italics; proposed deletions are in brackets.
(j) “Industry Director” or “Industry member” means a Director (excluding [the President or the Chief Executive Officer]
(p) “[National] Nominating Committee” means the [National] Nominating Committee appointed
(q) “Non-Industry Director” or “Non-Industry member” means a Director (excluding the [President or the Chief Executive Officer]
[(u) “Floor Governor” or “Amex Floor Governor” means a Floor Governor of Amex elected pursuant to Article II, Section .01(a) of the Amex By-Laws;]
[(v) “Nasdaq-Amex” means Nasdaq-Amex Market Group, Inc.;]
[(w)
[(x) “Amex Board” means the Board of Governors of Amex.]
Sec. 3.1 (a) Nominations of persons for election to the Board and the proposal of business to be considered by the stockholders may be at an annual meeting of stockholders only (i) pursuant to Nasdaq's notice of meeting (or any supplement thereto), (ii) by or at the direction of the Board or the [National] Nominating Committee or (iii) by an stockholder of Nasdaq who was a stockholder of record of Nasdaq at the time the notice provided for in this Section 3.1 is delivered to the Secretary of Nasdaq, who is entitled to vote at the meeting and who complies with the notice procedures set forth in this Section 3.1.
(b) For nominations or other business to be properly brought before an annual meeting by a stockholder pursuant to Section 3.1(a)(iii), the stockholder must have given timely notice thereof in writing to the Secretary of Nasdaq and any such proposed business other than the nominations of persons for election to the Board must constitute a proper matter for stockholder action. To be timely, a stockholder's notice shall be delivered to the Secretary at the principal executive offices of Nasdaq not later than the close of business on the ninetieth day nor earlier than the close of business on the one hundred twentieth day prior to the first anniversary of the preceding year's annual meeting (provided, however, that in the event that the date of the annual meeting is more than thirty days before or more than seventy days after such anniversary date, notice by the stockholder must be so delivered not earlier than the close of business on the one hundred twentieth day prior to such annual meeting and not later than the close of business on the later of the ninetieth day prior to such annual meeting or the tenth day following the day on which public announcement of the date of such meeting is first made by Nasdaq). For purposes of the first annual meeting of stockholders of Nasdaq held after 2000, the first anniversary of the 2000 annual meeting of stockholders shall be deemed to be
(c) No change.
Sec. 3.2 Only such business shall be conducted at a special meeting of stockholders as shall have been brought before the meeting pursuant to Nasdaq's notice of meeting. Nominations of persons for election to the Board may be made at a special meeting of stockholders at which directors are to be elected pursuant to Nasdaq's notice of meeting (a) by or at the direction of the Board or the [National] Nominating Committee or (b) provided that the Board has determined that directors shall be elected at such meeting, by any stockholder of Nasdaq who is a stockholder of record at the time the notice provided for in this Section 3.2 is delivered to the Secretary of Nasdaq, who is entitled to vote at the meeting and upon such election and who complies with the notice procedures set forth in this Section 3.2. In the event Nasdaq calls a special meeting of stockholders for the purpose of electing one or more directors to the Board, any such stockholder entitled to vote in such election may nominate a person or persons (as the case may be) for election to such position(s) as specified in Nasdaq's notice of meeting, if the stockholder's notice required by Section 3.1(b) shall be delivered to the Secretary at the principal executive offices of Nasdaq not earlier than the close of business on the one hundred twentieth day prior to such special meeting and not later than the close of business on the later of the ninetieth day prior to such special meeting or the tenth day following the day on which the public announcement is first made of the date of the special meeting and of the nominees proposed by the Board to be elected at such meeting. In no event shall the public announcement of an adjournment or postponement of a special meeting commence a new time
Sec. 3.3 (a) Only such persons who are nominated in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Article III shall be eligible to be elected at an annual or special meeting of stockholders of Nasdaq to serve as directors and only such business shall be conducted at a meeting of stockholders as shall have been brought before the meeting in accordance with the procedures set forth in this Article III. Except as otherwise provided by law, the chairman of the meeting shall have the power and duty [(a)]
Sec. 4.3 Directors need not be stockholders of Nasdaq. The number of Non-Industry Directors, including at least one Public Director and at least one issuer representative, shall equal or exceed the number of Industry Directors, [plus the President and the Chief Executive Officer (if they are elected Directors),] unless the Board consists of ten or more Directors. In such case at least two Directors shall be issuer representatives. [At least two Industry Directors and two Non-Industry Directors shall be drawn from candidates proposed to the National Nominating Committee by a majority of the non-NASD stockholders of Nasdaq.]
Sec. 4.4 No change.
Sec. 4.5 Any Director may resign at any time either upon [written] notice of resignation to the Chair of the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the President, or the Secretary. Any such resignation shall take effect at the time specified therein or, if the time is not specified, upon receipt thereof, and the acceptance of such resignation, unless required by the terms thereof, shall not be necessary to make such resignation effective.
Sec. 4.8 If a Director position becomes vacant, whether because of death, disability, disqualification, removal, or resignation, the [National] Nominating Committee shall nominate, and the Board shall elect by majority vote, a person satisfying the classification (Industry, Non-Industry, or Public Director)
Sec. 4.11 (a)-(c) No change.
(d) Directors or members of any committee appointed by the Board may participate in a meeting of the Board or of such committee through the use of a conference telephone or [similar]
Sec. 4.12 (a) No change.
(b) Notice of any meeting of the Board need not be given to any Director if waived by that Director in writing
(c) No change.
Sec. 4.13 (a) The Board may, by resolution or resolutions adopted by [a majority of] the [whole] Board, appoint one or more committees. Except as herein provided, vacancies in membership of any committee shall be filled by the [vote of a majority of the whole] Board. The Board may designate one or more Directors as alternate members of any committee, who may replace any absent or disqualified member at any meeting of the committee. In the absence or disqualification of any member of a committee, the member or members thereof present at any meeting and not disqualified from voting, whether or not such member or members constitute a quorum, may unanimously appoint another Director to act at the meeting in the place of any such absent or disqualified member. Members of a committee shall hold office for such period as may be fixed by a resolution adopted by [a majority of] the [whole] Board. Any member of a committee may be removed from such committee only [after a majority vote]
(b) The Board may, be resolution or resolutions adopted by a majority of the whole Board, delegate to one or more committees the power and authority to act on behalf of the Board in carrying out the functions and authority delegated to Nasdaq by the NASD under the Delegation Plan. Such delegations shall be in conformance with applicable law, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, these By-Laws, and the Delegation Plan. Action taken by a committee pursuant to such delegated authority shall be subject to review, ratification, or rejection by the Board. In all other matters, the Board may, by resolution or resolutions adopted by [a majority of] the [whole] Board, delegate to one or more committees that consist solely of one or more Directors the power and authority to act on behalf of the Board in the management of the business and affairs of Nasdaq to the extent permitted by law and not inconsistent with the Delegation Plan. A committee, to the extent permitted by law and provided in the resolution or resolutions creating such committee may authorize the seal of Nasdaq to be affixed to all papers that may require it.
(c) No change.
(d) The Board may appoint an Executive Committee, which shall, to the fullest extent permitted by Delaware law and other applicable law, have and be permitted to exercise all the powers and authority of the Board in the management of the business and affairs
(e) The Board may appoint a Finance Committee. The Finance Committee shall advise the Board with respect to the oversight of the financial operations and conditions of Nasdaq, including recommendations for Nasdaq's annual operating and capital budgets and proposed changes to the rates and fees charged by Nasdaq. [The Finance Committee shall consist of three or four Directors. The Chief Executive Officer of Nasdaq shall serve as a member of the Committee]. A Finance Committee member shall hold office for a term of one year.
[(f)]
[(g)]
[(h)]
Sec. 4.16 Any action required or permitted to be taken at a meeting of the Board or of a committee may be taken without a meeting if all Directors or all members of such committee, as the case may be, consent thereto in [writing, and the writing or writings are filed with the minutes of proceedings of the Board or the committee]
Sec. 5.3 The Secretary of Nasdaq shall collect from each nominee for the office of member of the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council such information as is reasonably necessary
Sec. 5.8 If a position on the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council becomes vacant, whether because of death, disability, disqualification, removal, or resignation, the [National] Nominating Committee shall nominate, and the Board shall appoint a person satisfying the qualifications for the position as provided in Section 5.2(a) to fill such vacancy, except that if the remaining term of office for the vacant position is not more than six months, no replacement shall be required.
Sec. 5.9 No change.
Sec. 5.10 The members of the Nasdaq Listing and Hearing Review Council may participate in a meeting through the use of a conference telephone or [similar]
Sec. 7.1 The principal officers of Nasdaq shall be elected by the Board and shall include a Chair, a Chief Executive Officer, a President, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and such other officers as may be designated by the Board. One person may hold the offices and perform the duties of any two or more of said principal offices, except the offices and duties of President and Vice President or of President and Secretary. None of the principal officers, except the Chair of the Board [and the Chief Executive Officer], need be Directors of Nasdaq.
Sec. 7.5 (a) Any officer may resign at any time upon [written] notice of resignation to the Board, the Chief Executive Officer, the President, or the Secretary. Any such resignation shall take effect upon receipt of such notice or at any later time specified therein. The acceptance of a resignation shall not be necessary to make the resignation effective.
Sec. 10.3 (a) Whenever notice is required to be given by law, the Restated Certificate of Incorporation, or these By-Laws, a [written] waiver thereof [,signed] by the person or persons entitled to such notice, whether before or after the time stated therein, shall be deemed equivalent to notice. Neither the business to be transacted at, nor the purpose of, any regular or special meeting of the stockholders, Directors, or members of a committee of Directors need be specified in any [written] waiver of notice.
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Nasdaq proposes to amend its By-Laws regarding the balancing requirements on the Nasdaq Board of Directors and the composition and operation of certain Nasdaq committees and to make certain changes to conform Nasdaq's By-Laws to Delaware law. NASD members approved a restructuring plan on April 14, 2000, with 3,423 members voting in favor and 652 against. The plan involves broadening the ownership in Nasdaq through a two-phase private placement of common stock and warrants to NASD members, Nasdaq issuers, and certain others. Before Phase 1 of the private placement closed on June 28, 2000, the NASD owned 100 percent of Nasdaq. Now, after the closing of Phase 2 of the private placement, Nasdaq has numerous shareholders, but the NASD will retain voting control of Nasdaq until Nasdaq obtains approval of its exchange registration application. On November 9, 2000, Nasdaq filed a Form 1 with the Commission, which, if granted, would change Nasdaq's status to an exchange and a separate self-regulatory organization from the NASD. Until the SEC approves the Form 1, Nasdaq's activities, including the activities of committees described below that involve functions or responsibilities of a registered securities association will be subject to the NASD's oversight under the Plan of Allocation and Delegation of Functions by NASD to Subsidiaries (“Delegation Plan”), as approved by the Commission.
Nasdaq proposes to amend its By-Laws to make certain changes to its corporate governance while it is operating under the Delegation Plan. Nasdaq believes that these changes will allow it to operate consistent with the requirements of its Restated Certificate of Incorporation and Delaware law and operate with more flexibility insofar as the balancing requirements are concerned.
Nasdaq proposes that up to two officers of Nasdaq who may be elected to the Board be treated as neutral for purposes of calculating the balance between Industry and Non-Industry Directors. Article IV, Section 4.3 of the Nasdaq By-Laws requires that the number of Non-Industry Directory equal or exceed the number of Industry Directors. Currently, Nasdaq officers who serve on the Board are treated as Industry Directors for purposes of calculating the compositional balance of the Nasdaq Board.
To effectuate this change, Nasdaq proposes to exclude from the definitions of Industry Director and Non-Industry Director up to two Nasdaq officers who are elected to the Board (hereinafter referred to as “Staff Directors”). Thus, if the stockholders elected one or two officers to the Board, they would be deemed neutral Staff Directors and would not be included in calculating the balance between Industry and Non-Industry Directors on the Nasdaq Board pursuant to Article IV, Section 4.3. If the stockholders elected three or more officers to the Board, then the Board, in its discretion, would designate two as
Definitions for “Amex Floor Governors,” “Nasdaq-Amex,” and “Amex Board” are deleted because the terms are no longer used in the Nasdaq By-Laws.
Nasdaq proposes to modify its By-Law provision establishing the balancing requirements between Industry and Non-Industry Directors, by removing references to Nasdaq officers who may be elected to the Board. Nasdaq represents that the effect of this amendment, in conjunction with the amendments to the definitions of Industry and Non-Industry Directors described above, will ensure that the two neutral Staff Directors are not counted when calculating the Industry/Non-Industry balance of the Board.
Nasdaq proposes to delete the provision of Section 4.3 that requires that certain Directors be drawn from candidates proposed to the National Nominating Committee by a majority of the non-NASD stockholders of Nasdaq. This provision is no longer operative as Nasdaq has solicited the recommendations of the non-NASD stockholders and has mailed a ballot to non-NASD stockholders asking them to vote on such candidates. Nasdaq anticipates that the four new directors will be selected and begin serving on the Board by the end of January 2001.
Delaware law does not require director and officer resignations to be in writing.
Certain Nasdaq By-Laws relating to committees currently requires resolutions to be adopted by a majority vote of the whole Board (
Nasdaq proposes several amendments to Section 4.13 relating to committees. With respect to the Executive and Finance Committees, Nasdaq proposes to remove limitations on the size of the Committees. As currently provided in the By-Laws, the Executive Committee would continue to have balancing requirements for Industry, Non-Industry, and Public Directors, but no such requirements would apply to the Finance Committee.
Under Delaware law, the Board of a stockholder-owned corporation must appoint the Directors who serve on Board committees. Moreover, Board committees must be comprised solely of directors to be validly constituted as such under Delaware law.
New provisions for an Audit Committee and a Management Compensation Committee are added to Section 4.13. These provisions are modeled on the provisions for the counterpart NASD committees and comply with the balancing requirements of the NASD's August 8, 1996 settlement order with the Commission (“1996 Order”).
Nasdaq proposes new provision for a Nominating Committee. Currently the NASD Nominating Committee nominates candidates for the Nasdaq Board and Listing and Review Council.
Nasdaq proposes to amend Section 4.16 to conform it with amendments to Delaware law affording greater use of technology. Specifically, under Delaware law, directors are now permitted to take action without a meeting if all directors consent in writing or by electronic transmission.
Section 7.1 currently provides that none of the principal officers of Nasdaq, except the Chair and Chief Executive Officer, need be Directors. Nasdaq proposes to remove the reference to the Chief Executive Officer to provide the flexibility to have a Chief Executive Officer who is not a Director.
Delaware law no longer requires a waiver of certain notices to be in writing.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
Nasdaq 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.
Nasdaq did not solicit or receive written comments on the proposed rule change.
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, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. 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-78 and should be submitted by March 1, 2001.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of issuance of advisory circular.
This notice announces the issuance of Advisory Circular (AC) 120-73, “Damage Tolerance Assessment of Repairs to Pressurized Fuselages.” The AC provides guidance on acceptable means of incorporating FAA-approved repair assessment guidelines in air carrier maintenance or inspection programs.
Advisory Circular 120-73 was issued on December 14, 2000, by the Director of the Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration.
For technical issues contact Brent Bandley, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5237; fax (562) 627-5210.
For other information contact: Jill DeMarco, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Program Management Branch, ANM-114, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1313; fax (425) 227-1320.
On December 22, 1997, the FAA issued a notice of the availability of proposed Advisory Circular (AC) 120-XX, “Repair Assessment of Pressurized Fuselages.” That notice was published in the
One commenter requests that the FAA clarify the terminology used in the proposed AC to indicate that the area of inspection termed the “fuselage pressure boundary.” The commenter states that this area includes not only the fuselage skin and bulkhead web, but the door skin as well.
The FAA concurs. The intent of the repair assessment is to include the entire fuselage pressure boundary, which does include, among other things, the fuselage, bulkhead webs, and the door skin. We have changed the terminology accordingly throughout the final AC. [We made this same change in terminology in the final rule associated with this AC: Repair Assessment for Pressurized Fuselages, amendments 91-264, 121-275, 125-33, and 129-8 (65 FR 24108, April 25, 2000).]
One commenter suggests changes to the guidance that concerns the list of structure for which repair assessments are required. The proposed guidance states that some manufacturers have reduced this list by determining the inspection requirements for critical details. If the requirements are equal to normal maintenance checks, such as the Baseline Zonal Inspection (BZI), those details were excluded from this list. The commenter points out that some manufacturers also have excluded items from the list if, through any other inspection program, the repaired structure was previously found to be damage-tolerant. The commenter requests that this be noted in the proposed AC.
The FAA concurs. We have revised paragraph 5.a.(1) of the final AC accordingly.
One commenter notes the guidance states that, during “Stage 2: Repair Classification,” applicants would use information collected from “a survey form” to classify repairs (into one of three categories). The commenter states that, while filling in a survey form may be helpful when it is time to classify repairs, such a form is not necessary. Based on the knowledge of those doing the assessment, the classification could be done without filling in a survey form. Therefore, the commenter requests that the FAA revise the language in the proposed AC to state more generally that the applicant may use
The FAA concurs. We have revised the wording in paragraph 5.a.(2) of the final AC accordingly.
One commenter requests that the term “temporary” be further defined to mean “time-limited” when defining Category C repairs. The commenter points to an FAA letter (ANM-120S:SCF, dated February 12, 1990) that it previously received that provided three definitions of repairs. The definition contained in the letter that was most closely correlated to the definition of Category C repairs contained in the proposed AC, used the term “time-limited” to describe the repair, not “temporary.”
The FAA concurs with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph 5.a.(2)(c) of the final AC to state: “Category C: A temporary (time-limited) repair that will need to be reworked or replaced prior to an established time * * *”
One commenter requests that the FAA clarify the guidance on when the assessment process would begin for airplanes whose flight cycle age is equal to or less than the implementation time on the date the associated final rule becomes effective. Specifically, the commenter points out that the deadline for repair assessment does not include a “not to exceed” value like the other airplanes addressed in the proposed AC.
The FAA concurs that clarification is necessary. We have changed paragraph 6.g.(1) of the final AC to state that the assessment of an airplane in this group should take place before it exceeds the design service goal (DSG), plus an equivalent C-check. (This is parallel to the limit of the assessment deadline specified in paragraph 6.g.(2) for airplanes whose cycle age is greater than the implementation time, but less than the DSG, on the date that the associated final rule became effective.)
One commenter requests that the FAA revise the proposed AC to make its intent clearer concerning maintenance program changes. The proposed wording states: “If the interval escalation reduces the frequency of inspection of the affected area below the BZI * * *”.
The commenter considers that this wording is confusing, and suggests that it could be clearer if changed to: “If the revised maintenance or inspection program intervals are greater than those in the BZI * * *”
The FAA concurs. We have changed the wording in paragraph 6.h. of the final AC accordingly.
One commenter requests changes concerning the time for implementing the required repair assessment for airplanes that previously have been operated under an FAA-approved maintenance program and are now being sold or transferred. The commenter requests that the phrase, “* * * whichever would result in an earlier accomplishment date for the assessment,” be eliminated. The commenter states:
• Such a requirement to adopt previous operators' programs into the new operator's FAA-approved program adds needless administrative complexity and confusion.
• The FAA applies specific oversight of maintenance program integration for fleet additions, whether by acquisition of new or used aircraft of by lease.
• Ample FAA guidelines cover the integration of airplanes transitioning from one maintenance program to another, and there is no need to add an across-the-board provision which may not be appropriate in may cases.
The FAA does not concur. We consider it essential that operators ensure that transferred airplanes are maintained in accordance with the repair assessment program on the same basis as if there were continuity in ownership. Scheduling of the repair assessments for each airplane must not be delayed or postponed because of a transfer of ownership; in some cases, such postponement could continue indefinitely if an airplane is transferred frequently from one owner to another. The stipulation contained in the AC is intended to prevent the situation where an airplane is transferred so often that it never gets assessed.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for an RTCA NEXCOM Special Committee 198 meeting to be held February 22-23, 2001, starting at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at the RTCA Inc., 1140 Connecticut Ave, NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20536.
At the request of the Federal Aviation Administration, RTCA established a new Special Committee (SC-198) to develop recommendations for the Next Generation Communications (NEXCOM) program. The FAA will implement an integrated system for digital air/ground voice and data communications in the National Airspace System. Special Committee 198 will undertake a multiphase work program that will initially focus on operational considerations and identify, then characterize, basic operational issues. this results of the first phase effort will be published in a Principles of Operation document as well as a report on responses to recommendation of the RTCA Chairman's Committee on NEXCOM. In subsequent phases, Special Committee 198 will address detailed demonstration and transition planning.
The agenda will include: (1) Welcome and Introductory Remarks; (2) Review Terms of Reference, discuss multi-phase work program; (3) Organize work groups, determine leadership, establish interim milestones to deliver two products for Phase 1: (a) Report on Responses to Recommendations to the RTCA Chairman's Committee on NEXCOM (Delivery: August 2001); (b) RTCA DO NEXCOM Principles (Delivery: September 2001); (4) Working Group meetings. Plenary Session: (5) Review Work Group reports; (6) Review Proposed schedule for subsequent meetings to include Plenary meetings in February, April, June, and August, as well as Plenary in September 2001 to approve phase 1 documents; (c) Plenary
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the Co-chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA, Inc., at (202) 833-9339 (phone), (202) 833-9434 (facsimile).
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for Special Committee 172 meeting to be held February 27-March 1, 2001, starting at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
The agenda will include: February 27: Plenary Session Convenes; (1) Introductory Remarks; (2) Review Meeting Agenda; (3) Review Previous Meeting Minutes; (4) Working Group (WG)-2 Convenes to work on Minimum Aviation System Performance Standards (MASPS); (5) WG-3 Convenes to work on VHF Data Link 2 and 3 Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS). February 28: (6) Working Group 3 continues. March 1: Plenary Sessions Reconvenes: (7) Review ICAO Aeronautical Mobile Communications Panel (AMCP) Activities; (8) Report on Next Generation Communications (NEXCOM) Advisory Rulemaking Committee and other FAA digital activities; (9) Report on Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee, Systems Architecture Interfaces work on NEXCOM; (10) Review Status of EUROCAE WG-47; (11) Other Business; (12) Date and Location of Next Meeting; (13) Closing.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Monthly Notice of PFC Approvals and Disapprovals. In December 2000, there were seven applications approved. Additionally, 11 approved amendments to previously approved applications are listed.
The FAA publishes a monthly notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals and disapprovals 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). This notice is published pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29.
Sandra E. DePottey, Minneapolis Airports District Office, (612) 713-4363.
Rehabilitate terminal storm drain.
Expand safety building.
Reconstruct southeast hangar pavement.
Year 2000 assessment/upgrade security access system.
South ramp security fence.
Taxiway D reconstruction.
Southeast water main extension.
Upgrade airfield lighting system.
South ramp storm drain extension.
Environmental study for runway 10R/28L service road.
Environmental study for airport road extension, phases 2 and 3.
North side perimeter fence replacement.
Upper mezzanine elevator.
Fire apparatus pump upgrade.
Marlys Vandervelde, San Francisco Airports District Office, (650) 876-2806.
Installation of a second inbound baggage belt.
Terminal area ramp lighting additions.
Terminal passenger access and Americans with Disabilities Act improvements.
Terminal boiler replacement.
Terminal concourse window replacements and lighting upgrades.
Deicing facility.
Snow removal equipment purchases.
Airfield electrical vault and airfield lighting control upgrades.
Noise reducing run-up area.
Operations center equipment bay addition.
Financing costs for project construction.
David P. Gabbert, Helena Airports District Office, (406) 449-5271.
Taxiway Z—apron reconstruction (phase II).
Terminal C fire protection.
Fiber Optic cable to airport response center and fire station 20.
Green Island bridge.
Replacement of security access control system and closed circuit television system.
Skyport grade separation.
Terminal Drive improvements.
Replacement of passive secondary surveillance radar.
Terminal C restroom upgrade.
Interim air cargo ramp expansion.
Marlys Vandervelde, San Francisco Airports District Office, (650) 876-2806.
Construct new passenger terminal.
Construct access roads and non-revenue surface parking.
Construct passenger terminal apron.
Master plan update.
Design runway safety area.
Design and construct snow removal equipment maintenance facility.
Design and construction of airport perimeter fence.
Design and reconstruct general aviation ramp.
Acquire snow removal equipment.
Oscar Sanchez, Harrisburg Airports District Office, (717) 730-2834.
Pave runway 18/36 extension.
Rehabilitate runway 18/36.
Installation of instrument landing system and medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights for runway 36.
Airfield operations area fencing and wildlife assessment.
Lorna Sandridge, Central Region Airports Division, (816) 329-2641.
Airfield signage.
Airport master plan update/update three dimensional airspace analysis
Aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicles.
Taxiway B west extension.
Part 107 security system.
Relocate precision approach path indicator to runway 9R/27L.
Part 150 noise study.
Runway 9R/27L lights (medium intensity runway lights).
Airport master plan.
Americans with Disabilities Act lift device.
Domestic terminal expansion.
Construct aircraft rescue and firefighting station.
Runway 9R/27L and taxiways B and C.
Construct runway 9L/27R declared distance enhancement/construct access road phase 2.
Construct terminal access road including property acquisition.
Acquire land and construct replacement runway 9R/27L.
North side access road.
Airport master development plan.
Taxiway fillets.
Taxiways B and C rehabilitation.
Taxiway A-4 construction.
Taxiway A.
Electrical loop to terminal, air traffic control tower, and airfield.
Construct taxiway S, connectors, and lights.
Rehabilitate aviation ramps.
Reconstruct taxiways B, C and K.
Instrument landing system/medium intensity approach lighting system with runway end identifier lights.
Terminal area ramp reconstruction.
Armando L. Rovira, Orlando Airports District Office, (407) 812-6331, extension 31.
Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of partial relief.
This notice provides partial relief for the Northwestern Pacific Railroad from the limitations of Federal Railroad Administration Emergency Order No. 21. The relief allows the Northwestern Pacific Railroad to re-open to rail traffic on approximately 40.8 miles of its line between mile post 49.8S, formerly designated as mile post 63.4, near Lombard, California and mile post 43.0, near Petaluma, California.
Authority to enforce Federal railroad safety laws has been delegated by the Secretary of Transportation to the Federal Railroad Administrator. 49 CFR 1.49. Railroads are subject to FRA's safety jurisdiction under the Federal railroad safety laws, 49 U.S.C. 20102, 20103. FRA is authorized to issue emergency orders where an unsafe condition or practice “causes an emergency situation involving a hazard of death or personal injury.” 49 U.S.C. 20104. These orders may impose such “restrictions and prohibitions * * * that may be necessary to abate the situation.”
The NWP operates on a 286-mile line between mile post 295.5 near Arcata, California and mile post 49.8S (formerly designated as mile post 63.4) near Lombard, California. The North Coast Railroad Authority, a California public agency formed pursuant to California Government Code Section 93000
The NWP is subject to the jurisdiction of FRA. In 1997, FRA, in partnership with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), reviewed NWP's compliance with Federal safety statutes and regulations. The review revealed widespread noncompliance, including hundreds of track defects and a general failure to perform periodic tests of locomotive air brake equipment. On June 11, 1997, FRA, CPUC, and the NWP signed a safety compliance agreement which detailed 11 action items for the NWP to perform. On June 28, 1998, upon finding that the NWP had failed to comply with most of the agreement, the Federal Railroad Administrator issued Compliance Order 98-1 directing NWP to perform the corrections listed in the compliance agreement. When FRA later found that the NWP failed to comply with the directives in the compliance order, and the defects on the rail line posed an imminent and unacceptable threat to public safety, the Federal Railroad Administrator issued Emergency Order No. 21 on November 25, 1998. The emergency order closed all railroad operations except the operation of work trains for the specific and sole purpose of effecting repairs on the railroad.
In May, 1999, FRA granted the NWP partial relief from Emergency Order No. 21 for approximately 1.5 miles of its line near Willits, California. The partial relief allowed the NWP to re-open traffic between the junction with the California Western Railroad and the Willits Depot, as well as several tracks in Willits Yard.
In order to gain full relief from Emergency Order No. 21, the NWP must:
(1) Properly repair and inspect all grade crossing signals and certify to the Federal Railroad Administrator that all necessary repairs and inspections have been performed and that all required tests are up-to-date.
(2) Adopt a set of grade crossing signal standards and instructions acceptable by FRA.
(3) Update, correct and/or redraw circuit plans for each of the grade crossing signal system to meet compliance with 49 CFR 234.201 and 234.203. A list of locations of the updated, corrected or redrawn circuit plans should be submitted to FRA.
(4) Provide proper and adequate test equipment for signal maintainers.
(5) Repair all track not subject to Emergency Order No. 14 to class 1 track standards as detailed in 49 CFR Part 213.
Emergency Order No. 14 requires the Northwestern Pacific Railroad to repair certain segments of track to class 1 track standards for the hauling of passengers and all hazardous materials. Otherwise, the railroad may designate the track still subject to that order as excepted.
(6) Clear all vegetation from drainage facilities and away from signs and signals and track bed so that the track meets the requirements of 49 CFR 213.37;
(7) Furnish FRA with a 12-month track maintenance plan.
(8) Establish a program of employee training on the Federal Track Standards to ensure that employees performing inspection, maintenance, and restoration work are qualified in accordance with 49 CFR 213.7.
(9) Certify in writing that each individual conducting track inspections has sufficient knowledge, skills, and ability to successfully conduct the types of inspections which will be performed by that individual. Records of that certification are to be maintained by the railroad.
(10) Obtain approval from the Federal Railroad Administrator that all of the requirements of this Emergency Order have been met and properly performed.
The emergency order allows for partial relief for designated portions of the NWP's line. The NWP is required to first meet all of the system-wide requirements, as listed in items 2, 4, 7, 8, and 9. The NWP may then obtain partial relief for any portion of its line for which all of the requirements of the emergency order are met.
On November 15, 2000, in accordance with the terms of the emergency order, the NWP formally requested that FRA grant it partial relief from the emergency order for its rail line between mile post 49.8S (formerly designated as mile post 63.4) near Lombard, and mile post 43.0 near Petaluma, California. At this time, the NWP stated that it met all of the systemic requirements of Emergency Order No. 21, namely:
• The NWP adopted a set of grade crossing signal standards and instructions that is acceptable to FRA;
• The NWP has entered into a contract with MEC Rail Systems, a signal maintenance company, for the testing and maintenance of NWP signals. In response to the agreement, MEC Rail Systems purchased proper and adequate test equipment for signal maintainers for use on the NWP;
• The NWP has furnished to FRA a 12-month track maintenance plan that includes all of the necessary information required by Emergency Order No. 21;
• The NWP has established a program of employee training on the Federal Track Safety Standards, adopting the Railway Educational Bureau's
• The NWP has certified that three employees of Northwestern Pacific Railway Co., LLC. (formerly doing business as Rail-Ways, Inc.), who are responsible for track inspections, have sufficient knowledge, skills and ability to successfully conduct track inspections. Any employees who become responsible for track inspections subsequent to the granting of this partial relief will be certified by the NWP as well.
NWP's compliance at this time with the systemic requirements of the emergency order makes the railroad eligible to request partial relief for the designated segment of track between Lombard and Petaluma. However, FRA will monitor the railroad's continuing compliance with these systemic requirements.
On December 18 and 19, 2000, FRA inspected the track for which the NWP requested relief from the emergency order. FRA found the track to meet Class 1 track standards in accordance with 49 CFR part 213. Between December 11 and December 13, 2000, FRA inspected the grade crossing signal systems on the track for which NWP requested relief from the emergency order and found that not all necessary repairs, inspections and tests had been performed. FRA found that several grade crossing signals were not in compliance with Federal regulations. In addition, FRA found that the grade crossing signal on the east approach to “D” Street in Petaluma, California had been removed. FRA informed NWP that all signal systems would have to be in complete working order and that restoration of the grade crossing signal at “D” Street in Petaluma would be required in order for partial relief to be granted. As of January 31, 2001, FRA found that all of the signal systems on the rail line between Lombard and Petaluma, including the grade crossing signal system at D Street in Petaluma, are in compliance with FRA regulations.
In light of the foregoing, I grant NWP partial relief from Emergency Order No. 21. NWP trackage between mile post 49.8S (formerly designated as mile post 63.4) near Lombard and mile post 43.0 near Petaluma may open immediately to rail traffic. The issuance of this Notice does not preclude imposition of another emergency order governing the segment of track should conditions of the track or rail operations deteriorate to the extent that I believe they pose an imminent and unacceptable threat to public safety.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice tentatively approving finance transaction.
Stagecoach Holdings PLC (Stagecoach) and its subsidiary, Coach USA, Inc. (Coach), noncarriers, and various subsidiaries of each (collectively, applicants), filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 14303 to acquire control of Travel Impressions LLC (Travel Impressions) d/b/a Nevada Charter, a motor passenger carrier based in Las Vegas, NV. Persons wishing to oppose this application must follow the rules under 49 CFR part 1182.5 and 1182.8. The Board has tentatively approved the transaction, and, if no opposing comments are timely filed, this notice will be the final Board action.
Comments must be filed by March 26, 2001. Applicants may file a reply by April 9, 2001. If no comments are filed by March 26, 2001, this notice is effective on that date.
Send an original and 10 copies of any comments referring to STB Docket No. MC-F-20977 to: Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, send one copy of any comments to applicants' representative: Betty Jo Christian, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20036-1795.
Joseph H. Dettmar (202) 565-1600. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]
Stagecoach is a public limited corporation organized under the laws of Scotland. With operations in several countries, Stagecoach is one of the world's largest providers of passenger transportation services. Stagecoach had annual revenues of $3.29 billion for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2000. Coach is a Delaware corporation that currently controls over 90 motor passenger carriers.
Stagecoach and its subsidiaries currently control Coach,
Applicants state that Coach acquired Travel Impressions in a September 12, 2000 transaction in which it acquired all of the outstanding stock of Travel Impressions.
Applicants have submitted information, as required by 49 CFR 1182.2(a)(7), to demonstrate that the proposed acquisition of control is consistent with the public interest under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b). Applicants state that the proposed transaction will not reduce competitive options, adversely impact fixed charges, or adversely impact the interests of the employees of Travel Impressions. Applicants assert that granting the application will allow Travel Impressions to take advantage of economies of scale and substantial benefits offered by applicants, including interest cost savings and reduced operating costs. In addition, applicants have submitted all of the other statements and certifications required by 49 CFR 1182.2. Additional information, including a copy of the application, may be obtained from the applicants' representatives.
Under 49 U.S.C. 14303(b), we must approve and authorize a transaction we find consistent with the public interest, taking into consideration at least: (1) The effect of the transaction on the adequacy of transportation to the public; (2) the total fixed charges that result; and (3) the interest of affected carrier employees.
On the basis of the application, we find that the proposed acquisition of control is consistent with the public interest and should be authorized. If any opposing comments are timely filed, this finding will be deemed vacated and, unless a final decision can be made on the record as developed, a procedural schedule will be adopted to reconsider the application.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
1. The proposed acquisition of control is approved and authorized, subject to the filing of opposing comments.
2. If timely opposing comments are filed, the findings made in this decision will be deemed as having been vacated.
3. This decision will be effective on March 26, 2001, unless timely opposing comments are filed.
4. A copy of this notice will be served on: (1) The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration—MC-RI, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024; (2) the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, 10th Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530; and (3) the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the General Counsel, 400 7th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590.
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Clyburn, and Commissioner Burkes.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before March 12, 2001.
Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.
Written comments should be received on or before March 12, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, Internal Revenue Service, Room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20224.
OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (the “Fund”) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning its Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program Annual Survey. The BEA Program provides incentives to insured depository institutions to increase their support of CDFIs and their activities in economically distressed communities. The survey of BEA Awardee's will help the Fund to measure the effects of the BEA Program on insured depository institutions' community development activities.
Written comments should be received on or before April 9, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all comments to Matthew Josephs, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, Facsimile Number (202) 622-7754.
The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (the Fund), U.S. Department of Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 622-8662 (this is not a toll free number) or visit the Fund's website at http://www.treas.gov/cdfi. Other information regarding the Fund and its programs also may be obtained through the Fund's website.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Fund, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Fund's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
12 U.S.C. 4703; 12 U.S.C. 4713; 12 U.S.C. 1834a; and E.O. 12866, § 6(a).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and
Written comments should be received on or before April 9, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all comments to Margaret Nilson, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, Facsimile Number (202) 622-7754.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, or call (202) 622-8662.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
12 U.S.C. 1834a, 4701, 4704, 4713; 12 CFR part 1806.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (the Fund) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Microenterprise Development (“Microenterprise”) Program.
Written comments should be received on or before April 9, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all comments to Margaret Nilson, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, Fax Number (202) 622-7754.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW., Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, or call (202) 622-8662.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to
12 U.S.C. 4703, 4718; chapter X, Pub.L. 104-19, 109 Stat. 237 (12 U.S.C. 4703 note).
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Regulations Governing Payments by the Automated Clearing House method on Account of United States Securities.
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2001, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Regulations Governing United States Savings Bonds Series E/EE and H/HH.
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2001, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.
Requests for additional information should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the transaction request for U.S. Treasury Securities State and Local Government Series and Early Redemption Request for U.S. Treasury Securities State and Local Government Series.
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2001, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
Title: Transaction Request For U.S. Treasury Securities State and Local Government Series and Early Redemption Request for U.S. Treasury Securities State and Local Government Series.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the U.S. Savings Bonds EasySaver Plan Enrollment Application Series EE.
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2001, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the request for reissue of United States Savings Bonds.
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2001, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the application for disposition of savings bonds after the death of the registered owner(s).
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2001, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the request for reissue of savings bonds by the representative of the estate of an incompetent or minor.
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2001, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently the Bureau of the Public Debt within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the certificate of appointment and request for payment of savings bonds to the representative of the estate of an incompetent or minor.
Written comments should be received on or before April 10, 2001, to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of the Public Debt, Vicki S. Thorpe, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Vicki S. Thorpe, Bureau of the Public Debt, 200 Third Street, Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328, (304) 480-6553.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
In notice document 01-1682 beginning on page 6582 in the issue of Monday, January 22, 2001, make the following correction:
On page 6582, in the third column, in the third paragraph, in the fifth line “160E” should read “106E”.
In rule document 00-31450 beginning on page 78905 in the issue of Monday, December 18, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 78911, in §39.13(d), in the second column of the table, in the fourth line, after “AD)” add “or within the next 13 calendar months after January 19, 2001 (the effective date of this AD)”~.
In proposed rule document 00-24472 beginning on page 63922 in the issue of Wednesday, October 25, 2000, make the following corrections:
1. On page 63922, in the first column, the docket number is corrected to read as set forth above.
2. On page 64022, in the second column, in §417.233(c)(5)(ii), in the fourth line, after “the” add “E
3. On page 64043, in the second column, in paragraph (ii), in the fifth line, “1 x 100
4. On page 64044, in the second column, in paragraph (7), in the eighth line, “(i.e. log
5. On page 64051, in the first column, in the value description of σ
6. On page 64058, table C417-1 is corrected to read as set forth below:
7. On page 64091, in table E417.25-3, under the “Quality” heading, after each “100” entry, add a “%” sign.
8. On page 64094, the second table heading, “Table E417.25-75” should read “Table E417.25-7”.
9. On page 64096, in table E417.27-2, for the entry “Performance Verification” remove the “X” in each column.
10. On the same page, in the same table, for the entry “Non-Operating Environment Tests” remove the “X ” in each column.
11. On page 64099, in table E417.27-5, for the entry “High Temperature Storage”, remove the “X” in the column named “1 year
12. On page 64101, in table E417.29-2, for the entry “Firing Test”, in the Reference column, “E417.(g)” should read “E417.29(g)”.
13. On page 64104, in table E417.31-2, for the entry “Non-Operating Environment Tests and Operating Environment Tests”, remove the “X” in the third column.
14. On the same page, in table E417.31-3, under the “Quality” heading, before each “100%” entry, remove the footnote reference “
15. On page 64105, in table E417.31-4, for the entry “Low Temperature”, remove the “5” in the column named “105 ”.
16. On page 64107, in table E417.33-3, for the entry “Component Examination”, remove the “X” in each column.
17. On page 64109, in table E417-37-1, under the entry “Shock”, add an “X” in the “Quantity” column.