Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Forest Service
Rural Housing Service
Census Bureau
Export Administration Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Management and Budget Office
Fiscal Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Care Financing Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Employment and Training Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Management and Budget Office
Fiscal Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Surface Transportation Board
Fiscal Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Final rule; official staff interpretation.
The Board is adopting a final rule revising the Official Staff Commentary to Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act. The commentary interprets the requirements of Regulation E, to facilitate compliance by financial institutions that offer electronic fund transfer services to consumers. The final rule provides guidance on Regulation E coverage of electronic check conversion transactions and computer-initiated bill payments; authorization of recurring debits from a consumer's account; telephone-initiated transfers; and other issues.
The rule is effective March 15, 2001; however, to allow time for any necessary operational changes, the mandatory compliance date is January 1, 2002.
Natalie E. Taylor or John C. Wood, Counsel, or David A. Stein, Attorney, Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551, at (202) 452-2412 or (202) 452-3667.
The Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA or the act) (15 U.S.C. 1693
The act's coverage is not limited to traditional financial institutions holding consumers' asset accounts. For EFT services made available by entities other than an account-holding financial institution, the act directs the Board to assure, by regulation, that the disclosures, responsibilities, and remedies of the act are made applicable.
The Official Staff Commentary (12 CFR part 205 (Supp. I)) is designed to facilitate compliance and provide protection from civil liability, under § 915(d)(1) of the act, for financial institutions that act in conformity with it. The commentary is updated periodically, as necessary, to address significant questions that arise.
On June 29, 2000, the Board published proposed revisions to the Official Staff Commentary to Regulation E (65 FR 40061). The most significant issues addressed by the proposal were coverage of transactions that involve electronic check conversion, computer-initiated bill payments, and authorizations of recurring debits. The Board received more than 120 comment letters on the proposal. The majority of comments were from financial institutions, ACH associations, retailers, and their representatives. Overall, most commenters supported the Board's proposed revisions as necessary and helpful guidance.
The Board is adopting the revisions to the official staff commentary substantially as proposed. Some modifications have been made to address comments about the need for consistency in the coverage of electronic check conversion transactions and the standard for electronic authorization of recurring transfers. Other comments have been modified to address commenters' requests for additional clarification.
The proposal sought to clarify Regulation E coverage of transactions where a merchant at POS uses a consumer's blank, partially completed, or fully completed and signed check to obtain information for initiating a one-time ACH debit from the consumer's account. The National Automated Clearing House Association (NACHA) and other entities have, or are planning, programs that permit such transactions. In one type of program, known as “consumer-as-keeper,” after an EFT is initiated the merchant returns the check to the consumer. The proposal made clear that such transfers are covered by Regulation E. In another type of program, known as “financial institution-as-keeper” (which NACHA has not approved), the merchant or its financial institution retains the check. The supplementary information to the proposal indicated that Regulation E would cover the transfer where the check is blank or only partially completed. If, however, the check is fully completed and signed and retained by the merchant, the transfer would be excluded from coverage under Regulation E unless the consumer authorized an EFT. The Board solicited comment on this interpretation and the extent to which merchants are carrying out transactions under the “financial institution-as-keeper” model.
The supplementary information also addressed transfers resulting from NACHA's lockbox program where a payee converts consumers' checks received by mail to ACH debits. Under that program, consumers are informed that the payments will be processed as EFTs. The proposal stated that these transactions would not be covered by Regulation E since transfers originated by check are excluded from coverage.
Under the final rule, where a consumer authorizes a one-time EFT from the consumer's account using information from a check to initiate the transfer, the transaction is covered by Regulation E. Application of the rule is
The proposal also provided guidance on the coverage of “re-presented check entry” or “RCK” transactions, where a check used to pay for goods or services is subsequently returned for insufficient funds and the payee re-presents the check electronically through an ACH system. Under the proposal, an EFT resulting from the electronic re-presentment of the check would be the continuation of a transaction originated by check, and excluded from Regulation E coverage. A fee assessed by the payee for re-presentment, such as a collection fee, however, would be covered by the regulation if authorized by the consumer to be debited electronically from the consumer's account. Under the final rule, the comment is adopted substantially as proposed, with modifications that clarify the authorization requirements. (See comment 3(c)(1)-1.)
The Board proposed revisions concerning the coverage of computer-initiated transfers pursuant to a bill-payment service. Under the proposal, such transfers would be covered unless the terms of the service agreement explicitly state that payments will be carried out solely by check, draft, or similar paper instrument.
The final rule provides that computer-initiated payments are covered by the regulation unless the agreement with the consumer expressly states that all payments will be made by check, draft, or similar paper instrument, or specifically identifies payments that will be made by check, draft, or similar paper instrument. (See comment 3(b)-1(vi).)
Section 205.10(b) requires that recurring electronic debits from a consumer's account be authorized “only by a writing signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer.” The Board proposed to revise comment 10(b)-5 to ensure that financial institutions had guidance on the flexibility of establishing authentication methods. When the proposal was issued, the Congress had passed, but the President had not yet signed into law, electronic commerce legislation that addressed, among other things, the use and acceptance of electronic signatures and records for electronic commerce in general. The Board noted in the supplementary information to the proposal that if the legislation became law, the “similarly authenticated” standard could become unnecessary. On June 30, 2000, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (the E-Sign Act), 15 U.S.C. 7001,
Under the final rule, revisions have been made to ensure consistency with the E-Sign Act and to provide flexibility. For example, the rule clarifies that the copy of the authorization returned to the consumer may be in paper or electronic form, and that a code used as a means to “similarly authenticate” an authorization need not originate with the paying institution. (See comment 10(b)-5).
The Board generally solicited comment on how aggregation services made available to consumers through an Internet web site currently operate or might operate in the future, and posed several questions about the services. Aggregation services permit consumers to view financial information consolidated from multiple sources, such as their credit card, securities, and deposit accounts at a number of institutions. Because the Board did not publish a proposed interpretation related to aggregation services, the final commentary does not address these issues. The Board will consider addressing these issues in a future proposal.
The proposal also provided technical clarifications on various issues. They include exceptions from the periodic statement requirements, definition of an electronic terminal, timing of disclosures, and compulsory use. Revisions have been made in the final rule to address commenters' requests for additional clarification.
Regulation E defines an “access device” as a card, code, or other means of access to a consumer's account, or any combination thereof, that may be used by the consumer to initiate EFTs. The proposed rule provided that in check conversion programs that allow a merchant to use a consumer's check to obtain the routing, account, and serial numbers to initiate a one-time EFT, the check is not an access device. Thus, it is not subject to limitations on issuance, for example. Comment 2(a)-2 is added as proposed with some modifications for clarity. (See also discussion under “Electronic check conversion” in Section II.)
Comment 2(h)-2 currently states that a POS terminal that captures data electronically is an electronic terminal if a debit card is used to initiate an EFT. Some have interpreted the provision narrowly to apply only when a debit card is used to initiate an EFT. Comment 2(h)-2 is revised, as proposed, to provide that a POS terminal that captures data electronically to initiate an EFT is an electronic terminal even if no access device is used, such as when a check is used to capture information to initiate a one-time EFT. Most commenters supported this revision.
The receipt requirements of § 205.9 apply whether a debit card or information from a check is used to initiate a transfer. A check used to capture information to initiate an EFT at POS itself may serve as the receipt in some cases if it meets the requirements of § 205.9.
A merchant does not meet the definition of “financial institution” under the act or regulation since the merchant does not hold the consumer's account or issue an access device and agree with the consumer to provide EFT services. But because the merchant is using an electronic terminal to capture information from the consumer's check to initiate an EFT, the merchant is providing an EFT service. A merchant participating in electronic check conversion transactions will likely use an electronic terminal for credit card and debit card transactions. Given that the merchant must comply with the receipt requirements of § 205.9 of the regulation for debit card transactions, the Board believes the merchant will
Section 904(d) of the EFTA provides that “[i]f electronic fund transfer services are made available to consumers by a person other than a financial institution holding a consumer's account, the Board shall by regulation assure that the disclosures, protections, responsibilities, and remedies created by [the EFTA] are made applicable to such persons and services.” If the Board becomes aware that consumers are not receiving receipts in connection with check conversion transactions (or that merchants are not transmitting information needed for consumers' periodic statements), the Board will consider exercising its authority under § 904 to require compliance by merchants.
Section 205.2(k) defines a “preauthorized electronic fund transfer” as an EFT authorized in advance to recur at substantially regular intervals. Beyond that authorization, no further action by the consumer is required to initiate the transfer. Comment 2(k)-1 is added as proposed. Commenters supported the clarification.
Certain payments often are made to a consumer's account through the ACH, such as direct deposits of payroll or government benefits. NACHA rules permit reversal of payments made in error in limited circumstances. Comment 2(m)-5 is added, with some modifications from the proposal, to clarify that reversals of certain direct deposits that were made in error are not “unauthorized” EFTs. The last sentence in paragraph (iii) of the proposed comment, referring to a dispute about whether the account holder is entitled to a certain amount, has been deleted as unnecessary.
The EFTA excludes from coverage any transaction “originated by check, draft, or similar paper instrument.” 15 U.S.C. 1693a. The proposed rule addressed the coverage of electronic check conversion transactions based on several pilots introduced by NACHA and others. In such transactions, the merchant obtains information from a consumer's check at POS to initiate a one-time ACH debit from the consumer's account. The merchant electronically scans and captures the MICR (Magnetic Ink Character Recognition) encoding on the check for the routing, account, and serial numbers, and enters the amount to be debited from the consumer's account.
Under the Board's proposal, an EFT resulting from the “consumer-as-keeper” program would be covered by the regulation. Likewise, an EFT resulting from the “financial institution-as-keeper” program would be covered by Regulation E where the consumer provides a blank or partially completed check as a source document. Where the check is completed and signed by the consumer and retained by the merchant, the transaction arguably could be viewed as originating by check. Therefore, the supplementary information to the proposal stated that the transaction would be an EFT (and thus covered by Regulation E) only if the consumer authorized it as such. Finally, under the proposal, transfers resulting from the “lockbox” program would have been excluded from coverage as having originated by check. (See discussion under “Electronic check conversion” in Section II.)
The majority of commenters believed that Regulation E should cover check conversion transactions under the “consumer-as-keeper” program, but disagreed with coverage of these transactions under the “financial institution-as-keeper” program. Some commenters believed that consumers would be confused because they would be providing a check to the merchant and at the same time authorizing the transaction as an EFT. Some commenters suggested that the rules should not be based on the characteristics of the various programs; instead, the Board should establish a bright-line test that provides certainty and consistency.
Regarding the authorization requirement, some commenters believed the Board was imposing a written authorization requirement for transactions under the financial institution-as-keeper model. The supplementary information to the proposed rule stated that where a consumer provides a completed and signed check, a transfer under this model would be an EFT if the consumer “authorizes it as such.” Other commenters expressed concern about the inconsistent treatment of transfers under the “financial institution-as-keeper” program (which would generally be covered by Regulation E under the proposal) and those resulting from “lockbox” transactions (which would not be covered).
The Board is adopting an interpretation based on a consumer's authorization of a transaction as an EFT to clarify the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in check conversion programs. Under this approach, Regulation E coverage does not depend on the characteristics of a particular program.
The final rule provides that where a consumer authorizes the use of a check for initiating an EFT, the transaction is not deemed to be originated by check. The transaction is covered by Regulation E. Comment 3(b)-1(v), as adopted, makes clear that the rule applies whether the check is blank, partially completed, or fully completed and signed; whether it is presented at POS or mailed to a merchant or lockbox and later converted to an EFT; or whether it is retained by the consumer or the merchant (or the merchant's financial institution).
The proposed rule was not intended to require a separate written authorization for electronic check conversion transactions. (Under the EFTA and § 205.10(b) of Regulation E, written authorization is required only for recurring transfers.) Section 205.3 of Regulation E provides that the regulation applies to “any electronic fund transfer that authorizes a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer's account.” A merchant or other payee offering the check conversion services discussed above is providing an EFT service, and therefore should obtain the consumer's authorization to initiate an EFT. In the context of check conversion, authorization takes place if the consumer engages in the transaction after receiving notice that the transaction will be treated as an EFT. New comment 3(b)-3 is added to provide this guidance. (NACHA Operating Rules currently provide greater consumer protections in that they require written authorizations even for one-time conversion transactions.)
Section 904(d)(1) of the EFTA provides that “[i]f electronic fund transfer services are made available to consumers by a person other than a financial institution holding a consumer's account, the Board shall by regulation assure that the disclosures, protections, responsibilities, and remedies created by [the EFTA] are made applicable to such persons and services.” While the Board did not propose to amend the regulation at this time to require compliance by merchants or other payees with the Regulation E authorization requirement,
Comment 3(b)-1(vi) is added, with some modifications from the proposal, to provide guidance on the regulation's coverage of bill-payment services where a consumer initiates payments via computer (or other electronic means). Generally, the definition of “electronic fund transfer” in § 205.3(b) covers these payments. The comment as proposed would result in total exemption or total coverage of a bill-payment service. Commenters supported the proposal with some requests for modification. They suggested an approach that would only exclude payments to particular payees made solely by check. The comment has been revised to provide that computer-initiated payments are covered by the regulation unless the service agreement explicitly states that all payments, or all payments to identified payees, will be made solely by check, draft or similar paper instrument drawn on the consumer's account.
Comment 3(c)(1)-1 provides guidance on NACHA's re-presented check entry (RCK) program, in which merchant payees (or their financial institutions or agents) re-present returned checks electronically. Written authorization from the consumer for the RCK debit is not obtained, although the merchant payee usually has provided notice at POS that any returned item may be collected electronically if returned for insufficient funds. The comment clarifies that an RCK transaction is not covered by Regulation E because the transaction was originated by check.
In some cases, a payee may impose a fee on the consumer because the consumer's check was returned. NACHA rules provide that the RCK debit must be in the amount of the original check; therefore, the amount may not be increased to include a fee. The payee would have to initiate a separate debit to collect the fee electronically. Because an electronically debited fee meets the definition of an EFT under Regulation E, it is covered by the regulation and must be authorized (in this case, by notice to the consumer).
Most commenters agreed with the proposed rule excluding coverage of the RCK. A number of commenters disagreed with the proposal to cover any additional fee debited electronically from the consumer's account. Since the fee is based on the original transaction, these commenters believe the fee is likewise covered by the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which permits incidental damage fees.
The Board views, as separate transactions, the RCK and any fee assessed and debited from the consumer's account as a result of insufficient funds, whether or not the fee is permitted by the UCC to cover incidental damages. Authorization is required to electronically debit the fee from the consumer's account, but because the transfer is nonrecurring, notice to the consumer is sufficient for purposes of compliance with the regulation. (NACHA Operating Rules currently provide greater consumer protections in that they require written authorizations.)
Comment 3(c)(1)-2 is added as proposed to cross reference comment 3(b)-1(v), which provides guidance on the regulation's coverage of an EFT where a consumer's check is used to capture information for initiating the transfer.
A transfer initiated by telephone is covered by Regulation E if it occurs pursuant to a telephone bill-payment or other written plan that contemplates that the consumer will initiate transfers from time to time. Comment 3(c)(6)-1 is revised, as proposed, to provide additional guidance on what constitutes a written plan. Comment 3(c)(6)-2(v) is added, as proposed, to clarify coverage of transfers initiated by audio- or voice-response telephone systems.
Section 205.6 provides rules concerning a consumer's liability for an unauthorized transfer. The limitation on the consumer's liability depends, in part, on whether the unauthorized transfer takes place within or after two business days of the consumer's learning of the loss or theft of the access device. Comment 6(b)(1)-3 is added to clarify how to count the two-business-day period. The comment has been modified from the proposal to provide further clarity.
Most commenters generally supported the addition of the comment. A number of commenters expressed concern that use of the term “midnight” made the proposed comment unclear, and suggested alternative language. To avoid confusion, the reference to “midnight” has been deleted and the comment reworded.
Regulation E generally requires that disclosures be provided at the time the consumer contracts for an EFT service or before the first transfer is made to or from the consumer's account. Comment 7(a)-2 is revised, as proposed, to provide an exception to the disclosure timing rules when the consumer has authorized a third party to debit or credit the consumer's account, on either a one-time or recurring basis, and the institution has not received prior notice of the transfer. In these circumstances, the institution must provide the Regulation E disclosures as soon as reasonably possible after the first transfer. Before this revision, comment 7(a)-2 provided this disclosure timing exception only for direct deposits. Most commenters who addressed this issue supported the proposed revision and the regulatory relief provided.
Under § 205.7, a financial institution must provide an error resolution notice with the initial disclosures, and under § 205.8, must also do so annually or with each periodic statement. Under comment 7(b)(10)-2, a financial institution must have disclosed in its initial disclosures the longer error resolution time periods (applicable to foreign-initiated and POS debit card transactions) for resolving errors under § 205.11(c)(3) in order to use the longer periods. In 1998, § 205.11(c)(3) was amended to extend the error resolution time periods for new accounts (63 FR 52115, September 29, 1998). Comment 7(b)(10)-2 is revised as proposed to reflect the amendment to § 205.11(c)(3).
Section 205.11(c)(3) treats an account as a new account for a period of 30 days after the first deposit to the account is made. In the September 1998 amendment, the Board explained that, to provide consistency and ease regulatory compliance, the rule tracked the definition of “new account” in Regulation CC (Availability of Funds and Collection of Checks, 12 CFR 229.13(a)(2)), including the staff commentary to Regulation CC. Thus, for example, an account is not considered
An update to the error resolution model forms in Appendix A, paragraph A-3 (to reflect the extended time periods applicable to foreign-initiated transactions, POS debit card transactions, and new accounts) is pending. In September 1999, the Board proposed amendments to the model forms along with other proposed Regulation E amendments on the electronic delivery of disclosures (64 FR 49699, September 14, 1999). The Board is expected to consider final action on the amendments in the near future.
The Board proposed to add new comment 8(b)-2 to cross-reference comment 7(b)(10)-2, which states that, with regard to the initial error resolution notice, an institution seeking to use the longer error resolution time periods in § 205.11(c)(3) must have disclosed them.
A few commenters agreed with the requirement to disclose the longer time periods for new accounts in the initial error resolution notice, but questioned whether disclosure in the annual notice would serve a useful purpose. These commenters noted that in practice, it is unlikely that an account would still qualify as new when the annual notice is provided.
An annual error resolution notice need not contain a reference to the longer time periods for new accounts, and the final comment has been revised accordingly. (The notice must refer, however, to the longer time periods for foreign-initiated and POS debit card transactions if the institution wishes to take advantage of these extended periods.) In addition, the final comment is revised to reflect that disclosure of the longer time periods for new accounts is not required in the error resolution notice that may be provided with each periodic statement as an alternative to the annual error resolution notice.
Section 205.9(a)(5) requires that an ATM or POS terminal receipt contain the location of the terminal where the transfer is initiated, or an identification such as a code or terminal number. Comment 9(a)(5)-1 is revised, as proposed, to clarify that either a code or location may be disclosed. Comments 9(a)(5)(iv)-1 and -2 are redesignated as comments 9(a)(5)-3 and -4.
Comment 9(b)-4 currently provides that an institution may permit, but not require, consumers to “call for” periodic statements. The Board proposed to change the reference “call for” to “pick up.” The comment is adopted as proposed.
Section 205.9(c) lists the circumstances in which a periodic statement for EFT transactions is not required (or is not required to be provided monthly). Comment 9(c)(1)-1 is added as proposed to provide further guidance on the exceptions to the periodic statement requirements.
Comment 9(c)(1)-2 is added as proposed to clarify that the exceptions in § 205.9(c) apply despite the occurrence of reversals of deposits made in error. (See also comment 2(m)-5.)
Section 205.10(b) provides that recurring electronic debits from a consumer's account “may be authorized only by a writing signed or similarly authenticated by the consumer.” The phrase “similarly authenticated” was added in 1996 (61 FR 19678, May 2, 1996), and was intended to permit electronic authorizations; comment 10(b)-5 was added to the staff commentary to provide guidance. Since that time, the issues of electronic authorization and authentication methods have been further addressed in Regulation E rulemakings published in March 1998 (63 FR 14528, March 25, 1998) and September 1999 (64 FR 49699, September 14, 1999), and commenters have made suggestions and sought further guidance. In addition, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act, 15 U.S.C 7001
The Board proposed to revise comment 10(b)-5 to clarify that institutions have flexibility in establishing electronic authentication methods. Under the proposal, any authentication mechanism that provides assurance similar to a paper-based signature (such as a mechanism that verified the consumer's identity and evidenced the consumer's assent to the authorization) would satisfy the “similarly authenticated” standard. Also, for consistency with Board rulemakings permitting the electronic delivery of disclosures, the comment would be revised to permit the person obtaining the authorization to provide a copy of the authorization to the consumer either in paper form or electronically (the existing comment requires that a paper copy be provided).
Most commenters addressing this issue supported the proposed revision. Several commenters were concerned, however, that the comment could be interpreted to impose requirements on electronic authorizations that exceed those set forth in the E-Sign Act. Accordingly, they urged that the Board delete the comment or modify it for consistency with the E-Sign Act. Comment 10(b)-5 was not intended to impose stricter requirements than the E-Sign Act; rather the comment was intended to provide guidance so that a payee obtaining a consumer's authorization for recurring debits can be assured of compliance with § 205.10(b).
The final comment has been modified to ensure consistency with the requirements of the E-Sign Act. First, the introductory sentence has been deleted as no longer necessary. It has been replaced with guidance on the “similarly authenticated” standard. Second, references to the definition of an electronic record and an electronic signature in the E-Sign Act have been added. Third, the authorization standard has been clarified to state that the process should evidence the consumer's identity and assent to the authorization. Fourth, the language discussing the requirement to provide a copy of the authorization to the consumer has been revised to clarify that the copy may be either paper or electronic. Finally, the supplemental information to the proposed revision to comment 10(b)-5 stated that a security code used as the authentication method need not originate with the paying institution, if the code meets the general standards for “similar authentication.” This interpretation has been incorporated into the text of the comment.
New comment 10(b)-7 is adopted as proposed. The comment addresses a situation where a consumer, by telephone or on-line, authorizes
Some commenters believed that the standards set forth in the comment would be burdensome. They suggested that the comment not be adopted, or that the final comment omit the conditions that the failure to obtain written authorization be unintentional and that reasonable procedures be maintained to avoid such an error. The requirement to obtain written authorization for recurring electronic debits is statutory, as are the conditions concerning unintentional failure and reasonable procedures. Therefore, the comment is adopted as proposed.
Where the authorization occurs on-line, payees have the option to ensure compliance by obtaining electronic authorizations in all cases, following the procedures set forth in comment 10(b)-5 or in the E-Sign Act.
Some commenters requested guidance on what procedures should be used to avoid errors regarding the type of card used by a consumer to authorize recurring charges. To ensure flexibility in this area, however, as other commenters urged, the comment as finally adopted does not specify any particular procedures.
Section 205.10(e)(2) provides that a financial institution may not require a consumer to establish an account for receipt of EFTs with a particular institution as a condition of employment. Comment 10(e)(2)-1 is revised as proposed to clarify that an employer (including a financial institution) may provide for having employees' salary deposited at a particular institution designated by the employer, if employees are given the option to receive their salary by check or cash. Commenters generally supported the revision.
Section 205.11 sets forth procedures for resolving errors. In defining “error” and the types of transfers or inquiries covered, the regulation also sets forth types of inquiries that are not covered. § 205.11(a)(2). Existing comment 11(a)-2 provides that if a consumer merely calls to verify whether a deposit (made via ATM, preauthorized transfer, or other electronic means) was credited, without asserting an error, the error resolution procedures are not triggered.
Under the proposal, comment 11(a)-2 was broadened to provide that consumer inquiries to verify account payments, as well as account deposits, without the assertion of any error, would not trigger the error resolution procedures. Commenters generally supported the proposed revision. In response to comments, the proposed phrase “if the consumer calls” has been replaced by “if the consumer contacts,” to reflect that these routine consumer inquiries are not limited to telephone inquiries; and the comment adopted clarifies that an inquiry about a “payment” includes an inquiry about other EFTs debited to the account.
Comment 12(a)-1 is revised as proposed to distinguish between two types of unauthorized transfers: those where a consumer's access device is used to withdraw funds from a checking account with an overdraft protection feature, and those where the consumer's access device is also a credit card separately used to obtain cash advances. Examples illustrate how these rules apply in various situations. The majority of commenters addressing this subject supported the proposed revision.
Consumer protection, Electronic fund transfers, Federal Reserve System, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
15 U.S.C. 1693b.
2.
2.
1.
5.
i. A credit made to the wrong consumer's account;
ii. A duplicate credit made to a consumer's account; or
iii. A credit in the wrong amount (for example, when the amount credited to the consumer's account differs from the amount in the transmittal instructions).
1.
v. A transfer via ACH where a consumer has provided a check to enable the merchant or other payee to capture the routing, account, and serial numbers to initiate the transfer, whether the check is blank, partially completed, or fully completed and signed; whether the check is presented at POS or is mailed to a merchant or other payee or lockbox and later converted to an EFT; or whether the check is retained by the consumer, the merchant or other payee, or the payee's financial institution.
vi. A payment made by a bill payer under a bill-payment service available to a consumer via computer or other electronic means, unless the terms of the bill-payment service explicitly state that all payments, or all payments to a particular payee or payees, will be solely by check, draft, or similar paper instrument drawn on the consumer's account, and the payee or payees that will be paid in this manner are identified to the consumer.
3.
1.
2.
1.
i. A hold-harmless agreement on a signature card that protects the institution if the consumer requests a transfer.
ii. A legend on a signature card, periodic statement, or passbook that limits the number of telephone-initiated transfers the consumer can make from a savings account because of reserve requirements under Regulation D (12 CFR part 204).
iii. An agreement permitting the consumer to approve by telephone the rollover of funds at the maturity of an instrument.
2.
v. The consumer initiates the transfer using a financial institution's audio-response or voice-response telephone system.
3.
2.
2.
2.
1.
i. The city, state or foreign country, and the information in §§ 205.9(a)(5) (i), (ii), or (iii), or
ii. A number or a code identifying the terminal. If the institution chooses the second option, the code or terminal number identifying the terminal where the transfer is initiated may be given as part of a transaction code.
3.
i. All the terminals owned or operated by the financial institution providing the statement (or by the system in which it participates) are located in that state, or
ii. All transfers occur at terminals located within 50 miles of the financial institution's main office.
4.
4.
1.
2.
5.
7.
1.
2.
1.
ii. The following examples illustrate these principles:
A. A consumer has a card that can be used either as a credit card or a debit card. When used as a debit card, the card draws on the consumer's checking account. When used as a credit card, the card draws only on a separate line of credit. If the card is stolen and used as a credit card to make purchases or to get cash advances at an ATM from the line of credit, the liability limits and error resolution provisions of Regulation Z apply; Regulation E does not apply.
B. In the same situation, if the card is stolen and is used as a debit card to make purchases or to get cash withdrawals at an ATM from the checking account, the liability limits and error resolution provisions of Regulation E apply; Regulation Z does not apply.
C. In the same situation, assume the card is stolen and used both as a debit card and as a credit card; for example, the thief makes some purchases using the card as a debit card, and other purchases using the card as a credit card. Here, the liability limits and error resolution provisions of Regulation E apply to the unauthorized transactions in which the card was used as a debit card, and the corresponding provisions of Regulation Z apply to the unauthorized transactions in which the card was used as a credit card.
D. Assume a somewhat different type of card, one that draws on the consumer's checking account and can also draw on an overdraft line of credit attached to the checking account. There is no separate line of credit, only the overdraft line, associated with the card. In this situation, if the card is stolen and used, the liability limits and the error resolution provisions of Regulation E apply. In addition, if the use of the card has resulted in accessing the overdraft line of credit, the error resolution provisions of § 226.13(d) and (g) of Regulation Z also apply, but not the other error resolution provisions of Regulation Z.
By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Director of the Division of Consumer and Community Affairs under delegated authority, March 12, 2001.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is approving revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern two separate actions. First, we are approving revisions to the Texas Nitrogen Oxides (NO
This rule is effective on April 16, 2001.
Copies of documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working days in advance.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Office of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
Brooke Ivener, Air Planning Section (6PD), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7362.
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA.
On October 31, 2000, the EPA proposed to approve three revisions to the Texas SIP rules for the control of air pollution from nitrogen compounds, submitted by the State on April 30, 2000 (65 FR 64914): (1) Revisions to NO
Specifically, we are approving the following rule revisions with regards to utility electric generating facilities in East and Central Texas: New sections 117.131 concerning Applicability, 117.133 concerning Exemptions, 117.134 concerning Gas Fired Steam Generation, 117.135 concerning Emission Specification, 117.138 concerning System Cap, 117.141 concerning Initial Demonstration of Compliance, 117.143 concerning Continuous Demonstration of Compliance, 117.145 concerning Final Control Plan Procedures, 117.147 concerning Revision of Final Control
This revision requires reductions of NO
We are approving the NO
This revision requires reductions in emissions of NO
Nitrogen oxides belong to the group of criteria air pollutants. NO
A nonattainment area is a geographic area in which the level of a criteria air pollutant is higher than the level allowed by Federal standards. A single geographic area may have acceptable levels of one criteria air pollutant but unacceptable levels of one or more other criteria air pollutants; thus, a geographic area can be attainment for one criteria pollutant and nonattainment for another criteria pollutant at the same time.
Section 302 of the Act generally defines “major stationary source” as a facility or source of air pollution which emits, when uncontrolled, 100 tons per year (tpy) or more of air pollution. This general definition applies unless another specific provision of the Act explicitly defines major source differently. Therefore, for NO
According to section 182(d) and 182(f)of the Act, a major source in a severe nonattainment area is a source that emits, when uncontrolled, 25 tpy or more of NO
Section 110 of the Act requires States to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that State air quality meets the NAAQS that EPA has established. Under section 109 of the Act, EPA established the NAAQS to protect public health. The NAAQS address six criteria pollutants. These criteria pollutants are: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Each State submits these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the federally enforceable SIP. These SIPs can be extensive, containing State regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.
When a State wants to incorporate its regulations into the federally enforceable SIP, the State must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with State and Federal requirements. This process includes a public notice, a public hearing, a public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.
Once a State adopts a rule, regulation, or control strategy, the State may submit the adopted provisions to us and request that we include these provisions in the federally enforceable SIP. We must then decide on an appropriate Federal action, provide public notice on this action, and seek additional public comment regarding this action. If we receive adverse comments, we must address them prior to a final action.
Under section 110 of the Act, when we approve all State regulations and supporting information, those State regulations and supporting information become a part of the federally approved SIP. You can find records of these SIP actions in the Code of Federal Regulations at Title 40, part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of
A State may enforce State regulations before and after we incorporate those regulations into a federally approved SIP. After we incorporate those regulations into a federally approved SIP, both EPA and the public may also take enforcement action in federal courts against violators of these regulations.
The following table contains lists of affected counties and the revisions we are approving.
If you are in one of these Texas counties, you should refer to the Texas NO
Pursuant to sections 110 and 116 and part D of the Act, we are finalizing the approval of revisions to Texas Rule 30 TAC, Chapter 117, regulations for the control of air pollution from nitrogen compounds, as a revision to the Texas 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 action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the 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 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. The EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrogen oxides, Nonattainment, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
a. Under Subchapter A, revising the entry for section 117.10;
b. Under Subchapter B, revising the “Division 1” heading to read “Division 1—Utility Electric Generation in Ozone Nonattainment Areas,” revising the entries for sections 117.104, 117.106, 117.108, 117.115, and 117.116, and removing the entry for section 117.109;
c. Under Subchapter B, by redesignating “Division 2” with all of its entries as “Division 3,” and adding a new “Division 2” heading to read “Division 2—Utility Electric Generation in East and Central Texas,” and adding new sections 117.131, 117.133, 117.134, 117.135, 117.138, 117.141, 117.143, 117.145, 117.147, and 117.149;
d. Under Subchapter B, revising “Division 3” heading to read “Division 3—Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Combustion Sources in Ozone Nonattainment Areas”, and revising the entries for sections 117.205, 117.206, 117.216, and 117.223;
e. Under Subchapter E, adding a new entry for section 117.512, revising the entries for sections 117.510, 117.520, and 117.570;
f. Removing the “Subchapter F: Gas-Fired Steam Generation” heading and removing the entry for section 117.601.
The additions read as follows:
(c) EPA approved regulations.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of fishing season dates.
NMFS announces the opening of directed fishing for sablefish with fixed gear managed under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program. The season will open 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 15, 2001, and will close 1200 hrs, A.l.t., November 15, 2001. This period is the same as the IFQ season for Pacific halibut announced by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). The IFQ halibut season is announced by publication in the
Effective 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 15, 2001, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., November 15, 2001.
James Hale, 907-586-7228.
Beginning in 1995, fishing for Pacific halibut (
This announcement is consistent with § 679.23(g)(1), which requires that the directed fishing season for sablefish managed under the IFQ program be specified by the Administrator, Alaska Region, and announced by publication in the
This action is taken under § 679.23(g)(1) and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
16 U.S.C. 773
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed rulemaking.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing regulations implementing the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, to authorize Federal agencies to repay federally insured student loans when necessary to recruit or retain highly qualified personnel.
Written comments will be considered if received no later than May 15, 2001.
Send or deliver written comments to Richard A. Whitford, Acting Associate Director for Employment, Office of Personnel Management, Room 6500, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415.
Michael J. Mahoney, (202) 606-0830 (FAX 202-606-0390).
The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 amended 5 U.S.C. 5379. These amendments: Remove the restriction of this incentive to professional, technical, or administrative personnel; remove the limitation of this incentive to employees covered under General Schedule pay rates; broaden the types of loans which qualify under this part under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the Public Health Service Act; require agencies to report annually to OPM on their use of this incentive; and require OPM to report annually to Congress on agencies' use of this incentive. These regulations reflect the amendments to 5 U.S.C. 5379.
The repayment authority is one of several flexibilities made available to agencies when trying to attract individuals to the Federal service, or retain highly qualified personnel. The proposed regulations benefit both agencies and employees by expanding the flexibility of this existing incentive.
The proposed regulations amend the following: Purpose, Definition of Employee, Definition of Student Loan, and Records and Reports.
This incentive may be used for employees in occupational series other than professional, technical, or administrative positions.
This incentive may be used for employees covered under non-General Schedule (GS) pay rates, providing the non-GS employee meets the other criteria specified under this part.
The proposed regulations expand the type of loans which qualify for this incentive to include: Subsidized, unsubsidized, Direct subsidized, and Direct unsubsidized Federal Stafford loans; Federal and Direct Federal Plus loans; Direct subsidized, Direct unsubsidized, and Federal Consolidation loans; Defense loans; National Direct Student Loans; Perkins Loans; Nursing Student Loan Program loans; Health Profession Student Loan Program loans; and Health Education Assistance Loan Program loans.
Agencies will be required to report annually to OPM on their use of this incentive. Agencies must report to OPM: The number of employees selected to receive this benefit; the job classifications of the employees selected to receive this benefit; and the cost for providing this benefit. Cost is the total amount of student loans repayments, not the administrative costs associated with administering the program.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only certain Federal employees.
Administrative practice and procedure, Government employees, Wages.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend part 537 to Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 537 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 5379.
2. Section 537.101 is revised to read as follows:
This part provides regulations to implement 5 U.S.C. 5379, as amended, which authorizes agencies to establish a program under which they may agree to repay (by direct payment on behalf of the employee) all or part of any outstanding federally insured student loan or loans previously taken out by a candidate to whom an offer of employment has been made, or a current employee of the agency, in order to recruit or retain highly qualified personnel.
3. In § 537.102 the definitions of
(a) A loan made, insured, or guaranteed under parts B, D or E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965; or
(b) A health education assistance loan made or insured under part A of title VII of the Public Health Service Act, or under part E of title VIII of that Act.
4. In § 537.110 the section heading is revised, the existing text is designated as paragraph (a), and paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:
(b) Before January lst of each year, each agency must submit a written report to the Office of Personnel Management stating when the agency made student loan repayments on behalf of an employee during the previous fiscal year. Each report must include:
(1) The number of employees selected to receive this benefit;
(2) The job classifications of the employees selected to receive benefits under this part; and
(3) The cost to the Federal government for providing benefits under this part.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period and rescheduling of public hearing.
On January 22, 2001, the Department of Energy published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) (66 FR 6768) to revise the test procedures for central air conditioners and heat pumps. The notice of proposed rulemaking announced that the closing date for receiving public comments would be March 23, 2001. The Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) requested that the comment period be extended to allow additional time for understanding the lengthy revisions to the test procedures. The Department agrees to this extension of the comment period to May 23, 2001. The NOPR also announced that a public workshop (hearing) would be held on February 7, 2001. ARI requested that this date be changed to allow more time for preparation. The public workshop is now scheduled for March 29, 2001.
The proposed rule stated that there would be a workshop in the spring of 2001 to discuss modifications to the test procedure to encourage the use of thermostatic expansion valves (TXVs), and to discuss a standard mixed system rating method. This workshop will be held immediately following the proposed test procedure rulemaking workshop, in the same room, on the afternoon of the same date (March 29). The outcome of this second workshop will have no effect on this proposed test procedure rulemaking.
Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2001. The public workshop (hearing) on the proposed test procedure rulemaking will be held on March 29, 2001, in Washington, DC. The workshop on TXVs and mixed system rating methods will immediately follow, on the same date. Please send requests to speak at the workshop so that we receive them by 4 p.m., March 20, 2001. The Department must also receive ten (10) copies of statements to be given at the public workshop no later than 4 p.m., March 21, 2001, and we request that you provide a computer diskette (WordPerfect 8) of each statement at that time.
Please submit written comments and requests to speak at the public hearing to: Michael Raymond, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Hearings and Dockets, Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners Including Heat Pumps, Docket No. EE-RM-97-440, EE-41, Room 1J-018, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. You may send an email to: michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov. The hearing will be at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC.
Michael Raymond at (202) 586-9611, E-mail: michael.raymond@ee.doe.gov, or Eugene Margolis, Esq., (202) 586-9507, E-mail: Eugene.Margolis@HQ.DOE.GOV.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed special conditions.
This notice proposes special conditions for Gulfstream Model G-V airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, will have novel or unusual design features associated with a head-up display (HUD) system modified to display forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imagery. The regulations applicable to pilot compartment view do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that provided by the existing airworthiness standards.
Comments must be received on or before April 30, 2001.
Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket (ANM-114), Docket No. NM185, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at that address. All comments must be marked:
Dale Dunford, FAA, Transport Standards Staff, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2239; fax (425) 227-1100; e-mail: dale.dunford@faa.gov.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of these proposed special conditions by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Communications should identify the
On February 13, 1998, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, 4150 Donald Douglas Drive, Long Beach, California 90808, applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) to modify Gulfstream Model G-V airplanes. The Model G-V is a small transport category airplane. The Model G-V airplanes are powered by two BMW—Rolls Royce Mark BR700-710A1-10 engines, and have a maximum takeoff weight of 90,500 pounds. This airplane operates with a two-pilot crew and can hold up to 19 passengers.
The modification incorporates the installation of an Enhanced Vision System (EVS). This system consists of a previously approved Honeywell 2020 head-up display (HUD) system that is modified to display forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imagery provided by a Kollsman FLIR assembly. The EVS is novel or unusual technology for which the FAA has no certification criteria. Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 25.773 (“Pilot compartment view”), prohibits visual distortions, glare, and reflections that could interfere with the pilot's normal duties. That regulation was not written in anticipation of an imagery display that could interfere with the pilot's forward field of view. Because § 25.773 does not provide for any alternatives or considerations for such a novel or unusual system as the EVS, the FAA finds it necessary to establish safety requirements that ensure an equivalent level of safety and effectiveness of the pilot compartment view as intended by the regulation.
To maintain an equivalent level of safety with § 25.773, the fundamental principle must be that the combination of what the pilot can see in the FLIR image, and what can be seen through and around the image display, must be as safe and effective as the view without the EVS image. Other applications for certification of such technology are anticipated in the near future and magnify the need to establish FAA safety standards that can be applied consistently for all such approvals.
Under the provisions of § 21.101 (“Designation of applicable regulations”), Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation must show that the Gulfstream Model G-V airplanes, as changed, comply with the regulations in the U.S. type certification basis established for the Model G-V airplane. The U.S. type certificate basis established for the Model G-V airplane is established in accordance with § 21.21 (“Issue of type certificate * * *”) and § 21.17 (“Designation of applicable regulations”), and the type certification application date. The U.S. type certification basis for this model airplane is listed in Type Certificate Data Sheet No. A12EA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 25, as amended) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model G-V airplanes modified by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16 (“Special conditions”).
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, these Gulfstream Model G-V airplanes must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of part 34 and the noise certification requirements of part 36.
Special conditions, as appropriate, are issued in accordance with § 11.19 (“What is a final rule?”), after public notice, as required by § 11.38 (“What public comment procedures does FAA follow for Special Conditions?”), and become part of the type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101(b)(2).
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).
The EVS is novel or unusual technology because it places a raster * infrared image in the center of the pilot's regulated “pilot compartment view,” which must be free of interference, distortion, and glare that would adversely affect the performance of the pilot's normal duties. (*A “raster” image is typically a set of horizontal lines composed of individual pixels, used to form an image on a CRT or other screen.) The EVS/HUD system displays a raster image from a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera on the previously approved Honeywell HUD 2020 system. The EVS image is displayed with HUD symbology and overlays the forward outside view. Fundamentally, the combination of information seen by the pilot in the EVS image, and the visual information seen by the pilot through and around the image, must be as safe and effective as the pilot's view without EVS.
Operationally, during an instrument approach, the EVS image is intended to supplement the pilot's ability to detect and identify “visual references for the intended runway,” which are listed and required by § 91.175(c)(3) (“Takeoff and landing under IFR”) to continue the approach below decision height. It may be possible to demonstrate whether, in certain conditions, the EVS can provide an image of such references, perhaps even better than the references can be seen through the window by the pilot without EVS. However, systems such as EVS, which use the infrared wavelength, sense the scene with distinctly different characteristics than a pilot's eyes do. An infrared sensor responds to apparent temperature differences in the scene and does not respond to contrasting colors and brightness like the pilot's eyes would. Visual features can appear significantly different to a pilot in the infrared image than they would with normal vision.
While displaying the infrared image, the EVS also will partially interfere with the pilot's natural outside view. There is the potential for the image to improve the pilot's ability to detect and identify items of interest, yet, at the same time, the potential for it to interfere with the pilot compartment view. Section 25.773(a)(2) states:
Each pilot compartment must be free of glare and reflection that could interfere with the normal duties of the minimum flight crew.
The EVS image is displayed in the field of view required by § 25.773, and may potentially interfere with the pilot's
The EVS raster image has more potential for interference with the pilot compartment view than stroke symbols also displayed on the HUD. Stroke symbology illuminates a small fraction of the total display area of the HUD. Without the raster image, the pilot can easily see around the symbology and the outside view is not unacceptably compromised. However, unlike stroke symbology, the EVS image illuminates most of the total display area of the HUD (approximately 30 degrees horizontally and 20 degrees vertically) with much greater potential interference with the pilot compartment view. The pilot cannot see around the raster image, but must see the outside scene through it.
Additionally, unlike the pilot's external view, the EVS image is monochrome and two-dimensional, without depth cues. The quality of the EVS image and the level of EVS infrared sensor performance could depend significantly on the atmospheric and external light source conditions. Gain settings of the sensor, and brightness or contrast settings of the HUD, can significantly affect image quality. Certain system characteristics can create distracting and confusing display artifacts. Finally, because this is a sensor-based system that is intended to provide a conformal perspective corresponding with the outside scene, the potential for misalignment must be considered.
Hence, criteria for each of the following need to be addressed:
• An acceptable degree of interference of the window or “window and HUD” view;
• Potential image misalignment;
• Distortion; and
• The potential for pilot confusion or misleading information.
Section 25.773 did not anticipate this type of technology, and the regulation currently is not considered to be adequate to address the specific issues related to an enhanced vision system. Therefore, the FAA has determined that, in addition to the requirements of 14 CFR part 25, special conditions are needed to address requirements particular to the installation of an EVS.
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation intends for the EVS to present an enhanced view that would aid the pilot, during the approach:
• To see and recognize external visual references that are required by § 91.175(c), and
• To visually monitor the integrity of the approach, as described in FAA Order 6750.24D (“Instrument Landing System and Ancillary Electronic Component Configuration and Performance Requirements, “ dated March 1, 2000).
Based on this functionality, users would seek to obtain operational approval to conduct approaches when the Runway Visual Range (RVR) is as low as 1,200 feet, including approaches to Type I runways. Gulfstream does not intend for the EVS imagery to be used either as a means of flight guidance, or as the substitution for the outside view while maneuvering the airplane during approach, landing, rollout, or takeoff.
The FAA considers that EVS may be found acceptable for the following functions:
• Presenting an enhanced view that would aid the pilot during the approach.
• Displaying an image that the pilot can use to detect and identify the “visual references for the intended runway” required by § 91.175(c)(3) to continue the approach with vertical guidance to 100 feet height above touchdown (HAT).
However, the FAA finds that it would not be appropriate to reduce the ceiling and visibility minima of the instrument approach procedure being used based on the use of EVS.
Further, the FAA certification of EVS is limited as follows:
• The infrared-based EVS image will not be certified as a means to satisfy the requirements for descent below 100 feet HAT.
• The infrared-based EVS image will not be certified as a means to establish that flight visibility is consistent with the visibility condition prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used [see § 91.175(c)(2)].
• The EVS imagery, alone, will not be certified either as flight guidance, or as a substitution for the outside view for maneuvering the airplane during approach, landing, rollout, or takeoff.
• The EVS may be used as a supplemental device during any phase of flight or operation in which its safe use has been established.
Although the EVS image projected on the HUD can interfere with the pilot compartment view, contrary to § 25.773, the FAA finds that an equivalent level of safety to that requirement may be possible with the combined view of the image and the outside scene that the pilot is able to see through the image. An EVS image may reduce the clear outside view of portions of the visual field, and yet, at the same time, may provide an enhanced image of that scene. The pilot must be able to use this combination of information seen in the image, and the natural view of the outside scene seen through the image, as safely and effectively as the pilot would use a § 25.773-compliant pilot compartment view without an EVS image. This is the fundamental objective of the proposed special conditions. Compliance with these special conditions and other airworthiness requirements of part 25 does not constitute operational approval for use of EVS.
The FAA intends to develop guidance material for use of the EVS that will cover operations, pilot qualification, and training.
The FAA also intends to apply certification criteria, not as special conditions, for compliance with other Federal Aviation Regulations, including § 25.1301 (“Equipment: Function and installation”) and § 25.1309 (“Equipment, systems, and installations”). These criteria address certain image characteristics, installation, demonstration, and system safety.
• Resolution,
• Luminance,
• Luminance uniformity,
• Low level luminance,
• Contrast variation,
• Display quality,
• Display dynamics (for example, jitter, flicker, update rate, and lag), and
• Brightness controls.
• Visibility and access to EVS controls, and
• Integration of EVS in the cockpit.
The FAA also intends to apply certification criteria relevant to high intensity radiated fields (HIRF) and lightning protection.
A copy of these proposed means of compliance criteria may be obtained by sending a request to the following e-mail address: 9-ANM-EVS-CRITERIA@faa.gov.
As discussed above, these proposed special conditions would apply to Gulfstream Model G-V airplanes modified by Gulfstream Aerospace. Should Gulfstream Aerospace apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual
This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on the Gulfstream Model G-V airplanes modified by Gulfstream Aerospace. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these proposed special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes the following special conditions as part of the supplemental type certification basis for the Gulfstream Model G-V airplanes modified by Gulfstream Aerospace:
1. The EVS imagery on the HUD must not degrade the safety of flight, nor interfere with the effective use of outside visual references for required pilot tasks, during any phase of flight in which it is to be used.
2. To avoid unacceptable interference with the safe and effective use of the pilot compartment view, the EVS device must meet the following requirements:
2.a. The EVS design must minimize unacceptable display characteristics or artifacts (for example, noise, “burlap” overlay, running water droplets) that obscure the desired image of the scene, impair the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, distract the pilot, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety.
2.b. Control of EVS display brightness must be sufficiently effective, in dynamically changing background (ambient) lighting conditions, to prevent full or partial blooming of the display that would distract the pilot, impair the pilot's ability to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety. If automatic control for image brightness is not provided, it must be shown that a single manual setting is satisfactory.
2.c. A readily accessible control must be provided that permits the pilot to immediately deactivate and reactivate display of the EVS image on demand.
2.d. The EVS image on the HUD must not impair the pilot's use of guidance information nor degrade the presentation and pilot awareness of essential flight information displayed on the HUD, such as alerts, airspeed, attitude, altitude and direction, approach guidance, windshear guidance, TCAS resolution advisories, and unusual attitude recovery cues.
2.e. The EVS image must be sufficiently aligned and conformal to both the external scene and conformal HUD symbology so as not to be misleading, cause pilot confusion, or increase workload.
2.f. A HUD system modified to display EVS images must continue to meet all the requirements of the original approval.
3. The safety and performance of the pilot tasks associated with the use of the pilot compartment view must be not be degraded by the display of the EVS image. Pilot tasks that must not be degraded by the EVS image include:
3.a. Detection, accurate identification, and maneuvering, as necessary, to avoid traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other hazards of flight.
3.b. Accurate identification and use of visual references required for every task relevant to the phase of flight.
4. The use of EVS will not reduce the ceiling and visibility minima of the instrument approach procedure being used. The EVS may be found acceptable for the following functions:
4.a. Presenting an image that would aid the pilot during the approach.
4.b. Displaying an image that the pilot can use to detect and identify the “visual references for the intended runway” required by § 91.175(c)(3) to continue the approach with vertical guidance to 100 feet height above touchdown (HAT). Appropriate limitations must be included in the Operating Limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit the use of the EVS for functions not found to be acceptable.
Postal Service.
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service is seeking comments on the following proposed mail preparation changes to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM): Packages of First-Class Mail Presorted rate flats and automation rate flats that are part of the same mailing job would be required to be co-trayed according to the standards in M910; Packages of Standard Mail Presorted rate flats and automation rate flats that are part of the same mailing job would be required to be co-sacked according to the standards in M910; Standard Mail Enhanced Carrier Route and 5-digit flats would be required to be sacked or palletized using the labeling list L001 scheme sort. This includes the scheme sorts included in the optional preparation methods in M920, M930, and M940; and Bound Printed Matter Carrier Route and 5-digit flats would be required to be sacked or palletized using the labeling list L001 scheme sort.
Comments must be received on or before April 13, 2001.
Send written comments to the Manager, Mail Preparation and Standards, US Postal Service, 1735 N Lynn Street, Rm 3025, Arlington, VA 22209-6038. Written comments may be submitted via fax at 703-292-4058. Copies of all written comments are available via fax or mail by calling Anne Emmerth at the number listed below.
Anne Emmerth, 703-292-3641, aemmerth@email.usps.gov.
The Postal Service is seeking comments on proposed changes to the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) that would change mail preparation standards for flats. The changes themselves are outlined below by class of mail; the proposed DMM language follows at the end of this proposed rule. The proposed implementation date for these standards is September 1, 2001.
Generally, these changes are intended to align mail preparation more closely with the way that the Postal Service transports and processes flat-sized mail. The co-traying requirements for First-Class Mail flats and the co-sacking requirements for Standard Mail flats should result in fewer less-than-full trays and sacks and an overall reduction in the number of trays and sacks prepared by mailers and processed by the Postal Service. For Presorted rate Standard Mail, with sack-based rates, this may also result in lower postage rates for some mail that will move to a finer sack presort level. Requiring the use of labeling list L001 for sacked carrier route Standard Mail and Bound Printed Matter flats also will result in
The changes proposed are as follows:
Currently, mailers have the option to use M910 to co-tray packages of Presorted rate flats and automation rate flats that are part of the same mailing job (current M130.1.6 and M820.1.9). This proposal would make the current option a requirement. If this proposal is adopted, any First-Class Mail mailing job that contains packages of Presorted rate flats and packages of automation rate flats must be co-trayed using M910.1.0.
Currently, Standard Mail Enhanced Carrier Route flats are sorted to two required sack levels and one optional sort level (required carrier route, optional 5-digit scheme carrier routes, and required 5-digit carrier routes under M620.4.0). This proposal would make the optional 5-digit scheme carrier routes sort level (using labeling list L001) a required level. If this proposal is adopted, all Enhanced Carrier Route Standard Mail flats would be required to be sorted to all three sack levels.
Current M620.4.0 contains sack preparation requirements for Standard Mail Enhanced Carrier Route flats and irregular parcels. In order to apply the L001 scheme sort only to flats, the sacking requirements for flats have been separated into a different section. Therefore, the sack preparation requirements for irregular parcels are included in this proposed rule only to show renumbering and reorganization. There are no mail preparation changes for Standard Mail Enhanced Carrier Route irregular parcels.
Currently, mailers have the option to use the L001 scheme sort for Standard Mail Enhanced Carrier Route flats on pallets (M045.3.2). This proposal would make the two optional sort levels (5-digit scheme carrier routes and 5-digit scheme using labeling list L001) required sort levels. If this proposal is adopted, all packages of Standard Mail carrier route rate flats on pallets would be required to be sorted to 5-digit scheme carrier routes pallets and 5-digit scheme pallets as the first two sort levels.
Under the advanced preparation options in current M920, M930, and M940, mailers have the option of sorting with or without using the L001 scheme sort. This proposal would eliminate the “non-L001” sort (current M920.2.4, M920.2.6, M930.2.4, and M940.2.4). If this proposal is adopted, mailers sorting Standard Mail flats under M920, M930, or M940 will be required to use the L001 scheme sort.
These proposed changes apply to regular and nonprofit Standard Mail flats.
Currently, mailers have the option to use M910 to co-sack packages of Presorted rate flats and packages of automation rate flats that are part of the same mailing job (current M610.1.5 and M820.1.9). This proposal would require mailers to co-sack those packages. If this proposal is adopted, any Standard Mail mailing job that contains packages of Presorted rate flats and packages of automation rate flats must be co-sacked using M910.3.0.
These proposed changes apply to regular and nonprofit Standard Mail flats.
Currently, Bound Printed Matter Carrier Route flats are sorted to two required sack levels and one optional sort level (required carrier route, optional 5-digit scheme carrier routes, and required 5-digit carrier routes under M723.2.3). This proposal would make the optional 5-digit scheme carrier routes sort level (using labeling list L001) a required level. If this proposal is adopted, all Bound Printed Matter Carrier Route flats would be required to be sorted to all three sack levels.
Currently, mailers have the option to use the L001 scheme sort for Bound Printed Matter packages of carrier route and 5-digit flats on pallets (M045.3.3). This proposal would make the two optional sort levels (5-digit scheme carrier routes and 5-digit scheme using labeling list L001) required sort levels. If this proposal is adopted, all packages of Bound Printed Matter carrier route rate flats on pallets would be required to be sorted to 5-digit scheme carrier routes pallets, and all 5-digit packages would be required to be sorted to 5-digit scheme pallets as the first sort level.
PAVE-certified software is not required to sort Standard Mail and Bound Printed Matter flats using labeling list L001. For mailings that are co-trayed or co-sacked under M910, documentation produced by PAVE-certified software or standardized documentation under P012 must be submitted with each mailing job. Use of PAVE-certified software is required for the advanced “merging” preparation options in M920, M930, and M940, which include the L001 scheme sort.
The proposed implementation date for these changes is September 1, 2001. This date allows presort software vendors time to update and distribute software to their customers, and also includes time for installation and testing of the software. Commenters are welcome to comment on the proposed implementation date, and should include specific reasons why this date is or is not feasible.
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites comments on the following proposed revisions to the Domestic Mail Manual, incorporated by reference in the Code of Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR Part 111.
Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.
1. The authority citation for 39 CFR Part 111 continues to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 414, 3001-3011, 3201-3219, 3403-3406, 3621, 3626, 5001.
2. Revise the following sections of the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) as set forth below:
For the purposes of preparing mail:
j. A 5-digit/scheme carrier routes sort for carrier route rate Periodicals flats and irregular parcels, Enhanced Carrier Route rate Standard Mail flats, and Carrier Route Bound Printed Matter
k. A 5-digit/scheme sort for Periodicals flats and irregular parcels, Standard Mail flats, and Bound Printed Matter flats prepared as packages on pallets yields 5-digit scheme pallets containing automation rate and Presorted rate 5-digit packages for those 5-digit ZIP Codes listed in L001 and yields 5-digit pallets containing automation rate and Presorted rate 5-digit packages for other areas (automation rate packages are not applicable to Bound Printed Matter). The 5-digit ZIP Codes in each scheme are treated as a single presort destination subject to a single minimum pallet volume, with no further separation by 5-digit ZIP Code required. Pallets prepared for a 5-digit scheme destination that contain 5-digit packages for only one of the schemed 5-digit areas are still considered 5-digit scheme sorted and are labeled accordingly. The 5-digit/scheme sort is required for flat-size and irregular parcel-size Periodicals, for Standard Mail flats, and for Bound Printed Matter flats. The 5-digit/scheme sort may not be used for other mail prepared on pallets, except for 5-digit packages of Standard Mail irregular parcels that are part of a mailing job that is prepared in part as palletized flats at automation rates. Preparation of 5-digit scheme pallets must be done for all 5-digit scheme destinations.
These standards apply to:
a. Periodicals, Standard Mail, and Package Services (except for Parcel Post mailed at BMC Presort, OBMC Presort, DSCF, and DDU rates). A pallet must be prepared to a required sortation level when there are 500 pounds of Periodicals, Standard Mail, or Package Services mail in packages or sacks, or 500 pounds of parcels, or six layers of Periodicals or Standard Mail letter trays. For packages of Periodicals flats and irregular parcels and packages of Standard Mail flats on pallets that are prepared under the standards for package reallocation to protect the SCF pallet (M045.4.0), not all mail for a 5-digit scheme carrier routes, 5-digit scheme, 5-digit carrier routes, or 5-digit pallet or for a merged 5-digit scheme, merged 5-digit, or 3-digit pallet is required to be on that corresponding pallet level. For packages of Standard Mail flats on pallets prepared under the standards for package reallocation to protect the BMC pallet (M045.5.0), not all mail for a required ASF pallet is required to be on an ASF pallet. Mixed ADC or mixed BMC pallets of sacks, trays, or machinable parcels, as appropriate, must be labeled to the BMC or ADC (as appropriate) serving the post office where mailings are entered into the mailstream. The processing and distribution manager of that facility may issue a written authorization to the mailer to label mixed BMC or mixed ADC pallets to the post office or processing and distribution center serving the post office where mailings are entered. These pallets contain all mail remaining after required and optional pallets are prepared to finer sortation levels under M045, as appropriate.
These standards apply to mail on pallets:
g. For nonletter-size Periodicals, Standard Mail flats, and Bound Printed Matter flats, packages of carrier route rate mail must be prepared on separate 5-digit pallets from automation and Presorted rate mail. Exception: For Periodicals and Standard Mail, under the standards in M920, M930, and M940, carrier route rate, automation rate, and Presorted rate packages can be combined onto the same merged 5-digit scheme pallet and merged 5-digit pallet for applicable 5-digit ZIP Codes.
Mailers must prepare pallets in the sequence listed below, except that mailings of sacks on pallets, trays on pallets, and irregular parcels must be prepared beginning with 3.2c (because L001 scheme sort is not permitted). Pallets must be labeled according to the Line 1 and Line 2 information listed below and under M031. At the mailer's option, Standard Mail flats prepared as packages on pallets may be palletized in accordance with the advanced presort options in M920, M930, or M940.
a. 5-Digit Scheme Carrier Routes. Required for packages of flats on pallets. Not permitted for sacks or trays on pallets, or for irregular parcels on pallets except under M011. May contain only carrier route rate packages for the same 5-digit scheme under L001. Scheme sort must be done for all 5-digit scheme destinations. For all 5-digit destinations that are not part of a scheme, prepare 5-digit carrier routes pallets under 3.2c.
(1) Line 1: use L001, Column B.
(2) Line 2: “STD FLTS'; followed by “CARRIER ROUTES” or “CR-RTS'; followed by “SCHEME” or “SCH.”
b. 5-Digit Scheme. Required for packages of flats on pallets. Not permitted for sacks or trays on pallets, or for irregular parcels on pallets except under M011. May contain only automation rate and/or Presorted rate packages for the same 5-digit scheme under L001. Scheme sort must be done for all 5-digit scheme destinations. For all 5-digit destinations that are not part of a scheme, prepare 5-digit pallets under 3.2d.
(1) Line 1: use L001, Column B.
(2) Line 2: “STD FLTS 5D'; followed by “BARCODED” or “BC” if the pallet contains automation rate mail; followed by “NONBARCODED” or “NBC” if the pallet contains Presorted rate mail; followed by “SCHEME” or “SCH.”
c. 5-Digit Carrier Routes. Required for sacks and packages; optional for trays. May contain only carrier route rate mail for the same 5-digit ZIP Code.
(1) Line 1: use city, state abbreviation, and 5-digit ZIP Code destination (see M031 for military mail).
(2) Line 2: “STD FLTS” or “STD IRREG” or, for trays on pallets only, “STD LTRS” as applicable; followed by “CARRIER ROUTES” or “CR-RTS.”
d. 5-Digit. Required for sacks and packages; optional for trays. May contain only automation rate and/or Presorted rate mail for the same 5-digit ZIP Code.
(1) Line 1: use city, state abbreviation, and 5-digit ZIP Code destination (see M031 for military mail).
(2) Line 2: “STD FLTS 5D” or “STD IRREG 5D” or, for trays on pallets only, “STD LTRS 5D” as applicable; followed by “BARCODED” or “BC” if the pallet contains automation rate mail; followed by “NONBARCODED” or “NBC” if the pallet contains Presorted rate mail.
Mailers must prepare pallets in the sequence listed below, except that mailings of sacks on pallets must be prepared beginning with 3.3c (because L001 scheme sort is not permitted). Pallets must be labeled according to the Line 1 and Line 2 information listed below and under M031.
a. 5-Digit Scheme Carrier Routes. Required for packages of flats on pallets. Not permitted for sacks on pallets. May contain only Carrier Route rate packages for the same 5-digit scheme under L001. Scheme sort must be done for all 5-digit scheme destinations. For all 5-digit destinations that are not part of a scheme, prepare 5-digit carrier routes pallets under 3.3c.
(1) Line 1: use L001, Column B.
(2) Line 2: “PSVC FLTS,” followed by “CARRIER ROUTES” or “CR-RTS” and “SCHEME” or “SCH.”
b. 5-Digit Scheme. Required for packages of flats on pallets. Not permitted for sacks on pallets. May contain only Presorted rate packages for the same 5-digit scheme under L001. Scheme sort must be done for all 5-digit scheme destinations. For all 5-digit destinations that are not part of a scheme, prepare 5-digit pallets under 3.3d.
(1) Line 1: use L001, Column B.
(2) Line 2: “PSVC FLTS 5D” followed by “SCHEME” or “SCH.”
c. 5-Digit Carrier Routes. Required for sacks and packages. May contain only Carrier Route rate mail for the same 5-digit ZIP Code.
(1) Line 1: use city, state abbreviation, and 5-digit ZIP Code destination (see M031 for military mail).
(2) Line 2: “PSVC FLTS” followed by “CARRIER ROUTES” or “CR-RTS.”
d. 5-Digit. Required for sacks and packages. May contain only Presorted rate mail for the same 5-digit ZIP Code.
(1) Line 1: use city, state abbreviation, and 5-digit ZIP Code destination (see M031 for military mail).
(2) Line 2: “PSVC FLTS 5D.”
Package reallocation to protect the SCF pallet is an optional preparation method (if performed, package reallocation must be done for the complete mailing job); only PAVE-certified presort software may be used to create pallets under the standards in 4.2 through 4.4. The software will determine if mail for an SCF service area would fall beyond the SCF level if all merged 5-digit scheme, 5-digit scheme carrier routes, 5-digit scheme, merged 5-digit, 5-digit carrier routes, 5-digit, or 3-digit pallets are prepared. Reallocation is performed only when there is mail for the SCF service area that would fall beyond the SCF pallet level (e.g., to an ADC or BMC pallet). The amount of mail required to bring the mail that would fall beyond the SCF level back to an SCF-level pallet level is the minimum volume that will be reallocated, where possible.
Except for automation rate mailings prepared under the tray-based preparation option in M820.3.0, if a single mailing job contains an automation rate mailing and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be presorted under the co-traying standards in M910.
In addition to the preparation standards in 2.0 through 5.0, the following basic standards must be met for all Presorted rate mailings:
f. Subject to 1.4, letter-size piece must be prepared in trays and, unless palletized, flat-size pieces must be prepared in sacks.
The following standards apply:
a. If the mailing job contains a carrier route mailing, an automation rate mailing, and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be prepared under one of the following options: 1) the carrier route mailing must be prepared under E630 and M620 and the automation rate and Presorted rate mailings must be prepared under M910; or 2) all three mailings in the mailing job must be prepared under M920.
b. If the mailing job contains an automation rate mailing and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be prepared under the co-sacking standards in M910.
c. If the mailing job contains a carrier route mailing and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be separately sacked under M610 and M620 or prepared using the merged sacking option under M920.
d. If the mailing job contains a carrier route mailing and an automation rate mailing, then it must be separately sacked under M620 and M820 or prepared using the merged sacking option under M920.
Under the optional preparation method in M920, 5-digit packages of Presorted flats must be co-sacked with packages of carrier route flats prepared under M620 and with 5-digit packages of automation flats prepared under M820 in merged 5-digit scheme sacks and merged 5-digit sacks. Under the optional preparation methods in M920, M930, or M940, 5-digit packages of Presorted flats must be copalletized with packages of carrier route rate flats prepared under M620 and with 5-digit packages of automation rate flats prepared under M820 on merged 5-digit scheme pallets and merged 5-digit pallets. See 1.2a for information on when preparation under M920 may be required.
Under the optional preparation method in M920, packages of carrier route rate flats must be co-sacked with 5-digit packages of Presorted rate flats prepared under M610 and with 5-digit packages of automation rate flats prepared under M820 in merged 5-digit scheme sacks and merged 5-digit sacks. Under the optional preparation methods in M920, M930, or M940, packages of carrier route rate flats must be copalletized with 5-digit packages of Presorted flats prepared under M610 and with 5-digit packages of automation rate flats prepared under M820 on merged 5-digit scheme pallets and merged 5-digit pallets.
A sack must be prepared when the quantity of mail for a required presort destination reaches either 125 pieces or 15 pounds of pieces, whichever occurs first, subject to these conditions:
a. For identical-weight pieces, a single-piece weight of 1.92 ounces (0.12 pound) results in 125 pieces weighing 15 pounds. Identical-weight pieces weighing 1.92 ounces (0.12 pound) or less must be prepared using the 125-piece minimum; those that weigh more must be prepared using the 15-pound minimum.
b. For nonidentical-weight pieces, mailers must either use the minimum that applies to the average piece weight for the entire mailing (divide the net weight of the mailing by the number of pieces; the resulting average single-piece weight determines whether the 125-piece or 15-pound minimum applies) or sack by the actual piece count or mail weight for each sack, if documentation can be provided with the mailing that shows (specifically for each sack) the number of pieces and their total weight.
c. Mailers must note on the accompanying postage statement whether they applied the 125-piece (“PCS”) or 15-pound (“WT”) threshold or the method in 4.1b (“BOTH”).
Sack size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
a. Carrier route: required (minimum of 125 pieces/15 pounds, smaller volume not permitted).
(1) Line 1: use 5-digit ZIP Code destination of packages, preceded for military mail by the prefixes under M031.
(2) Line 2: “STD FLTS ECRWSS” or “STD FLTS ECRWSH” or “STD FLTS ECRLOT” as applicable, followed by the route type and number.
b. 5-digit scheme carrier routes: required (no minimum).
(1) Line 1: use L001, column B.
(2) Line 2: “STD FLTS CR-RTS SCH.”
c. 5-digit carrier routes: required (no minimum).
(1) Line 1: use 5-digit ZIP Code destination of packages, preceded for military mail by the prefixes under M031.
(2) Line 2: “STD FLTS CR-RTS.”
A sack must be prepared when the quantity of mail for a required presort destination reaches either 125 pieces or 15 pounds of pieces, whichever occurs first, subject to these conditions:
a. For identical-weight pieces, a single-piece weight of 1.92 ounces (0.12 pound) results in 125 pieces weighing 15 pounds. Identical-weight pieces weighing 1.92 ounces (0.12 pound) or less must be prepared using the 125-piece minimum, those that weigh more must be prepared using the 15-pound minimum.
b. For nonidentical-weight pieces, mailers must either use the minimum that applies to the average piece weight for the entire mailing (divide the net weight of the mailing by the number of pieces; the resulting average single-piece weight determines whether the 125-piece or 15-pound minimum applies) or sack by the actual piece count or mail weight for each sack, if documentation can be provided with the mailing that shows (specifically for each sack) the number of pieces and their total weight.
c. Mailers must note on the accompanying postage statement whether they applied the 125-piece (“PCS”) or 15-pound (“WT”) threshold or the method in 4.1b (“BOTH”).
Sack size, preparation sequence, and labeling:
a. Carrier route: required (minimum of 125 pieces/15 pounds, smaller volume not permitted).
(1) Line 1: use 5-digit ZIP Code destination of packages, preceded for military mail by the prefixes under M031.
(2) Line 2: “STD IRREG WSS” or “STD IRREG WSH” or “STD IRREG LOT” as applicable, followed by the route type and number.
b. 5-digit carrier routes: required (no minimum).
(1) Line 1: use 5-digit ZIP Code destination of packages, preceded for military mail by the prefixes under M031.
(2) Line 2: “STD IRREG CR-RTS.”
b. 5-digit scheme carrier routes: required (no minimum); for Line 1, use L001, Column B.
The following standards apply:
a. First-Class Mail: Except for mailings prepared under the tray-based preparation option in 3.0, if the mailing job contains an automation rate mailing and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be prepared under the co-traying standards in M910.
b. Periodicals:
(1) If the mailing job contains a carrier route mailing, an automation rate mailing, and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be prepared under one of the following options: (1) the carrier route mailing must be prepared under E230 and M220 and the automation rate and Presorted rate mailings must be prepared under M910; or (2) all three mailings in the mailing job must be prepared under M920.
(2) If the mailing job contains an automation rate mailing and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be prepared under the co-sacking standards in M910.
(3) If the mailing job contains a carrier route mailing and an automation rate mailing, then it must be separately sacked under M220 and M820 or prepared using the merged sack option under M920.
c. Standard Mail:
(1) If the mailing job contains a carrier route mailing, an automation rate mailing, and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be prepared under one of the following options: (1) the carrier route mailing must be prepared under E630 and M620 and the automation rate and Presorted rate mailings must be prepared under M910; or (2) all three mailings in the mailing job must be prepared under M920.
(2) If the mailing job contains only an automation rate mailing and a Presorted rate mailing, then it must be prepared under the co-sacking standards in M910.
(3) If the mailing job contains only a carrier route mailing and an automation rate mailing, then it must be separately sacked under M620 and M820 or prepared using the merged sack option under M920.
When the conditions and preparation standards in M920, M930, or M940 are met, 5-digit packages of Presorted, automation, and carrier route rate mail that are part of the same mailing job may be combined on merged 5-digit scheme sacks or pallets and merged 5-digit sacks or pallets. Packages co-sacked or copalletized must be part of the same mailing job and mail class.
Packages of flat-size pieces in an automation rate mailing prepared under M820.2.0 must be co-trayed with packages of flat-size pieces in a Presorted rate mailing under the following conditions:
Packages of flats in an automation rate mailing must be co-sacked with packages of flats in a Presorted rate mailing under the following conditions:
Carrier route packages of flats in a carrier route rate mailing may be placed in the same sack or on the same pallet as 5-digit packages of flats from an automation rate mailing and 5-digit packages of flats from a Presorted rate mailing under the following conditions:
f. If sortation under this section is performed, merged 5-digit sacks or pallets must be prepared for all 5-digit ZIP Codes with an “A” or “C” indicator in the City State Product that permits such preparation when there is enough volume for the 5-digit ZIP Code to prepare that sack or pallet.
k. The packages from each separate mailing must be sorted together into sacks (co-sacked) under 2.3 and 2.4 or on pallets (copalletized) under 2.5 using presort software that is PAVE-certified.
Mailers must prepare sacks in the following manner and sequence. All carrier route packages must be placed in sacks under 2.4a through 2.4e as described below. Mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme sacks, 5-digit scheme carrier routes sacks, and merged 5-digit sacks that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001 and the Carrier Route Indicators field in the City State Product. Mailers must label sacks according to the Line 1 and Line 2 information listed below and under M032.
Mailers must prepare pallets in the manner and sequence listed below and under M041. Mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme, 5-digit scheme carrier routes, 5-digit scheme, and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001 and/or the City State Product. Mailers must label pallets according to the Line 1 and Line 2 information listed below and under M031.
Carrier route packages of flats in a carrier route rate mailing may be placed on the same pallet as 5-digit packages of flats from an automation rate mailing and 5-digit packages of flats from a Presorted rate mailing under the following conditions:
d. Automation rate 5-digit packages and Presorted rate 5-digit packages may be copalletized with carrier route packages only when the pieces in the 5-digit packages do not exceed the 5% threshold described in 2.3. Pallets of mail sorted in this manner are called “merged 5-digit scheme” pallets.
e. If sortation under this section is performed, merged 5-digit scheme pallets must be prepared whenever there is enough volume of carrier route and 5-digit packages under M041 and 2.3 to prepare such pallets.
h. The packages from each separate mailing must be sorted together on pallets (copalletized) using presort software that is PAVE-certified.
Mailers may place 5-digit packages with carrier route packages on the same merged 5-digit scheme and merged 5-digit pallet if all of the following conditions are met:
Mailers must prepare pallets of packages in the manner and sequence listed below and under M041. Mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme, 5-digit scheme carrier routes, 5-digit scheme, and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001 and the 5% threshold. Mailers must label pallets according to the Line 1 and Line 2 information listed below and under M031.
Carrier route packages of flats in a carrier route rate mailing may be placed on the same pallet as 5-digit packages of flats from an automation rate mailing and 5-digit packages of flats from a Presorted rate mailing under the following conditions:
f. If sortation under this section is performed, then merged 5-digit scheme pallets must be prepared whenever there is enough volume of carrier route and 5-digit packages under M041 to prepare such pallets using the criteria in 2.1e and the sortation criteria in 2.4.
j. The packages from each separate mailing must be sorted together on pallets (copalletized) using presort software that is PAVE-certified.
For 5-digit ZIP Codes with a “B” or “D” indicator in the City State Product, mailers may place 5-digit packages with carrier route packages on the same merged 5-digit scheme and merged 5-digit pallet if all of the following conditions are met:
Mailers must prepare pallets of packages in the manner and sequence listed below and under M041. Mailers must prepare all merged 5-digit scheme, 5-digit scheme carrier routes, 5-digit scheme, and merged 5-digit pallets that are possible in the mailing based on the volume of mail to the destination using L001, the City State Product, and the 5% threshold. Mailers must label pallets according to the Line 1 and Line 2 information listed below and under M031.
An appropriate amendment to 39 CFR Part 111 to reflect these changes will be published if the proposal is adopted.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period.
EPA is reopening the comment period for action proposed on December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79037) regarding revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Any comments on this proposal must arrive by April 16, 2001.
Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1135.
On December 18, 2000, EPA proposed the following revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. In response to a request from Gallagher & Kennedy, PA, submitted by letter on January 16, 2001, EPA is reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Santa Fe National Forest will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to harvest trees killed by the Viveash Fire. The Viveash Fire burned approximately 29,000 acres on the Pecos Ranger District in late May through early June of 2000. The purpose of the proposal is to harvest some of the fire killed timber and provide a variety of wood products through both commercial timber sales and non-commercial personal use permits. The EIS will be designed to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370a, and the National Forest Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614, and their respective implementing regulations.
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received on or before April 14, 2001. The draft EIS is expected to be available for public review in June 2001. The final EIS is expected to be published in September 2001.
Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposal, or requests to be placed on the project mailing list, to Daniel A. Crittenden, District Ranger, Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger District, Santa Fe National Forest, P.O. Drawer 429, Pecos, NM, 87552.
Chris Napp, Viveash Project Coordinator (505) 757-6121; or
The proposed action is to recover forest products—sawtimber, firewood, specialty products (vigas and latillas)—from trees killed by the Viveash Fire. Specifically this includes removing up to 25 million board feet over 5,000 acres of the 29,000 acre fire, concentrating in areas with high volume per acre; removing trees in areas with high and moderate intensity burns only (trees 100% scorched or totally devoid of any green needles) except incidental removal of green trees where necessary; no new road construction (specified or temporary); concentrating harvest from areas with low susceptibility to soil erosion, compaction and water runoff. Resource protection measures will be included to protect resources such as snags, soils, heritage resources, water quality and wildlife.
Public scoping packages are expected to be sent out to those on the Viveash project mailing list in February or early March, 2001. A public scoping meeting will be held in the town of Pecos soon thereafter. A second public meeting in Pecos is planned shortly after issuance of the draft EIS.
The Forest Service will prepare an EIS. The District Ranger of the Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District, Santa Fe National Forest will decide whether or not to implement this project, and if so, in what manner.
Daniel A. Crittenden, District Ranger Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District, Santa Fe National Forest, P.O. Drawer 429, Pecos, New Mexico 87552, is the Responsible Official for this decision. He will document his decision in a Record of Decision.
The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available for public review by July 15, 2001. At that time, EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the draft EIS in the
The final EIS is scheduled to be completed by October 2001. In the final EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and responses received during the comment period that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable laws, regulations and policies considered in making a decision regarding the proposal.
The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Rural Housing Service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of fund availability for the Rural Housing Demonstration Program.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS) announces the availability of housing funds for fiscal year (FY) 2001 for the Rural Housing Demonstration Program. For FY 2001, RHS has set aside $3 million for the Innovative Demonstration Initiatives and is soliciting proposals for a Housing Demonstration program under section 506(b) of title V of the Housing Act of 1949. Under section 506(b), RHS may provide loans for innovative housing units and systems which do not meet existing published standards, rules, regulations, or policies. The intended effect is to increase the availability of affordable Rural Housing (RH) for low-income families through innovative designs and systems.
March 16, 2001.
Gloria L. Denson, Senior Loan Specialist, Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division, RHS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0783, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0783, Telephone (202) 720-1474. (This is not a toll free number.)
Under current standards, regulations, and policies, some low-income rural families lack sufficient income to qualify for loans to obtain adequate housing. Section 506(b) of title V of the Housing Act of 1949, authorizes a housing demonstration program that could result in housing that these families can afford. The Congress of the United States made two conditions: (1) That the health and safety of the population of the areas in which the demonstrations are carried out will not be adversely affected, and (2) that the aggregate expenditures for the demonstration may not exceed $10 million in any fiscal year.
Rural Development State Directors are authorized in FY 2001 to accept demonstration concept proposals from nonprofit and for profit organizations.
The objective of the demonstration programs is to test new approaches to offering housing under the statutory authority granted to the Secretary of Agriculture. Rural Development will be required to review each application for completeness and accuracy; however, some demonstration programs may or may not be consistent with some of the provisions of our 7 CFR part 3550-Direct Single Family Housing Loans and Grants regulation. Under section 506(b) of the Housing Act of 1949, the Agency may provide loans for innovative housing design units and systems which do not meet existing published standards, rules, regulations, or policies.
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act and Title VIII provides that a program such as this be administered affirmatively so that individuals of similar low-income levels in the housing market area have housing choices available to them regardless of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status and handicap. Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 we must make reasonable accommodations to permit a person with disabilities to apply for the benefit from agency programs. Executive Order 12898 requires our Agency to conduct a Civil Rights Impact Analysis on each project prior to eligibility/loan approval. Also, the requirements of Executive Order 11246 are applicable regarding equal employment opportunity when the proposed contract exceeds $10,000.
A completed application which has been determined to carry out the objectives of the program will be considered on a first come, first served basis based on the date a completed application is submitted. An application is considered complete only if the “Application for Approval of Housing Innovation” is complete in content, contains information related to the criteria and all applicable additional information required by the application form has been provided. All application packages must be in accordance with the technical management requirements and address the criteria in the Proposal Content. The application, Proposal Content and Criteria, and further information may be obtained from the Rural Development State office in your area. (See the State Office address list at the end of this notice or access the website at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/recd_map.html. Organizations that submit incomplete applications will be advised in writing of additional information needed for continued processing.
The following evaluation factors will not be weighted and are non-competitive. RHS, in its analysis of the proposals received, will consider whether the proposals will carry out the objectives of this demonstration effort in accordance with the following criteria:
1. A proposal must be well beyond the “idea” state. Sufficient testing must have been completed to demonstrate its feasibility. The proposal must be judged ready for full scale field testing in a rural setting.
2. Ability of the housing unit to provide for the protection of life, property, and for the safety and welfare of the consumer, general public and occupants through the design, construction, quality of materials, use, and maintenance of the housing unit.
3. Flexibility of the housing units in relation to varying types of housing and varying site considerations.
4. Flexibility of the housing unit concept, insofar as it provides the ability to adjust or modify unit size and arrangements, either during design or after construction.
5. Efficiency in the use of materials and labor, with respect to cost in place, the conservation of materials, and the effective use of labor skills. Potential for Self-Help Technical Assistance Grant applications.
6. Selection of materials for durability and ease of maintenance.
7. Concepts for the effective use of land and development.
1. The experience and “know-how” of the proposed organization or individual to implement construction of the housing unit concept in relation to the requirements of RHS's housing programs.
2. The management structure and organization of the proposer.
3. The quality and diversity of management and professional talent proposed as “key individuals.”
4. The management plan of how this effort will be conducted.
1. The level of costs which are proposed, as they may compare with other proposals and be considered realistic for the efforts planned. Also, the quantity and level of detail in the information supplied.
2. Projected cost of “housing in place,” with particular reference to housing for very low and low-income families.
An acceptable proposal will be sent by the State Director to the National office for concurrence by the RHS Administrator before the State Director may approve it. If the proposal is not selected, the State Director will so notify the applicant in writing, giving specific reasons why the proposal was not selected. The funds for the RH
This program or activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.410. For the reasons contained in 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V and RD Instruction 1940-J, “Intergovernmental Review of Rural Development Programs and Activities,” this program or activity is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
All interested parties must make a written request for a proposal package. The request must be made to the State Director in the State in which the proposal will be submitted; RHS will not be liable for any expenses incurred by respondents in the development and submission of applications.
The reporting requirements contained in this notice have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Control Number 0575-0114.
The following is an address list of Rural Development State Offices across the nation:
Proposed Collection; comment request.
The Department of Commerce, 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 Papework Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2001.
Direct all written comments to Madeleine Clayton, Department Forms Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at mclayton@doc.gov).
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Theresa J. DeMaio, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 3127, FOB 4, Washington, DC 20233-9150, (301) 457-4894.
The Census Bureau plans to request an extension of the current OMB approval to conduct a variety of small-scale questionnaire pretesting activities under this generic clearance. A block of hours will be dedicated to these activities for each of the next three years. OMB will be informed in writing of the purpose and scope of each of these activities, as well as the time frame and the number of burden hours used. The number of hours used will not exceed the number set aside for this purpose.
This research program will be used by the Census Bureau and survey sponsors to improve questionnaires and procedures, reduce respondent burden, and ultimately increase the quality of data collected in the Census Bureau censuses and surveys. The clearance will be used to conduct pretesting of decennial, demographic, and economic census and survey questionnaires prior to fielding them. Pretesting activities will involve one of the following methods for identifying measurement problems with the questionnaire or survey procedure: cognitive interviews, focus groups, respondent debriefing, behavior coding of respondent/interviewer interaction, split panel tests.
Mail, telephone, face-to-face; paper-and-pencil, CATI, CAPI, Internet
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.
Notice and Request for Comments.
The Department of Commerce, 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)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2001.
Direct all written comments to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Ms. Dawnielle Battle, BXA ICB Liaison, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Management, Department of Commerce, Room 6883, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
This information is collected in order to respond to requests by Congress and industry to make foreign availability determinations. Exporters are urged to submit data regarding the foreign product's technical characteristics and the availability of these products in foreign markets to determine if similar U.S. products should be decontrolled.
Written submission.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Written Assurances for Exports of Technical Data Under License Exception TSR.
Notice and Request for Comments.
The Department of Commerce, 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)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2001.
Direct all written comments to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Dawnielle Battle, BXA ICB Liaison, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Management, Department of Commerce, Room 6883, 14th & Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230.
U.S. exporters are required to receive letters of assurance from their foreign importers stating that they will not export or reexport technical data to destinations outlined in the E.A.R. unless they have received prior authorization from BXA.
Submitted in written form.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Commerce, 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)).
Written comments must be submitted on or before May 15, 2001.
Direct all written comments to Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Clearance Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Requests for additional information or
The information is needed to detect violations of the Export Administration Act and Regulations to determine if an investigation or prosecution is necessary and to reach settlement with violators. The respondents are likely to be export-related businesses.
Written submission.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce
March 16, 2001.
Abdelali Elouaradia, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1374.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) are to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).
On September 29, 2000, and in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department received timely requests from China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd., Shouzhou Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd., Coastal (Jiang Su) Foods Co., Ltd, and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. for the initiation of new shipper reviews of this antidumping duty order which has a September anniversary month and a March semiannual anniversary month. On November 6, 2000, the Department published its initiation of these new shipper reviews for the period September 1, 1999 through August 31, 2000 (65 FR 66525).
Due to the complexities enumerated in the memorandum from Barbara E. Tillman to Joseph A. Spetrini, dated March 9, 2001, we find that this case is extraordinarily complicated and thus are unable to make a preliminary determination by the current deadline of April 29, 2001. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and section 351.214(i)(2) of the Department's regulations, the Department is extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results of these new shipper reviews by 120 days, until no later than August 27, 2001.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice of availability of funds.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology invites proposals from qualified organizations for funding projects which provide manufacturing extension services to small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the United States. These projects correspond to the Manufacturing Technology Centers component of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). Proposals are invited for the expansion of manufacturing extension service capacity within 5 discrete geographic areas in the United States. The first area encompasses the entirety of the state of Alaska. The second area encompasses the entirety of the state of Hawaii. The third area encompasses the entirety of the state of Arizona. The fourth area encompasses the entirety of the state of New Mexico. The fifth area encompasses the entirety of the state of Nevada. All organizations meeting the eligibility requirements provided herein are invited to submit proposals. This includes existing MEP manufacturing extension centers.
Manufacturing extension centers must be affiliated with a U.S.-based not-for-profit institution or organization. MEP interprets not-for-profit organizations to include universities and state and local governments. As these states had previous MEP centers, applicants are required to provide 66
Proposals from qualified applicants must be received at the address below by no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time May 15, 2001. Selection of awards will be made in June 2001.
Applicants must submit one signed original and three (3) copies of their proposal along with a Standard Form 424, 424-A, and 424-B (Rev 7/97), Form CD-511 (Rev 7/91), and Form CD-346 to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4800, Building 301, Room C100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Plainly mark on the outside of the package that it contains a manufacturing extension center proposal.
For information regarding this announcement, contact Margaret Phillips of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership by calling (301) 975-5020; or by mailing information requests to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4800, Building 301, Room C100, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Information packets, which include background materials on MEP, existing centers and the necessary application forms, should be requested via a one page fax sent to (301) 963-6556. Please include name, organization, mailing address, telephone number, and fax number on this request. Information is also available on-line at www.mep.nist.gov.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 5121 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-418), codified in 15 U.S.C. § 278k, and final rule, 15 CFR 290, published September 17, 1990, and the amendment published May 2, 1994, NIST will provide assistance for the creation and support of manufacturing extension centers. The objective of these centers is to enhance productivity, technological performance, and strengthen the global competitiveness of small- and medium-sized U.S.-based manufacturing firms.
These manufacturing extension centers will become part of the MEP national system of extension service providers. Currently, the MEP national system consists of over 400 centers and field offices located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. Information regarding MEP and these centers is provided in the information packet that can be obtained as explained above or on-line at
It is anticipated that approximately $4.3 million will be available to support manufacturing extension centers under this program. The funding level for individual awards is not prescribed. The funding requested by the applicant should be directly related to the level of activity of the center, which is function of the number of manufacturers in the designated service region, and to the availability of applicant-provided cash and in-kind contributions to be used as cost share.
Proposals must be received at the address listed above by May 15, 2001.
The projects awarded under this program will have a budget and performance period of one year. These projects may be renewable on an annual basis subject to the review requirements described in 15 CFR 290.8. Renewal of these projects shall be at the sole discretion of NIST and shall be based upon satisfactory performance, priority of the need for the service, existing legislative authority, and availability of funds. Although the MEP regulation (15 CFR part 290) indicates that Centers are not eligible for MEP funding after six years, this requirement is no longer in effect. Public Law 105-239 amended the MEP's organic legislation to authorize MEP to fund Centers for more than six years under specified circumstances.
A cost sharing contribution from the applicant is required. The applicant must provide 66
In all cases, a contribution will only be treated as cash cost share if the center director has suitable authority and discretion to control its expenditure. Acceptable cash cost share, which must come from non-federal sources, includes:
To qualify as in-kind cost share, the claimed items must be directly related to the tasks to be accomplished and must be utilized solely for the center activities, or the cost share must be prorated based upon the percentage of time they are used for these activities. Acceptable in-kind cost share includes:
In addition, recipients are required to comply with the regulations found at 15 CFR 14.23.
The proposal must, at a minimum, include the following:
A. An executive summary of the proposed project, consistent with the Evaluation Criteria stated in this notice.
B. A description of the proposed project, sufficient to permit evaluation of the proposal, in accordance with the proposal Evaluation Criteria stated in this notice.
C. A detailed budget for the proposed project which breaks out all expenses for year 1 of operation and identifies all sources of funds to pay these expenses.
D. A budget outline for annual costs and sources of funds for potential years 2 through 5 and beyond. It is expected, especially for newly created centers, that year one costs are lower because of a ramp-up of operations from start-up to the point where the center is fully operational and services are being provided. If such a ramp-up of operations is to occur, this should be reflected in the budget outline for years 2 through 5 and beyond. A detailed budget and budget narrative will be required prior to each of years 2 through 5.
E. A description of the qualifications of key personnel who will be assigned to work on the proposed project.
F. A statement of work that discusses the specific tasks to be carried out, including a schedule of measurabale events and milestones.
G. A Standard Form 424, 424-A, and 424-B (Rev 7/97) prescribed by 15 CFR Part 14 (OMB Circular A-110), Form CD-511, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying, and Form CD-346, Applicant For Funding Assistance/Name Check. The SF 424 and CD series of forms will not be considered part of the page count of the proposal.
In addition, the proposal must contain the requirements identified in 15 CFR 290.5(a)(3), which are:
A. A plan for the allocation of intellectual property rights associated with any invention or copyright which may result from the involvement in the Center's technology transfer or research activities consistent with the conditions of 15 CFR 290.9.
B. A statement which provides adequate assurances that the host organization will contribute the required cost share. (Although the MEP regulation, 15 CFR 290.5(a)(3)(ii), states that applicants should provide evidence that the proposed Center will be self-supporting after six years, this requirement is no longer in effect, as indicated above.)
C. A statement describing linkages to industry, government, and educational organizations within its service region.
D. A statement defining the initial service region including a statement of the constituency to be served and the level of service to be provided, as well as outyear plans.
E. A statement agreeing to focus the mission of the Center on technology transfer activities and not to exclude companies based on state boundaries.
F. A proposed plan for the annual evaluation of the success of the Center by the Program, including appropriate criteria for consideration, and weighting of those criteria.
G. A plan to focus the Center's technology emphasis on areas consistent with NIST technology research programs and organizational expertise.
H. A description of the planned Center sufficient to permit NIST to evaluate the proposal in accordance with section 290.6 of the MEP regulations.
The proposal must not exceed 25 typewritten pages in length. The proposal must contain both technical and cost information. The proposal page count shall include every page, including pages that contain words, table of contents, executive summary, management information and qualifications, resumes, figures, tables, and pictures. All proposals shall be printed such that pages are single-sided, with no more than fifty-five (55) lines per page. Use 21.6 x 27.9 cm (8
The objective of the projects funded under this program is to provide manufacturing extension services to small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the United States. These services are provided through the coordinated efforts of a regionally-based manufacturing extension center and local technology resources. The management and operational structure of the manufacturing extension center is not prescribed, but should be based upon the characteristics of the manufacturers in the region and locally available resources. The center should include plans for integration into the MEP national system and linkages to appropriate national resources.
The focus of the center is to provide those manufacturing extension services required by the small- and medium-sized manufacturers in their service using the most cost effective sources for those services. It is not the intent of this program that centers perform research and development.
All required proposal will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the following criteria by an impartial review panel. Each proposal should address all four evaluation criteria, which are assigned equal weighting.
(1)
(i) Market Analysis. Demonstrated understanding of the service region's manufacturing base, including business size, industry types, product mix, and technology requirements.
(ii) Geographical Location. Physical size, concentration of industry, and economic significance of the service region's manufacturing base. Geographical diversity of the centers will be a factor in evaluation of proposals; a proposal for a center located near an existing center may be considered only if the proposal is unusually strong and the population of manufacturers and the technology to be addressed justify it.
(2)
(3)
(i) Linkages. Development of effective partnerships or linkages to third parties such as industry, universities, nonprofit economic organizations, and state governments who will amplify the center's technology delivery to reach a large number of clients in its service region.
(ii) Program Leverage. Provision of an effective strategy to amplify the center's technology delivery approaches to achieve the proposed objectives as described in 15 CFR 290.3(e).
(4)
(i) Organizational Structure. Completeness and appropriateness of the organizational structure, and its focus on the mission of the center. Assurance of full-time top management of the center.
(ii Program Management. Effectiveness of the planned methodology or program management.
(iii) Internal Evaluation. Effectiveness of the planned continuous internal evaluation of program activities.
(iv) Plans for Financial Matching. Demonstrated stability and duration of the applicants funding commitments as well as the percentage of operating and capital costs guaranteed by the applicant. Identification of matching fund sources and the general terms of the funding commitments.
(v) Budget. Suitability and focus of the applicant's detailed one-year budget and budget outline for years 2-5 and beyond.
• Eligible applicants for these projects must be affiliated with a non-profit institution or organization and may be consortia of non-profits institutions.
• The applicant must provide the necessary cost share as specified above.
Proposal evaluation and selection will consist of four principal phases: proposal qualification, proposal review, site visits and award determination.
All proposals will be reviewed by NIST to assure compliance with the proposal content as described in 15 CFR 290.5 and other basic provisions of this notice. Proposals that satisfy these requirements will be designated as qualified proposals. Non-qualified proposals will not be evaluated and will be returned to the applicant.
NIST will appoint an evaluation panel, consisting of one non-Federal Government employee and at least two Federal Government employees, to conduct an independent and objective review and evaluation of all qualified proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth in this notice. Based upon this review, the panel will deliberate, and each panelist will rank the proposals based on the scores in relation to the evaluation criteria, as a basis for selecting a group of finalists to be site visited.
Finalists will be notified and a day, time, and location for a site visit will be established. The panel will review finalists again on site, based on the evaluation criteria. Subsequently, the panel will deliberate again, and each panelist will rank the proposals again by assigning numeric scores based on the evaluation criteria, assessing equal weight to each of the four criteria. Based upon these rank scores, the panel will submit recommendations to the Director of NIST, or a designee, for final award recommendation to the NIST Grants Officer.
The Director of NIST, or a designee, shall make final recommendation of whether an award should be made to the proposing organization based on a review of the panel's adherence to program objectives and program procedures. The final approval of the selected applications and award of cooperative agreements will be made by the NIST Grants Officer based on compliance with program requirements and whether the recommended applicants appear competently managed, responsible, and committed to achieving project objectives. The decision of the Grants Officer is final.
The Standard Form 424 and other Standard Forms in this application kit are subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and have been approved by OMB under Control Numbers 0348-0043, 0348-0044, 0038-0040, and 0348-0046. Proposals are subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act and have been approved by OMB under Control Number 0693-0032.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Recipients and sub-recipients are subject to all Federal laws and Federal and NIST policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards, including 15 CFR part 14, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and Commercial Organizations.
Regardless of any approved indirect cost rate applicable to the award, the maximum amount of the indirect costs for which DOC will reimburse the recipient shall be the lesser of:
(1) The Federal share of the total allocable indirect costs are based on the negotiated rate with the cognizant Federal agency as established by audit or negotiation; or
(2) The line item amount for the Federal share of indirect costs dollar contained in the approved budget of the award.
Applicants (or their institutions) who incur any costs prior to an award being made do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation on the part of NIST to cover pre-award costs.
No award of Federal funds shall be made to an applicant who has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt until either:
(1) The delinquent account is paid in full;
(2) A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received; or
(3) Other arrangements satisfactory to NIST are made.
Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding.
All non-profit applicants will be subject to a name check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal if any key individuals associated with the applicant have been convicted of or are presently facing criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters which significantly reflect on the applicant's management honesty or financial integrity. Form CD-346 must be completed for all personnel with key programmatic or fiduciary responsibilities.
All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD-511, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying,” and the following explanations must be provided.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD-512, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying” and disclosure form, SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” Form CD-512 is intended for the use of recipients and should not be transmitted to NIST. SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or sub-recipient should be submitted to NIST in accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.
A false statement on an application is grounds for denial or termination of funds and grounds for possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Applicants are hereby notified that they are encouraged, to the greatest extent practicable, to purchase American-made equipment and products with the funding provided under this program.
Pursuant to Executive Order 12889, the Department of Commerce (DoC) is required to notify the owner of any valid patent covering technology whenever the DoC or its financial assistance recipient, without making a patent search, knows (or has demonstrable reasonable grounds to know) that technology covered by a valid United States patent has been or will be used without a license from the owner. Applicants selected for awards under this program are required to comply with this executive order.
Applications under this program are not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs”.
If an application is accepted for funding, DoC has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of NIST.
The formal agreement between NIST and the applicant will be in the form of a cooperative agreement. Under this agreement, the NIST MEP will have substantial interactions with the applicant in planning and executing this project. This will include the following:
All recipients of awards are required to submit an Operating Plan within ninety (90) days of the project start date. The Operating Plan is a more detailed statement of work based on project objectives and activities the applicant will undertake to achieve the objectives and incorporates recommendations provided by the evaluation panel and the NIST Program Officer. The Operating Plan must be reviewed and approved by NIST and will be incorporated into the cooperative agreement by amendment. Operating Plan guidelines will be distributed to award recipients.
Quarterly reports will be submitted to the NIST Program Officer no later than thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter of the award year. The information provided is used to characterize the projects, develop detailed case studies, and evaluate individual examples of outcomes. Quarterly reporting instructions will be distributed to award recipients.
National Sea Grant College Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The National Sea Grant College Program (Sea Grant) published two documents in the
Leon Cammen 301-713-2435 Ext 136.
For the
April 4, 2001, 5 pm (local time)—Preliminary proposals due at state Sea Grant Program, or at National Sea Grant Office if application is being submitted by a non Sea Grant College Program.
April 9, 2001, 5 pm (EST)—Preliminary proposals received at state Sea Grant Programs due at National Sea Grant Office.
May 30, 2001, 5 pm (local time)—Full proposals due at state Sea Grant Program, or at National Sea Grant Office if application is being submitted by a non Sea Grant College Program.
June 4, 2001, 5 pm (EST)—Full proposals received at state Sea Grant Programs due at National Sea Grant Office.
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce.
Notice.
This notice announces that applications may be submitted for a Fellowship program which was initiated by the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO), NOAA, in fulfilling its broad educational responsibilities, to provide educational experience in the policies and processes of the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Federal Government to graduate students in marine and aquatic-related fields. The Fellowship program accepts applications once a year on or before May 1 for a one-year fellowship beginning February 1 of the following year. All applicants must submit an application to the local Sea Grant program in their state. Applicants from states not served by a Sea Grant program should obtain further information by contacting the Knauss Fellows Program Manager at the NSGO.
Deadlines vary from program to program, but are generally due early to mid-April. Contact your state's Sea Grant program for specific deadlines (see list below).
Applications should be addressed to your local Sea Grant program. Contact the appropriate state's Sea Grant program from the list below to obtain the mailing address or the address may be obtained on the web site
Ms. Nikola Garber, Knauss Fellows Program Manager, National Sea Grant College Program, R/SG, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Tel. (301) 713-2431, ext. 124; e-mail:
In 1979, the National Sea Grant Office (NSGO), NOAA, in fulfilling its broad educational responsibilities, initiated a program to provide a unique educational experience in the policies and processes of the Legislative and Executive Branches of the Federal Government to graduate students who have an interest in ocean, coastal and Great Lakes resources and in the national policy decisions affecting these resources. In 1987, Public Law 100-220 made the Sea Grant Federal Fellows Program a formal part of the National Sea Grant College Program Act. The recipients are designated Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellows pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1127(b).
Fellows program announcements are sent annually to all participating Sea Grant institutions and campuses by the local Sea Grant program upon receipt of notice from the NSGO.
Any student who, on May 1, 2001, is in a graduate or professional program in a marine or aquatic-related field at a United States accredited institution of higher education may apply to the NSGO through their local Sea Grant program. Applicants from states not served by a Sea Grant program should contact the Knauss Fellows Program Manager at the NSGO; subsequently, the applicant will be a referred to the appropriate Sea Grant Program. NOAA makes financial assistance funds
Interested students should discuss this fellowship with their local Sea Grant Program Director. Applicants from states not served by a Sea Grant program should contact the Knauss Fellows program Manager at the NSGO; subsequently, the applicant will be a referred to the appropriate Sea Grant Program. Applications must be submitted with signature to the local Sea Grant program by the deadline set in the announcement (usually early to mid-April). Each Sea Grant program may select and forward to the NSGO no more than five (5) applicants based on criteria used by the NSGO in the national competition.
Selected applications are to be received in the NSGO from the sponsoring Sea Grant program, no later than 5:00 pm EST on May 1, 2001. The competitive selection process and subsequent notification to the Sea Grant programs will be completed by June 14, 2001.
The local Sea Grant program receives and administers the overall grant of $38,000 per student on behalf of each Fellow selected from their program. Of this grant, the local Sea Grant program provides $32,000 to each Fellow for stipend and living expenses (per diem). The additional $6,000 will be used to cover mandatory health insurance for the Fellow and moving expenses. In addition, any remaining funds shall be used during the Fellowship year, first to satisfy academic degree-related travel, and second for Fellowship-related travel.
Indirect costs are not allowable for the Fellowships, and Programs are not allowed to charge for any costs associated with the Fellowships, including placement week [15 CFR 917.11(e), National Sea Grant Program Funding Regulations]. No matching funds are required. During the fellowship (February 1, 2002—January 31, 2003), the host may provide supplemental funds for work-related travel by the fellow.
An application must include:
(1) Personal and academic curriculum vitae (not to exceed two pages using 12 pt. font).
(2) A personal education and career goal statement emphasizing the applicant's abilities and the applicant's expectations from the experience in the way of career development (1000 words or less). Placement preference in the Legislative or Executive Branches of the Government may be stated; this preference will be honored to the extent possible.
(3) Two letters of recommendation, including one from the student's major professor; if no major professor exists, the faculty person academically knowing the applicant best may be substituted.
(4) A letter of endorsement from the sponsoring Sea Grant Program Director.
(5) Official copy of all undergraduate and graduate student transcripts.
All applicants be evaluated solely on their application package according to the criteria listed above. Therefore, letters of endorsements from members of Congress, friends, relatives or others will not be accepted. Absolutely no prior contacts/arrangements are to be made with possible Host Offices.
The selection criteria will include:
(1) Quality of the applicant's personal education and career goal statement.
(2) Endorsement/content of the applicant's Sea Grant program director, the applicant's major professor and second letter of recommendation.
(3) Strength of academic performance and diversity of educational background including extracurricular activities, awards and honors (from the curriculum vitae and transcripts).
(4) Experience in marine or aquatic-related fields, oral and written communications skills, and interpersonal abilities. Relative weights of the evaluation criteria are equal.
Applicants will be individually reviewed and ranked, according to the criteria outlined above, by a panel appointed by the Director of the NSGO with input from the Sea Grant Association and the National Sea Grant Review Panel. The panel will include representation from the Sea Grant Association and the current, and possibly past, class of Fellows. Once the entire class is selected, based on the criteria listed, the Knauss Program Manager will group the top-ranked applicants in each category, legislative and executive, based upon the applicant's stated preference and/or judgement of the panel based upon material submitted. Academic discipline and geographic representation may be considered by the National Sea Grant Office to provide overall balance. The number of fellows assigned to the Congress will be limited to 10.
Fellows receive funds directly from their sponsoring Sea Grant program and are considered to be subrecipients of Federal assistance subject to all Federal laws and Federal and Commerce Department policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial assistance awards.
Unsatisfactory performance under prior Federal awards may result in an application not being considered for funding.
If applicants incur any costs prior to an award being made, they do so solely at their own risk of not being reimbursed by the Government. Notwithstanding any verbal or written assurance that may have been received, there is no obligation on the part of Department of Commerce to cover pre-award costs.
If an application is selected for funding, the Department of Commerce has no obligation to provide any additional future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total discretion of Department of Commerce.
Federal funds will not be awarded to a Fellows applicant who has an outstanding delinquent Federal debt or find until either:
i. The delinquent account is paid in full,
ii. A negotiated repayment schedule is established and at least one payment is received, or
iii. Other arrangements satisfactory to Department of Commerce are made.
All non-profit and for-profit applicants are subject to a name check review process. Name checks are intended to reveal if any key individuals associated with the applicant have been convicted of or are presently facing criminal charges such as fraud, theft, perjury, or other matters which significantly reflect on the applicant's management honesty or financial integrity.
All primary applicants must submit a completed Form CD-511, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying,” and the following explanations are hereby provided:
Prospective participants (as defined at 15 CFR Part 26, Section 105) are subject to 15 CFR Part 26, “Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;
Grantees (as defined at 15 CFR part 26, section 605) are subject to 15 CFR part 26, Subpart F, “Government wide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)” and the related section of the certification form prescribed above applies;
Persons (as defined at 15 CFR part 28, section 105) are subject to the lobbying provisions of 31 U.S.C. 1352, “Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal contracting and financial transactions,” and the lobbying section of the certification form prescribed above applies to applications/bids for grants, cooperative agreements, and contracts for more than $100,000, and loans and loan guarantees for more than $150,000; and
Any applicant that has paid or will pay for lobbying using any funds must submit an SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” as required under 15 CFT part 28, Appendix B.
Recipients shall require applicants/bidders for subgrants, contracts, subcontracts, or other lower tier covered transactions at any tier under the award to submit, if applicable, a completed Form CD-512, “Certifications Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions and Lobbying” and disclosure form, SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities.” Form CD-512 is intended for the use of recipients and should not be transmitted to Department of Commerce. SF-LLL submitted by any tier recipient or subrecipients should be submitted to Department of Commerce in accordance with the instructions contained in the award document.
A false statement on an application is grounds for denial or termination of funds and grounds for possible punishment by a fine or imprisonment as provided in 18 U.S.C. 1001.
Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”
DOC/NOAA is strongly committed to broadening the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBUC), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSI), and Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCU) in its educational and research programs. The DOC/NOAA vision, mission, and goals are to achieve full participation by Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) in order to advance the development of human potential, to strengthen the Nation's capacity to provide high-quality education, and to increase opportunities for MSIs to participate in and benefit from Federal Financial Assistance programs. DOC/NOAA encourages all applicants to include meaningful participation of MSIs. Institutions eligible to be considered HBCU/MSIs are listed at the following Internet website:
Prior notice and an opportunity for public comments are not required by the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law for this notice concerning grants, benefits, and contracts. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
This document contains a collection-of-information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act and which has been approved by OMB under Control Number 0648-0362. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Ms. Nikola Garber (see
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0135).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Subcontractor Payments. A request for public comments was published at 65 FR 75244, December 1, 2000. No comments were received.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate
Comments may be submitted on or before April 16, 2001.
Comments including suggestions for reducing this burden should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
John Blumenstein, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-2373.
Part 28 of the FAR contains guidance related to obtaining financial protection against damages under Government contracts (e.g., use of bonds, bid guarantees, insurance etc.). Part 52 contains the texts of solicitation provisions and contract clauses. These regulations implement a statutory requirement for information to be provided by Federal contractors relating to payment bonds furnished under construction contracts which are subject to the Miller Act (40 U.S.C. 270a-270d). This collection requirement is mandated by section 806 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Pub. L. 102-190), as amended by section 2091 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-335). The clause at 52.228-12, Prospective Subcontractor Requests for Bonds, implements section 806(a)(3) of Pub. L. 102-190, as amended, which specifies that, upon the request of a prospective subcontractor or supplier offering to furnish labor or material for the performance of a construction contract for which a payment bond has been furnished to the United States pursuant to the Miller Act, the contractor shall promptly provide a copy of such payment bond to the requestor.
In conjunction with performance bonds, payment bonds are used in Government construction contracts to secure fulfillment of the contractor's obligations under the contract and to assure that the contractor makes all payments, as required by law, to persons furnishing labor or material in performance of the contract. This regulation provides prospective subcontractors and suppliers a copy of the payment bond furnished by the contractor to the Government for the performance of a Federal construction contract subject to the Miller Act. It is expected that prospective subcontractors and suppliers will use this information to determine whether to contract with that particular prime contractor. This information has been and will continue to be available from the Government. The requirement for contractors to provide a copy of the payment bond upon request to any prospective subcontractor or supplier under the Federal construction contract is contained in section 806(a)(3) of Pub. L. 102-190, as amended by sections 2091 and 8105 of Pub. L. 103-355.
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0135, Subcontractor Payments, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0090).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Rights in Data and Copyrights. A request for public comments was published at 65 FR 75243 December 1, 2000. No comments were received.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before April 16, 2001.
Comments including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
John Blumenstein, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA (202) 501-2373.
Rights in Data is a regulation which concerns the rights of the Government, and organizations with which the Government contracts, to information developed under such contracts. The delineation of such rights is necessary in order to protect the contractor's rights to not disclose proprietary data and to insure that data developed with public funds is available to the public.
The information collection burdens and recordkeeping requirements included in this regulation fall into the following four categories.
(a) A provision which is to be included in solicitations where the proposer would identify any proprietary data he would use during contract performance in order that the contracting officer might ascertain if such proprietary data should be delivered.
(b) Contract clauses which, in unusual circumstances, would be included in a contract and require a contractor to deliver proprietary data to the Government for use in evaluation of work results, or is software to be used in a Government computer. These situations would arise only when the very nature of the contractor's work is comprised of limited rights data or restricted computer software and if the
(c) A technical data certification for major systems, which requires the contractor to certify that the data delivered under the contract is complete, accurate and compliant with the requirements of the contract. As this provision is for major systems only, and few civilian agencies have such major systems, only about 30 contracts will involve this certification.
(d) The Additional Data Requirements clause, which is to be included in all contracts for experimental, developmental, research, or demonstration work (other than basic or applied research to be performed solely by a university or college where the contract amount will be $500,000 or less). The clause requires that the contractor keep all data first produced in the performance of the contract for a period of three years from the final acceptance of all items delivered under the contract. Much of this data will be in the form of the deliverables provided to the Government under the contract (final report, drawings, specifications, etc.). Some data, however, will be in the form of computations, preliminary data, records of experiments, etc., and these will be the data that will be required to be kept over and above the deliverables. The purpose of such recordkeeping requirements is to insure that the Government can fully evaluate the research in order to ascertain future activities and to insure that the research was completed and fully reported, as well as to give the public an opportunity to assess the research results and secure any additional information. All data covered by this clause is unlimited rights data paid for by the Government.
Paragraph (d) of the Rights in Data-General clause outlines a procedure whereby a contracting officer can challenge restrictive markings on data delivered. Under civilian agency contracts, limited rights data or restricted computer software is rarely, if ever, delivered to the Government. Therefore, there will rarely be any challenges. Thus, there is no burden on the public.
The annual recordkeeping burden is estimated as follows:
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0090, Rights in Data and Copyrights, in all correspondence.
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of orders.
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during February 2001, it issued Orders granting, amending, and terminating authority to import and export natural gas, including LNG. These Orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE website at http://www.fe.doe.gov, or on the electronic bulletin board at (202) 586-7853. They are also available for inspection and copying in the Office of Natural Gas & Petroleum Import & Export Activities, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The docket room is open between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, East Tennessee Natural Gas Company (East Tennessee), tendered for filing a Negotiated Rate Letter Agreement under Rate Schedule FT-A and attached as Appendix A to the filing. East Tennessee requests that the Commission grant all necessary waivers and approve the Negotiated Rate Letter Agreement to be effective November 1, 2000.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on March 7, 2001, KO Transmission Company (KO Transmission) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet, bearing a proposed effective date of April 1, 2001:
KO Transmission states that the purpose of the filing is to revise its fuel retainage percentage consistent with Section 24 of the General Terms and Conditions of its Tariff. According to KO Transmission, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) operates and maintains a portion of KO Transmission facilities pursuant to the Operating Agreement referenced in its Tariff at Original Sheet No. 7. Pursuant to that Operating Agreement, Columbia retains certain volumes associated with gas transported on behalf of KO Transmission.
On March 5, 2001, Columbia notified KO Transmission that under terms of the Operating Agreement, KO Transmission will be subject to a 1.39% retainage. Accordingly, KO Transmission states that the instant filing tracks this fuel retainage. KO Transmission also requests waiver from the Commission to allow the above tariff sheet to become effective on a date less than thirty days from the date of its filing.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with §§ 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute First Revised Thirty-second Revised Sheet No. 9 and Substitute Thirty-second Revised Sheet No. 9 to supplement earlier filings National submitted in the above-captioned proceedings.
National states that the revised tariff sheets, to be effective on March 1, 2001,
National states that copies of this filing were served upon its current customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with § 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with § 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America (Natural) tendered for filing to be part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, certain tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to be effective April 6, 2001.
Natural states that the purpose of this filing is to make several minor revisions to its Tariff, including changes to the General Terms and Conditions and to several rate schedules. These changes correct or clarify several provisions of Natural's Tariff, remove or modify outdated provisions and provide Shippers with additional flexibility in the use of Rate Schedule NSS.
Natural states that copies of the filing have been mailed to its customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the interest in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on March 2, 2001, Overthrust Pipeline Company (Overthrust) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of April 1, 2001:
Overthrust's states that the filing is made in compliance with Commission letter order issued July 13, 2000, in Docket No. RP00-2-000.
Overthrust states that by letter order issued July 13, 2000, the Commission approved the March 24, 2000, Settlement of its rate case in Docket No. RP00-2-000.
Overthrust states that Paragraph III.A.(3)(a) of the Settlement provided that effective April 1, 2001, Overthrust's rates would be reduced by 10% to a $2.1640/Dth reservation charge and a $0.0712/Dth interruptible rate. Further, Overthrust states that the tariff sheets tendered with its filing implement the 10% rate reduction. No other changes are proposed.
Overthrust states that a copy of this filing has been served upon Overthrust's customers and the Wyoming Public Service Commission.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.200(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on February 12, 2001, Viking Gas Transmission Company (Viking) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheet to be effective February 1, 2001:
Viking states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the Letter Order issued on January 31, 2001 in Docket No. RP01-47-001, 94 FERC ¶ 61,086. Accordingly, Viking is removing the $100.00 transaction service charge and the provision that imposes transportation charges for imbalance trades.
Viking states that copies of this filing have been served upon each person or company named on the Commission's service list in the above-captioned proceeding, on Viking's jurisdictional customers and to affected state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before March 19, 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, protest and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 85.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on March 5, 2001, Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet to become effective March 5, 2001:
Williston Basin states that it has revised the above-referenced tariff sheet found in section 48 of the General Terms and Conditions of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, to rename a receipt point associated with its Pooling Service. Point ID No. 05066 is being renamed from (Bitter Creek-BFPL) to (LX-Bar). Such name change has no effect on Williston Basin's Pooling Service, but is being made simply to reflect a change in name to clearly identify the receipt point.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, NEO California Power LLC (NEO California) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to section 32 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 (PUHCA) and part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
As more fully explained in the application, NEO California is a limited liability company that will be engaged either directly or indirectly and exclusively in the business of owning and operating electric generation facilities located in California.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, LG&E Power Monroe (Power Monroe), a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business at 220 West Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40232, 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.
Power Monroe proposes to construct, own and operate three 170 megawatt combustion turbine electric generating units in Walton County, Georgia. The units are scheduled to be completed in March 2001 and to be in service by June 1, 2001. All capacity and energy from the plant will be sold exclusively at wholesale.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Effingham County Power, LLC, 411 Fayetteville Street Mall, Raleigh, NC 27602, 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. The applicant is a limited liability company that will engage directly or indirectly and exclusively in the business of owning and/or operating eligible facilities in the United States and selling electric energy at wholesale. The applicant proposes to own and operate an approximately 537 megawatt gas-fired combustion turbine. The applicant seeks a determination of its exempt wholesale generator status. All electric energy sold by the applicant will be sold exclusively at wholesale.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Rowan County Power, LLC, 411 Fayetteville Street Mall, Raleigh, NC 27602, 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. The applicant is a limited liability company that will engage directly or indirectly and exclusively in the business of owning and/or operating eligible facilities in the United States and selling electric energy at wholesale. The applicant proposes to own and operate an approximately 500 megawatt gas-fired combustion turbine. The applicant seeks a determination of its exempt wholesale generator status. All electric energy sold by the applicant will be sold exclusively at wholesale.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, West Penn Power Company, dba Allegheny Power, filed an Addendum to its Electric Service Agreement with Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc. to add a delivery point.
An effective date for the new delivery point of February 21, 2001 is requested.
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, the West Virginia Public Service Commission and all parties of record.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Mississippi Power Company and Southern Company Services, Inc., its agent, tendered for filing a Service Agreement with South Mississippi Electric Power Association for the Wellman Delivery Point, pursuant to the Southern Companies' Electric Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 4. The agreement will permit Mississippi Power to continue to provide wholesale electric service to South Mississippi Electric Power Association at the Wellman Delivery Point.
Copies of the filing were served upon South Mississippi Electric Power Association, the Mississippi Public Service Commission, and the Mississippi Public Utilities Staff.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Idaho Power Company (Idaho Power) filed a notice of termination of its Participation Agreement pursuant to section 18.3 of the California Power Exchange Corporation (PX) FERC Electric Service Tariff No. 2 (PX Tariff) with the PX. Idaho Power asserts that such notice should be sufficient to effect termination. If such notice is found to be insufficient by the Commission, Idaho Power states that it makes this filing to insure termination of said agreement.
Idaho Power requests any waivers as may be necessary to make termination of its Participation Agreement effective January 24, 2001.
Idaho Power states that this filing has been served on the PX.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, the California Independent System Operator Corporation, tendered for filing a Participating Generator Agreement between the ISO and Mountain View Power Partners, L.L.C. for acceptance by the Commission.
The ISO states that this filing has been served on Mountain View Power Partners, L.L.C. and the California Public Utilities Commission.
The ISO is requesting waiver of the 60-day notice requirement to allow the Participating Generator Agreement to be made effective February 22, 2001.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, MidAmerican Energy Company (MidAmerican) filed with the Commission a Notice of Cancellation pursuant to Section 35.15 of the Commission's regulations, of a Firm Power Interchange Service Agreement dated November 17, 1987 between Iowa Public Service Company (a predecessor company of MidAmerican) and Union Electric Company (a predecessor company of Ameren Energy Company). This Agreement has been designated as MidAmerican Rate Schedule No. 78.
MidAmerican requests that the rate schedule be canceled effective 11:59 p.m. on May 31, 2001:
MidAmerican has mailed a copy of this filing to Ameren Energy, the Iowa Utilities Board, the Illinois Commerce Commission and the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, the California Independent System Operator Corporation, tendered for filing a Meter Service Agreement for ISO Metered Entities between the ISO and Mountain View Power Partners, L.L.C. for acceptance by the Commission.
The ISO states that this filing has been served on Mountain View Power Partners, L.L.C. and the California Public Utilities Commission.
The ISO is requesting waiver of the 60-day notice requirement to allow the Meter Service Agreement for ISO
Take notice that PacifiCorp on March 6, 2001, tendered for filing in accordance with 18 CFR Part 35 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, a Long-Term Firm Transmission Service Agreement with Idaho Power Company (Idaho) under PacifiCorp's FERC Electric Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 11 (Tariff).
Copies of this filing were supplied to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Avista Energy, Inc. (Avista) filed a notice of termination pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Block Forward Participation Agreement between Avista and CalPX Trading Services (CTS) (CTS Participation Agreement).
Avista requests that the notice of termination be effective on February 8, 2001.
Avista states that this filing has been served on the CTS.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, PSI Energy, Inc. tendered for filing three substitute sheets to its Power Coordination Agreement with Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
This filing has been served on Wabash Valley Power Association, Inc.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Richmond County Power, LLC tendered for filing an application for authorization to sell energy, capacity and ancillary services at market-based rates.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Effingham County Power, LLC tendered for filing an application for authorization to sell power at market-based rates.
Take notice that on March 6, 2001, Rowan County Power, LLC tendered for filing an application for authorization to sell power at market-based rates.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) on the natural gas pipeline facilities proposed by Millennium Pipeline Company, L.P. (Millennium) and Columbia Gas Transmission Company in the above-referenced dockets.
The SDEIS was prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. The staff concludes that if the Commission certificates the proposed Millennium Pipeline Project with all the recommended mitigation measures, the environmental impacts associated with constructing and operating the amended portions of the proposed project discussed in Part I of this SDEIS would have limited adverse environmental impact. Part II of this SDEIS provides analyses of a number of other aspects of the proposed project, and we note that additional mitigation measures would need to be included in the Commission certificate to address these aspects of the proposal. The SDEIS also evaluates alternatives to the proposal, including system alternatives. We note that other issues and environmental impacts were previously identified in our draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) issued on April 16, 1999. This SDEIS addresses only the issues where important information about the originally proposed Millennium Pipeline Project has been updated since we issued the DEIS.
Part I of the SDEIS addresses the potential environmental effects form construction and operation of the following proposed facilities:
• 22.7 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline in Westchester County, New York; and
• Five mainline valves.
Part II of the SDEIS addresses certain issues identified in comments we received on the DEIS, and includes issues associated with:
• The black dirt area in Orange County, New York;
• Water resources (e.g., ground and surface waters, Lake Erie, the Hudson River, and Catskill Aqueduct);
• Coastal zone management consistency;
• Route alternaties at the Hudson River; and
• Numerous specific route variations.
The purpose of the Millennium Pipeline Project would be to transport up to 700,000 decatherms per day and provide firm natural gas transportation service for nine shippers beginning on November 1, 2002.
The SDEIS will be used in the regulatory decision-making process at the FERC and may be presented as
Any person wishing to comment on the SDEIS may do so. To ensure consideration prior to a Commission decision on the proposal, it is important that we receive your comments before the date specified below. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:
• Send an original and two copies of your comments to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;
• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Group 2, PJ11.2;
• Reference Docket No. CP98-150 et al.; and
• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before April 30, 2001.
Comments, protests and interventions may also be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
In addition to written comments, we will hold a public meeting in the project area to receive comments on the SDEIS. Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to attend and present oral comments on the environmental impact described in the SDEIS. Transcripts of the meeting will be prepared.
The public meeting will begin at 7 p.m., and is scheduled as follows:
April 9, 2001; Ossining High School, 29 South Highland Ave., Ossining, New York 10562, 914-941-7700.
After these comments are reviewed, any significant new issues are investigated, and modifications are made to the SDEIS, a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) will be published and distributed by the staff. The FEIS will contain the staff's responses to timely comments filed on the SDEIS.
Comments will be considered by the Commission but will not serve to make the commentor a party to the proceeding. Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).
Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this SDEIS. You must file your request to intervene as specified above. You do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.
The SDEIS has been placed in the public files of the FERC and is available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208-1371.
A limited number of copies are available from the Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch identified above. In addition, copies of the SDEIS have been mailed to Federal, state and local agencies, public interest groups, individuals who have requested the SDEIS, newspapers, and parties to this proceeding.
In addition, this notice of availability of the SDEIS will also serve as a supplemental public Notice for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for its Application for Permit pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). The original Public Notice which described the proposed pipeline from Canada to New York is available for review at both the New York (www.nan.army.mil) and Buffalo (www.lrb.army.mil) District's web sites.
If you wish to provide written comments to the Corps of Engineers on the subject activity, please provide them within 30 days of this NOA to: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District Regulatory Branch, Albany Field Office, 1 Bond Street, Troy, New York 12180, Attn: Heidi Firstencel, Permit Application No. 1999-00640.
Additional information about the proposed project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (202) 208-1088 or on the FERC Intenet website (www.ferc.fed.us) using the “RIMS” link to information in this docket number. Click on the “RIMS” link, select “Docket #” from the RIMS Menu, and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to RIMS, the RIMS helpline can be reached at (202) 208-2222.
Similarly, the “CIPS” link on the FERC Intenet website provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings. From the FERC Internet website, click on the “CIPS” link, select “Docket #” from the CIPS menu, and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to CIPS, the CIPS helpline can be reached at (202) 208-2474.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears 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. Pacific Gas & Electric (licensee) has applied for license amendment to the license for the Drum-Spaulding Hydroelectric Project. To improve the safety of Rock Creek Dam, the licensee proposes to improve spillway capacity to eliminate potential overtopping of the dam under the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) design flood. This will be accomplished by lowering the crest of the spillway 2.5 feet. The activity would involve saw cutting and removing the top portion of the existing concrete spill crest. A new reinforced concrete slab with an ogee shaped crest, similar to the existing spill crest configuration, would be installed. The modified spillway would have an increased spill capacity of 2,220 cubic feet per second and would lower the normal maximum reservoir level by 2.5 feet. As a result, the area and volume of the reservoir would be reduced from the current 55 acres and 548 acre-feet, to 50 acres and 425 acre-feet, respectively.
l. A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room at 888 First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The application may be viewed on the web at 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.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the 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 comments date for the particular application.
Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” “PROTEST,” or “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” as applicable, and the Project Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
Federal, state, and local agencies are invited to file comments on the described application. A copy of the application may be obtained by agencies directly from the applicant. If an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.
Take notice that on March 2, 2001, Vector Pipeline L.P. (Vector) filed in Docket No. CP98-131-004 an application, pursuant to Part 153 of the Commission's Regulations and Executive Order No. 10485, as amended by Executive Order 12038, seeking to amend the Presidential Permit issued to Vector by Commission Order dated May 27, 1999
The border facilities covered by the existing Presidential Permit consist of approximately 3,100 feet of 42-inch pipeline with a maximum capacity of 1 MMDth of gas located under the riverbed of the St. Clair River at the United States—Canada International Boundary (boundary). Vector's border facilities interconnect with Vector Canada, an affiliate, at the boundary, which is situated mid-point of the St. Clair River. Article 3 of this Presidential Permit only provides for the transportation of natural gas from the United States to Canada.
Vector states that due to market circumstances which exist, or may exist in the near term, shippers on its system would find it beneficial to move gas from Canada to the United States. Vector claims that the shippers could avail themselves of supplies that can be provided by Union Gas Ltd.'s large storage facility in Dawn, Ontario, in order to meet current and future market needs in the United States, including acting as third party storage providers consistent with the Commission's dictates in Order No. 637. Vector also states that no new facilities are to be constructed at the connections with the border facilities, thus there will be no change to the design capacity of the border facilities or the Vector mainline. Therefore, Vector requests an amendment to Article 3 of the outstanding Presidential Permit to allow such use.
Vector requests expeditious approval by the Commission to permit the requested bi-directional service so that its shippers can avail themselves of additional cross-border marketing opportunities in the near term.
Any questions regarding the application should be directed to Craig R. Fishbeck, President, 38705 Seven Mile Road, Suite 245, Livonia, Michigan, 48152, (734) 462-0233, and Kim M. Clark of John & Hengerer, 1200 17th Street, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 429-8800.
There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before April 2, 2001, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be
However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.
Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
If the Commission decides to set the application for a formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, the Commission will issue another notice describing that process. At the end of the Commission's review process, a final Commission order approving or denying a certificate will be issued.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability for public comment.
Today EPA is requesting comment on the results of a gasoline additive emissions test program submitted to EPA for technical review by Infineum Corporation. Infineum conducted a test program to determine the effect of the gasoline fuel additive VEKTRON® 6913 in reducing tailpipe oxides of nitrogen ( NO
The EPA is establishing a 45-day comment period, ending April 30, 2001.
Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6101), Attention: Docket No. A-00--XX, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Room M-1500, Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548, between 8 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying. Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by following the instructions under
For specific questions and comments on this guidance, contact Mr. Michael Ball, U.S. EPA, OAR/OTAQ/TRPD/TMIG, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, telephone (734) 214-4897
Electronic Availability—A World Wide Web (WWW) site has been developed so that you can obtain a copy of this announcement and supporting information for review and comment. The Uniform Resource Location (URL) for the home page of the web site is
The EPA has established a docket for materials relevant to this notice (which will include the test program and supporting information, plus any public comments) under EPA air docket number A-2001-05. A public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments—but excluding any information claimed as confidential business information (CBI)—is available for inspection from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The official record is located at the address in
Infineum USA L.P. manufactures a variety of gasoline and diesel fuel additives. In 1996, Infineum (then Shell Chemical) approached EPA regarding whether the Agency would accept the use of its Vektron® 3000 series gasoline additive as an air quality control measure in a State's Implementation Plan (SIP) for purposes of emissions credit generation and trading. Based on a new fleet test program, Infineum has prepared and submitted to the EPA a
Vektron® 6913 is currently certified under EPA's gasoline deposit control additive program and registered under EPA's fuel and fuel additives additive health effects program.
The following discussion outlines the background of EPA's evaluation of the potential impacts of Vektron® 6913 on emissions and summarizes the new data provided by Infineum. The purpose of this notice is to request comment to aid EPA in evaluating Infineum's fleet test and analysis regarding the impact of Vektron® 6913 on the emissions of the in-use vehicle fleet. The comments we receive should provide useful information in determining the extent to which the use of Vektron® 6913 in gasoline provides an emissions benefit. This is important in evaluating the use of Vektron® 6913, under an emissions trading program or other state-sponsored market incentive initiative, in a state's SIP submission to the Agency.
Infineum first approached EPA regarding the potential emissions benefits of its Vektron® 3000 series gasoline additive in 1996. At that time, EPA concluded that the available information was insufficient to quantify the overall emissions impacts of the gasoline additive.
To facilitate the evaluation of Infineum's emission credits protocol for Vektron® in the U.S., Infineum submitted its protocol to the State of New Hampshire's Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) requesting acceptance for use in the State. The NHDES arranged for a public hearing on the protocol. That public hearing was held in Concord, NH, on October 1, 1997.
At this time, EPA again concluded that the available data was insufficient to quantify the emissions impacts of Vektron® 3000 series. Based on comments from the public hearing, the state of New Hampshire issued a conditional approval for Infineum's protocol which granted a small, and according to Infineum, non-economically viable emissions reductions credit and which detailed the issues that would need to be addressed by Infineum before larger and more economically viable (to Infineum) emission credits could be generated from the use of Vektron® 3000 series additives in the State of New Hampshire.
Following the public hearing in New Hampshire, in December of 1997, Infineum engaged EPA in discussions, seeking expert advice, regarding what additional testing and technical documentation Infineum might provide to facilitate our evaluation of the impacts of Vektron® 6913 on vehicle emissions.
The test program that Infineum conducted to evaluate the emissions and fuel economy impact of Vektron® 6913 on a sample of vehicles, the test data from this program, and the statistical analysis of these data have been documented by Infineum. Infineum also provided information regarding issues that were not specifically addressed in its test program which have been included in the docket for this notice.
Test Data from Infineum's Test Program to Evaluate that Emission Impacts from Its Vektron® 6913 Additive, Infineum USA LP, docket item I-B-02.
Infineum Emissions Reduction Gasoline Additive Technology, Infineum USA LP, docket item I-B-03.
Statistical Design and Analysis of Vektron® 6913 Emissions Fleet Trial, Infineum USA LP, docket item I-B-04.
Infineum postulates that Vektron® 6913 acts by some method other than a reduction of combustion chamber deposits (CCD) levels (mass). This impact may be due in part to a change in the properties of CCD over time as a vehicle is operated on gasoline that contains Vektron® 6913.
Since the mechanism by which Vektron® 6913 may impact emissions is not well understood, there are issues regarding how to adequately account for potential interactions of variations in
The test vehicles selected will impact the representativeness of the data in predicting the impacts of Vektron® 6913 on the emissions of the current and future in-use fleet. Infineum states that the test fleet was composed of a broad spectrum of in-use vehicles selected based on sales volume which they believe adequately represents the impact of Vektron® 6913 in the range of vehicle technologies present in the in-use vehicle fleet. We request comment on this issue. Specifically, we request comment on whether there are vehicles in the current or anticipated future fleet (e.g. tier 2 vehicles), not represented in Infineum's test program that would respond in a substantially different manner to the use of Vektron® 6913.
In designing a test program it is important to acquire vehicles that would be representative of the current in-use fleet with regard to such factors as mileage accumulation, maintenance, and similar factors which could effect emissions performance. Additionally, in constructing a testing regime, random or other means of unbiased assignment is important to reduce the introduction of test result bias. The contractor that conducted the vehicle testing for Infineum (Southwest Research Institute) either purchased or leased all of the 28 vehicles used in the test program on Infineum's behalf. The test program criteria for vehicle acquisition included a minimum odometer mileage accumulation of 15,000 miles and a maximum of 75,000 miles. Infineum states that vehicles were assigned to a fueling regime randomly.
The base gasoline composition is an important consideration in projecting the emissions impacts of the fuel additive on NO
The reference additive used in the test program determines the baseline against which the emissions impacts of Vektron® are evaluated. Thus, it is important that the reference additive be representative of current in-use deposit control additives as these might effect emissions performance. Infineum states that the test fuel (that contained Vektron® 6913) and the reference fuel (that contained the reference additive) contained the same type and amount of detergent-active ingredients.
The issue of how quickly the emission impacts of Vektron® 6913 take effect is important to projecting its potential in-use emission benefits, because Infineum states that the impact of Vektron® 6913 on emissions and fuel economy manifests itself only after a vehicle is operated using Vektron® over time. Infineum intends to market its Vektron® 6913 as an additive for fuel used only during the ozone season (for example, spring to late summer). Thus, the amount of mileage that must be accumulated using Vektron® before it has its full impact on emissions is an important input in the calculation of the emissions benefits from the use of Vektron® over the period it is used. Infineum states that after a vehicle is operated for 1,000 miles using Vektron® 6913, the full effect of Vektron® 6913 on emissions is realized.
The procedure used to identify outliers is important, as the exclusion of data from the analysis can significantly affect the emission change attributed to use of Vektron® 6913. Infineum used a generalized linear model (SAS procedure PROC GLM) and Studentized-deleted residuals to the baseline and Run 1 data to identify two outliers: a Pontiac Grand Prix (GP1) and a Ford F-150 (FF4). Vehicle FF4 was identified early before vehicle GP1 was run and gave a Studentized-deleted residual greater than 4.0 and was dropped from the analysis. When vehicle GP1 became available and was tested in the statistical model, its Studentized-deleted residual was 3.78 and consequently Infineum dropped this vehicle from the final analysis.
A different statistical model was used to identify outliers (PROC GLM) than to determine emission effects (PROC MIXED). One outlier (FF4) was deleted from the database using a portion of the database and then further tests for outliers (
We request comment on Infineum's approach to removing outliers, particularly the following: (1) Use of a different statistical model to identify outliers (PROC GLM) than to determine emission effects (PROC MIXED); (2) deleting outliers one at a time; (3) identifying outliers after performing the assessment of carryover and comparing the emission impact of continuous and alternating use of Vektron® 6913; and (4) inclusion of a vehicle type term in the PROC GLM model.
Determining that a specific data point or set of data is an outlier from a statistical point of view may or may not be sufficient evidence to appropriately exclude that data from an analysis. The vehicles in the Vektron® test program were screened and pretested for proper operation, oil consumption and emissions. Replicate tests were performed at all testing points and a third test performed when the first two exceeded specified criteria according to the CAC Auto/Oil Protocol. Mechanical evaluation of FF4 at the end of the test program discovered problems with the EGR valve which was shown to affect NO
In the context of this test program, a “carryover” effect exists when the effect of one fuel additive persists during a subsequent test of a different additive, for example, treatment fuel during Run1 affects the test of reference fuel during Run 2. Infineum believed that 8,000 miles of operation on a specific fuel additive would be sufficient to eliminate such carryover, but subsequently concluded that the Run 2 data from vehicles fueled with the reference fuel still exhibited the affect of Vektron® 6913. Therefore, Infineum chose to eliminate all Run 2 data from subsequent analysis. The model used to test for carryover effects specified ln(FTP NO
EPA requests comment on these points: (1) Is this model formulation appropriate to determine that carryover was present? Specifically, should the model have included a variable indicating the use of the Vektron® additive, either continuously or in an alternating fashion? Also, should the test for carryover be focused exclusively on those vehicles in Run 2 which were operated on the Vektron® additive in Run 1? Would there be any reason to expect carryover effects for those vehicles operated on the reference fuel in Run 1 and Vektron® 6913 in Run 2? (2) Infineum states that the literature teaches that with a two-stage crossover design no estimate of direction of large carryover is possible. Is it possible to
Infineum excluded all Run 2 data from its final analysis, citing standard practice following detection of a large carryover effect. This reduces by approximately 50% the number of measures of the effect of the Vektron® additive. As described above, Infineum concluded that a large carryover was observed and the reference was not repeated in Run 2. Therefore, Infineum believed that it was not appropriate to extrapolate Run 1 reference fuel data to compare to Run 2 test fuel data (as well as the reverse). Therefore, Infineum felt that no estimation of the treatment effect could be made when Run 2 data were included. Is it possible to include a term for carryover in the statistical model and continue to use all of the data to estimate the impact of Vektron® 6913 on emissions? Is Infineum's decision to exclude all of the Run 2 data appropriate in the context of fuel additive testing, where we are not comparing the effect of two new factors (
Two options exist for analyzing the Infineum data. One statistically analyzes the data from all individual emission tests and the other analyzes the emission levels averaged across replicates at each test phase. Each vehicle at each test point was tested at least in duplicate over the FTP, HFET, and the US06 driving cycles. The need for a third emission test was based on test repeatability criteria established in the CAC Auto/Oil Protocol: if the higher emission value divided by the lower emission value was greater than 1.33 for HC, 1.70 for CO, or 1.29 for NO
Emission data are available over three driving cycles: the standard EPA urban driving cycle (the FTP), the US06 high-speed, high-load cycle, and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET). Infineum estimated the 10% NO
The Vektron® additive was used continuously in half of the test vehicles and in every other tankful in the other half of the vehicles. Infineum selected these two fueling protocols to represent the two basic modes of potential use of the Vektron® additive by individual vehicles in the fleet. Infineum reported no statistical difference in NO
As indicated by the issues described above, it is possible to develop differing estimates of the impact of Vektron® 6913 on NO
Infineum found that its Vektron® additive affect on NO
EPA will carefully consider all comments received. We will evaluate these comments and other information or analyses which may become available, including perhaps conducting additional analyses of our own in arriving at our conclusion as to the emission benefits of Vektron® 6913 as proposed for fuel additive use by Infineum. This conclusion will be publically available via our web site. If that conclusion indicates significant emission benefits could be derived from the use of this fuel additive, we will also prepare appropriate protocols for determining the extent of actual in-use on-highway fleet emissions benefits.
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed decision.
The EPA is proposing to approve the request submitted by Astaris Idaho LLC for renewal of the current Case-by-Case (CBC) extension which established May 26, 2001, as the effective date of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land disposal restrictions (LDR) applicable to hazardous wastes generated at the Astaris Idaho LLC facility located in Pocatello, Idaho. This action responds to the request submitted by Astaris Idaho LLC to renew the original CBC extension, for up to one additional year, if the seven demonstrations required still can be made. If approved, this action would extend the effective date of the LDR for these waste streams to May 26, 2002. By statute, the EPA cannot grant further extensions of the effective date.
To make sure we consider your comments in developing a final decision on the Astaris request for renewal of the current CBC extension of the LDR effective date for the subject waste streams, you must submit your comments on or before April 6, 2001.
The official record for this action is identified as Docket Number F-2001-FM2P-FFFFF. Public comments and supporting materials are available for viewing in the RCRA Information Center (RIC), located at Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is open from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays. To review docket materials, it is recommended that you make an appointment by calling (703) 603-9230. You may copy a maximum of 100 pages from any regulatory docket at no charge. Additional copies cost $0.15/page. The index and some supporting materials are available electronically. See the “Supplementary Information” section for information on accessing them.
You must send an original and two copies of your comments, referencing docket number F-2001-FM2P-FFFFF, to: (1) If using regular US Postal Service mail: RCRA Docket Information Center, Office of Solid Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters (EPA, HQ), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, or (2) if using special delivery, such as overnight express service: RCRA Docket Information Center (RIC), Crystal Gateway One, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, First Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. Comments may also be submitted electronically through the Internet to:
You may claim information that you submit in response to this notice as confidential by marking any part or all of that information as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed, except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Commenters should not submit any CBI electronically. An original and two copies of CBI must be submitted under separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, c/o Regina Magbie, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. If you submit CBI by courier/overnight express, an original and two copies of the CBI must be sent to: RCRA CBI Document Control Officer, Regina Magbie, Office of Solid Waste (5305W), U.S. EPA, 2800 Crystal Drive, 7th Floor, Arlington, VA 22202. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public docket by the EPA without prior notice.
For general information about this notice,
For more detailed information on specific aspects of this CBC extension renewal, contact Mr. William Kline, Office of Solid Waste, 5302W, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, (703) 308-8440, (e-mail address: kline.bill@epa.gov).
The index of supporting materials evaluated by the EPA in reaching our determination to propose approval of the requested CBC extension renewal is available on the Internet. You will find this index at
The EPA's responses to comments, whether the comments are written or electronic, will be in a notice in the
The information in this section is organized as follows:
Effective April 17, 2000, Astaris Idaho LLC became the owner and operator of the former FMC Pocatello facility (previously owned by FMC Corporation). Astaris Idaho LLC is a joint venture, comprising the combined phosphorous chemical businesses of FMC Corporation and Solutia, Inc. As such, Astaris Idaho LLC has responsibility for the construction, operation, and maintenance aspects of the planned LDR Treatment Plant at the Pocatello, Idaho facility. However, FMC Corporation retains responsibility for funding the capital costs and for implementing all RCRA Consent Decree projects, including the proposed LDR Treatment Plant. Likewise, we refer solely to FMC Corporation (FMC) when noting any actions that occurred at the Pocatello facility prior to the April 17, 2000, effective date of the joint venture. Previous notices regarding this facility identified it as FMC Pocatello. For the purposes of this notice of proposed decision, we simply will refer to FMC/Astaris as the applicant for the CBC extension renewal.
FMC/Astaris requests a one-year renewal of the current (case-by-case) extension of the RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDR) effective date that expires on May 26, 2001. This CBC extension is applicable to five hazardous waste streams generated at the Pocatello facility (EPA Identification Number: IDD070929518), located on as well as adjacent to Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' lands, referred to as the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. These five waste streams, which are generated in the production of elemental phosphorous, are: (1) Non-Hazardous Slurry Assurance Project (NOSAP) Slurry, (2) Medusa Scrubber Blowdown, (3) Furnace Building Washdown, (4) Precipitator Slurry, and (5) Phossy Water. These five waste streams exhibit two characteristics of hazardous waste: reactivity due to the presence of cyanide and phosphine, and ignitability. The wastes are generated in large quantities and pose unique handling, treatment, and disposal considerations, given the presence of elemental phosphorous and cyanide. Each of these waste streams also contains varying levels of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM) which most off-site commercial TSDs are not permitted to manage.
The initial CBC extension was approved by EPA due to the demonstrated lack of available treatment capacity for these five waste streams and the stated need for additional time to complete design work, construct, and begin operation of an on-site treatment plant to treat these wastes. FMC/Astaris states, as described in more detail in section III of this notice, that there is a continued lack of available treatment capacity for these wastes. Also, more time is needed to finish the design of the treatment plant, construct it, and commence operation. If this proposed action is finalized, FMC/Astaris will be allowed to continue to treat, store, or dispose of these five waste streams, as currently managed in on-site surface impoundments, until May 26, 2002, without being subject to the LDR applicable to these wastes.
A RCRA Consent Decree (U.S. v. FMC Corporation) was entered in July 1999, to address past mishandling of these wastes and to avoid future environmental contamination. The Consent Decree requires closure of certain on-site ponds, tank system upgrades to comply with RCRA standards, implementation of SEPs
The EPA is proposing to approve the request made by FMC/Astaris for a one-year renewal of the current CBC extension of the RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDR) which expires on May 26, 2001. For this CBC extension
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes a program for controlling hazardous waste from the time it is generated, through its treatment and storage, until its ultimate disposal. The RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 imposed additional responsibilities on persons managing hazardous wastes. Among other things, HSWA required the EPA to develop regulations that prohibit the land disposal of certain hazardous wastes by specified dates in order to minimize threats to human health and to the environment posed by land disposal of these wastes. The EPA also was required to set “levels or methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimized.” Characteristic hazardous wastes must be treated not only to remove the characteristic property that identifies them as hazardous, but also to treat any hazardous constituents that may be present in the wastes in significant concentrations (so-called “underlying hazardous constituents”). See
Congress recognized that adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which is protective of human health and the environment may not always be available by the applicable statutory effective dates. As such, the EPA is authorized to grant a national capacity variance from the effective date which would otherwise apply to specific hazardous wastes, based on the earliest dates that such capacity will be available but not to exceed two years. In addition, the EPA is authorized to grant an additional extension of the applicable LDR deadline, on a case-by-case basis, for up to one year. Such an extension is renewable once for up to one additional year. The requirements for obtaining a CBC extension of a LDR effective date are found in Part 268-Land Disposal Restrictions, section 268.5(a). The specific requirements for obtaining the renewal of a CBC extension of a Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) effective date, the subject of this notice of proposed decision, are found in Part 268-Land Disposal Restrictions, section 268.59(e).
On January 25, 1996 (61 FR 2338), the EPA published a supplemental proposed rule that addressed land disposal restrictions applicable, among others, to characteristic mineral processing wastes. On behalf of its elemental phosphorous plant located in Pocatello, Idaho (Pocatello facility), FMC submitted a petition to request a two-year national capacity variance from the Phase IV LDR requirements, citing the lack of available treatment capacity in the U.S. for certain wastes generated by its Pocatello facility. FMC later submitted supplemental comments to its petition for a national capacity variance, informing the EPA that it could not design a treatment unit for its wastes until the applicable treatment standards and the wastes subject to treatment were defined.
On June 27, 1996, the EPA agreed to a motion for amendment of a 1994 consent agreement (
In February 1997, attorneys for the United States met with and informed the Tribal governing body of duly elected tribal officials, the Fort Hall Business Council, representing the federally recognized Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, on whose lands the Pocatello facility is located, that the United States intended to file an action against FMC for certain violations of the RCRA statute, i.e., FMC's past mishandling of hazardous wastes. This action and subsequent negotiations led to the eventual entry of a proposed Consent Decree in October 1998, as described below.
On May 12, 1997 (62 FR 26041), the EPA proposed to grant a two-year national capacity variance for three of the facility's waste streams, i.e., Medusa Scrubber Blowdown, Anderson Filter Media Rinsate, and Furnace Building Washdown. FMC submitted comments, noting that the Anderson Filter Media Rinsate had been eliminated by applying pollution prevention techniques. However, FMC identified three additional waste streams (Precipitator Slurry, NOSAP Slurry, and Phossy Water) generated in the same elemental phosphorous production process for which treatment capacity that satisfied the LDR requirements was not available. As such, FMC likewise stated the need for these three additional wastes to be granted the proposed two-year national capacity variance.
On May 26, 1998 (63 FR 28556), the EPA promulgated the Final LDR Phase IV rule and granted a two-year national capacity variance for newly identified characteristic wastes from elemental phosphorous processing, including the five waste streams generated at the Pocatello facility. This national capacity variance extended the LDR effective date for these wastes to May 26, 2000.
In September 1998, the United States agreed to delay the lodging of the Consent Decree to explore options for penalty sharing with the Tribes. The Tribes subsequently were offered the opportunity to become a formal party to the Consent Decree but on October 9, 1998, the Fort Hall Business Council declined to sign the Consent Decree and passed a Resolution opposing it.
On October 16, 1998, the United States lodged the proposed Consent Decree in U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho and held a public comment period on the proposed Consent Decree until December 18, 1998.
On March 29, 1999, the United States filed a Motion for Entry of the Proposed Consent Decree (
On July 12, 1999, FMC Corporation submitted to the EPA a request, along with documentation to support the required seven demonstrations in section 268.5, for a one-year CBC extension of the LDR effective date for the five waste streams generated at its facility located in Pocatello, Idaho.
On July 13, 1999, after reviewing a Memorandum of Opposition for Entry of the Proposed Consent Decree, filed by the Tribes, and memoranda filed by the United States and FMC in response to the Tribes' Memorandum, the District Court granted the United States' motion for leave to enter as final the Consent Decree.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes filed Notice of Appeal on August 11, 1999 and on November 29, 1999, filed an appeal of the final RCRA Consent Decree (Appeal No. 99-35821) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This appeal was ultimately denied.
On March 8, 2000 ( 65 FR 12233), the EPA proposed to approve FMC's request for a one-year CBC extension of the LDR effective date, based upon a determination that FMC had fulfilled the criteria of 40 CFR 268.5(a) which sets forth the required demonstrations to be made in requesting a CBC extension of a LDR effective date.
On April 17, 2000, Astaris Idaho LLC, a joint venture comprising the combined phosphorous chemical businesses of FMC Corporation and Solutia, Inc, became the owner and operator of the former FMC Pocatello facility (previously owned by FMC Corporation).
On May 2, 2000, Elizabeth Cotsworth (Director of the EPA Office of Solid Waste) met with the Fort Hall Business Council (duly elected tribal members representing the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, which are federally recognized), in Pocatello, Idaho, to consult with the Tribes regarding FMC's initial request for a CBC extension of the LDR effective date.
On May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694), the EPA issued final approval of the requested initial CBC extension, extending the LDR effective date to May 26, 2001.
On June 9, 2000, representatives of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes met with Tim Fields (then-Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response) to discuss issues regarding the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Mr. Fields and the Tribal representatives discussed the Agency's consultation process, in general, and, more specifically, as applied to both the then-recently approved initial CBC extension and the anticipated request by FMC/Astaris for renewal of the CBC extension of the RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) for the five subject waste streams.
On November 1, 2000, FMC/Astaris submitted a request to the EPA for a one-year renewal of the current CBC extension, until May 26, 2002.
The Consent Decree is only one of several actions underway to address the environmental impact of operations at the Pocatello facility. Groundwater and soil contamination from old ponds are being addressed under a CERCLA Record of Decision (ROD), issued on June 8, 1998. The United States is negotiating a separate Consent Decree with FMC and the owner of another nearby facility to perform the Remedial Action selected in the ROD. Particulate air emissions at this facility are being addressed in the proposed Federal Implementation Plan, issued pursuant to the Clean Air Act on February 12, 1999. Once finalized, there will be federally enforceable limits/control requirements applicable to the particulate emissions.
In order to receive approval for a CBC extension (or renewal of a CBC extension), the EPA must evaluate the extent to which the FMC/Astaris has addressed the following seven demonstrations, as specified in 40 CFR 268.5:
1. Made a good-faith effort to locate and contract with treatment, recovery, or disposal facilities nationwide to manage the waste streams (40 CFR 268.5(a)(1)).
2. Entered into a binding contractual commitment to construct or otherwise provide alternative capacity (40 CFR 268.5(a)(2)).
3. Showed that due to circumstances beyond the applicant's (FMC/Astaris) control, alternative capacity cannot reasonably be made available by the applicable effective date (40 CFR 268.5 (a)(3)).
4. Showed that the treatment capacity to be provided will be sufficient to manage the entire quantity of the five waste streams for which the CBC extension is requested (40 CFR 268.5(a)(4)).
5. Submitted a detailed schedule for obtaining required operating and construction permits or an outline of how and when alternative capacity will be available (40 CFR 268.5(a)(5)).
6. Showed that sufficient capacity has been arranged to manage the entire quantity of waste which is the subject of the application during the requested extension period, and document the location of all facilities at which the waste will be managed during the extension period (40 CFR 268.5(a)(6)).
7. Showed that any surface impoundment used to manage these five wastes during the extension period meets minimum technological requirements (40 CFR 268.5 (a)(7)).
On November 1, 2000, FMC/Astaris submitted a request to the EPA to renew the current CBC extension, that expires on May 26, 2001, for one additional year, until May 26, 2002. FMC/Astaris provided documentation demonstrating, as was the case when the EPA approved the initial CBC extension for these wastes in May 2000 (see 65 FR 34694, May 31, 2000), that there still is no available off-site commercial treatment capacity for these five waste streams. A more detailed discussion of this situation is provided in Section III.A of this notice. FMC/Astaris also provided documentation to show that, since approval of the initial CBC extension, steady and significant progress has been made toward completing the design, procuring equipment, and commencing
The Pocatello facility is located on, as well as adjacent to, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' lands, referred to as the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Elemental phosphorous has been produced at this location for the past 50 years. The Tribes are concerned about the cleanup of past environmental contamination resulting from these operations and the risks posed by the continued discharge of untreated hazardous wastes into on-site surface impoundments. The RCRA Consent Decree, initially filed in October 1998, was negotiated to promptly address FMC's past mishandling of hazardous wastes and to avoid future environmental contamination. On July 13, 1999, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho entered as final the RCRA Consent Decree (
The terms of this RCRA Consent Decree address many of the demonstrations required under 40 CFR part 268 to obtain a CBC extension (or renewal of a CBC extension) of the LDR effective date. However, the RCRA Consent Decree does not negate the need for CBC extensions to allow the continued discharge of the LDR subject wastes to on-site surface impoundments while the planned LDR Treatment Plant is being designed and constructed. A detailed discussion of this overlap was provided in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
Compliance with the terms of the RCRA Consent Decree, in essence, satisfies what needs to be documented for certain of the required demonstrations for a CBC extension, thus ensuring consistency of both the CBC extension and RCRA Consent Decree processes. As with the initial CBC extension, the requirements mandated under the RCRA Consent Decree will support the CBC extension renewal that the EPA is proposing to approve today and, used in conjunction, to further compel that operation of the LDR Treatment Plant begins by May 2002. Approval of a CBC extension renewal of the LDR effective date does not alter any terms of the RCRA Consent Decree and, in actuality, would only remain effective contingent upon compliance with the terms of the RCRA Consent Decree.
The Pocatello facility (EPA Identification Number: IDD070929518), located on as well as adjacent to Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' lands, referred to as the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, manufactures elemental phosphorous. Elemental phosphorous is produced by feeding a combination of phosphate ore, coke, and silica rock into electric arc furnaces. The elemental phosphorous is shipped to other facilities to produce phosphates and other phosphorous-based products, for use in numerous products, including processed foods, beverages, detergents, cleaners, agricultural chemicals, and water treatment chemicals.
This elemental production process generates large quantities of five waste streams that pose unique handling, treatment, and disposal considerations, given the presence of elemental phosphorous and cyanide, causing the wastes to exhibit the characteristic of reactivity for phosphine and hydrogen cyanide gas, and also to exhibit the characteristic of ignitability. A more detailed discussion of the characteristics and management of these wastes can be found in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The initial CBC extension was requested due to the lack of available treatment capacity for these five waste streams and the need for additional time to design, construct, and begin operation of an on-site LDR Treatment Plant that would treat these five wastes to meet applicable treatment standards. FMC/Astaris requests a one-year renewal of the current CBC extension (expires on May 26, 2001) of the effective date of the RCRA land disposal restrictions (LDR) applicable to these five waste streams. The five waste streams are and would continue to be managed in two on-site surface impoundments (Ponds 17 and 18) until the LDR Treatment Plant is operational, no later than, May 26, 2002. These two surface impoundments into which these wastes would be placed during the CBC extension renewal, if approved, were constructed to meet the RCRA minimum technological requirements of 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2) (which implements section 3005(j)(11) of the statute), including liners and groundwater monitoring, and
FMC/Astaris has provided documentation that updates and supplements the data that initially had been submitted to support the demonstrations required to obtain an initial CBC extension. FMC/Astaris has submitted an updated survey of available commercial treatment capacity. Significant additional design details of the planned LDR Treatment Plant and many purchase orders also have been provided—to further show their commitment to this project. These additional data are discussed in section III of this notice. As required under the current CBC extension, FMC/Astaris has submitted monthly progress reports to the EPA. In essence, these reports show that FMC/Astaris has made continued progress toward completing the design of the treatment plant, procuring equipment, and initiating construction of the infrastructure for the planned facility.
FMC/Astaris is in the process of designing and constructing a treatment unit, referred to as the LDR Treatment Plant, that will treat these five waste streams, using a modified Zimpro treatment process, to meet the applicable treatment standards. This treatment system will reduce the levels of elemental phosphorous and cyanide in the wastes such that the treated wastes do not exhibit the characteristic of reactivity for phosphine and hydrogen cyanide gas or the characteristic of ignitability. Underlying hazardous constituents, contained in the wastes, also must be maintained or fixed in a nonleachable form for stabilization treatment prior to disposal. The LDR Treatment Plant, employing this treatment technology, will process three primary waste streams:
1. Discharge from Tank V3800 (Phossy Water),
2. Discharge from Tank V3600 in the Furnace Building (Medusa Scrubber Blowdown, Furnace Building Washdown, and Precipitator Slurry), and
3. Solids reclaimed from Pond 18 (the RCRA Consent Decree requires that solids accumulated in Pond 18 be removed and treated within five years after the LDR Treatment System commences operation).
Once the LDR Treatment Plant is operational, the NOSAP system will no longer be necessary, thereby eliminating the NOSAP Slurry waste stream. Operating the LDR Treatment Plant also ultimately will eliminate the need for the continued use of the on-site surface impoundments.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes oppose the continued generation and disposal of these untreated wastes in the Pocatello on-site surface impoundments.
FMC/Astaris recently has informed the EPA that it now is considering a technology, referred to as a High Temperature Dust Filtration (HTDF) System, that would be incorporated into the elemental phosphorus production process. This system would be located directly after the electric arc furnaces and replace the existing phosphorus recovery system, which comprise a series of two electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and two condensers. Eliminating the existing phosphorus recovery system also would eliminate three of the five hazardous waste streams that are the subject of the CBC extension renewal. If employed, the HTDF system would eliminate the Precipitator Slurry, NOSAP Slurry, and Phossy Water waste streams. As such, the HTDF technology, by eliminating these three hazardous waste streams (it is claimed), would eliminate the need for a system to treat these wastes to meet the LDR standards. FMC/Astaris claims that the HTDF system would impact, but not necessarily eliminate the remaining two waste streams, i.e., Medusa Scrubber Blowdown, and Furnace Building Washdown, that likewise are the subject of the CBC extension renewal request. FMC/Astaris is continuing to evaluate their options for addressing these wastes and have stated their intent to submit information to EPA in late March 2001 regarding the planned management of these waste streams.
According to FMC/Astaris, advantages of the HTDF technology, a version of a baghouse, include:
• Captures a greater quantity of phosphorus than the current recovery system.
• Improves the quality of the phosphorus.
• Minimizes cyanide formation.
• Eliminates most water-borne waste streams and the ponds needed to manage these waste streams.
• Potentially reduces air emissions from the furnace off-gas.
As of today's publication of this notice of proposed decision, FMC/Astaris has not yet made a final decision whether to choose the HTDF technology and thus abandon the planned LDR Treatment Plant that already is being constructed. One issue, in particular, that FMC/Astaris is trying to resolve, with Tribal input, is how to address the Pond 18 accumulated solids that are currently mandated by a RCRA Consent Decree to be treated within five years of startup of the planned LDR Treatment Plant. The HTDF system described above would not treat already-generated wastes; it would prevent generation of new ones.
A decision by FMC/Astaris to pursue the HTDF technology, a process retrofit, rather than the LDR Treatment Plant technology, as originally proposed to address the five wastes subject to the LDRs and on which the current CBC extension is based, would not automatically cause the EPA to revoke the current CBC extension. However, FMC/Astaris is required to immediately notify EPA of any change in the demonstrations made in the application for the CBC extension (see 40 CFR 268.5(f)). As noted in the FR notice of final approval of the current CBC extension (May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)), this extension remains in effect unless the facility fails to make a good-faith effort to meet the schedule for completion, the Agency denies or revokes any required permit, conditions certified in the application change, or the facility violates any law or regulations implemented by EPA. The monthly progress report also must identify any delay or possible delay in developing this treatment capacity and describe the mitigating actions being taken in response to the event (40 CFR 268.5(g)). FMC/Astaris has alerted the EPA Region 10 that it is giving serious consideration to the HTDF technology as the means to eliminate three of the five hazardous waste streams now generated and thus serve as a replacement for the planned LDR Treatment Plant. Meanwhile, until FMC/Astaris reaches a final decision regarding implementation of the HTDF technology, construction of the LDR Treatment Plant is proceeding on schedule.
If FMC/Astaris decides to substitute the HTDF technology in place of the LDR Treatment Plant, and this fact is reflected in the RCRA Consent Decree, FMC/Astaris would need to submit an amended CBC extension renewal application to the EPA. However, EPA anticipates that certain of the demonstrations made in support of the November 1, 2000 application for renewal of the CBC extension, as discussed in section III of this notice, will remain unchanged. For any alternative technology, FMC/Astaris would need to place emphasis, in particular, on (1) their binding contractual commitment to design, install, and operate the technology, (2) the reason that this technology could
In any case, the current CBC extension of the LDR effective date for the five subject wastes will expire on May 26, 2001. And, regardless of whether FMC/Astaris decides to employ the HTDF technology or continue with the planned LDR Treatment Plant, only one additional extension of the LDR effective date, until May 26, 2002, remains available for these five waste streams. This is because, by the express terms of RCRA section 3004(h)(3), case-by-case extensions date from the waste prohibition date, and can extend that date no more than four years.
For the sake of clarity, the only mention of FMC is made when referring to actions and events regarding the Pocatello facility and the initial CBC extension that are solely attributable to FMC. For all other actions/events, for example, matters involving the renewal of the current CBC extension, the term FMC/Astaris is used to indicate joint involvement and responsibility. The following is a summary of each of the seven demonstrations required under 40 CFR 268.5(a) to obtain a CBC extension (and renewal of a CBC extension) and the EPA's evaluation of the adequacy of the demonstrations made by FMC/Astaris.
As discussed in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
For the initial CBC extension request, documentation was provided showing that a contract had been entered into with Raytheon Engineers and Constructors to design and construct the planned LDR Treatment Plant. In addition to this contract, other documentation, including corporate approval of funds and numerous purchase orders for equipment, supplies, and services, was provided to further support the demonstration of a binding contractual commitment to construct the LDR Treatment Plant. Please see the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
Since the EPA approved the initial CBC extension in May 2000, FMC/Astaris has provided additional documentation to further support their binding contractual commitment to providing the necessary treatment capacity. As noted earlier, Astaris has responsibility for the construction, operation, and maintenance aspects of the planned LDR Treatment Plant at the Pocatello facility. However, FMC Corporation retains responsibility for funding the capital costs and for implementing all RCRA Consent Decree projects, including the proposed LDR Treatment Plant. Under the RCRA Consent Decree, FMC is compelled to design and construct the proposed LDR Treatment System by May 2002. If FMC fails to meet the stipulations of this RCRA Consent Decree, it will be subject to significant monetary penalties. As such, FMC/Astaris has provided documentation of an Authorization for Expenditures, approved by FMC in June 2000, in the amount of $122.5 million. Copies of approximately 70 Purchase Orders to obtain equipment, supplies, services also have been provided.
The EPA concludes that FMC/Astaris has provided the necessary documentation to meet this demonstration of its binding contractual commitment to provide the on-site treatment capacity needed to treat the subject waste streams, generated at the
As previously discussed in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
In approving the current CBC extension, the EPA was convinced that FMC had acted in good faith to provide the necessary treatment capacity but that such capacity could not reasonably be made available by the LDR effective date. The EPA concluded that the lack of treatment capacity for these waste streams was due to circumstances beyond the control of FMC. These waste streams pose unique handling, safety, and treatment considerations, including the presence of elemental phosphorous and cyanide, and the potential for generation of phosphine and hydrogen cyanide gas. FMC demonstrated to the EPA's satisfaction that it had aggressively pursued the development of a technology capable of treating these waste streams to applicable treatment standards and was actively engaged in the design and construction of the treatment system to employ this technology to provide the necessary treatment capacity. However, it was not possible for FMC to construct the LDR Treatment Plant needed to provide the treatment capacity and to be operating by the May 26, 2000 expiration date of the national capacity variance.
The one-year initial CBC extension that was approved for these waste streams will expire on May 26, 2001. The monthly progress reports submitted by FMC/Astaris, since June 2000, continue to show that FMC/Astaris is proceeding ahead of and on schedule. The EPA concludes that FMC/Astaris is continuing to make a good-faith and reasonable effort in their attempt to provide treatment capacity but that such capacity cannot reasonably be made available by May 26, 2001, the current effective date of the land disposal restriction for these waste streams. The EPA further concludes the lack of treatment capacity for these waste streams is due to circumstances beyond the control of FMC/Astaris. As such, FMC/Astaris has adequately met the demonstration of section 268.5(a)(3).
The initial application for a CBC extension stated that the planned LDR Treatment Plant would have sufficient capacity to adequately treat the waste streams generated by the Pocatello facility. The documentation demonstrated that the treatment system would meet the LDR treatment standards, destroying elemental phosphorous and cyanide in the subject waste streams and removing the hazardous characteristics from these waste streams. Information regarding the process design flow and operating conditions of the proposed LDR Treatment Plant was also provided. This information showed that sufficient capacity would be provided to treat the full annual production of the five waste streams that are the subject of the requested CBC extension. Also, FMC/Astaris stated that the treatment capacity would likewise be sufficient to treat the accumulated solids in Pond 18, within five years of commencing operation of the LDR Treatment Plant, as is required by the RCRA Consent Decree. In response to questions raised by the EPA and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes regarding the design capacity of the LDR Treatment Plant, FMC/Astaris has reaffirmed their commitment to ensure that the Pocatello facility definitely will have sufficient capacity to manage the five waste streams that are the subject of this CBC extension renewal as well as the Pond 18 accumulated solids required to be treated under the RCRA Consent Decree (see the March 8, 2000 ( 65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
As previously discussed in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
FMC/Astaris has provided a detailed schedule of milestones and dates for designing, constructing, and bringing the LDR Treatment on-line by May 2002. The Table below shows some of the recent and remaining key milestones
We conclude, subject to evaluation of public comments, that FMC/Astaris has provided the necessary design, construction and permitting milestones for bringing the LDR Treatment Plant on-line. Given that FMC/Astaris has successfully met its milestones to this point, the EPA is further convinced of the likelihood that the proposed LDR Treatment Plant will be successfully constructed and brought on-line by May 2002.
The EPA notes that the one-year CBC extension renewal being proposed today is the final extension of the LDR effective date available for these five wastes. As such, after the May 26, 2002 expiration date of the proposed CBC extension renewal, these five wastes are prohibited from land disposal unless they are treated to applicable treatment standards.
FMC/Astaris will continue to manage the five waste streams in two on-site surface impoundments, referred to as Ponds 17 and 18. As previously discussed in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
The EPA tentatively concludes that FMC/Astaris has provided the documentation necessary to satisfy the demonstration under section 268.5(a)(6).
As previously described, the subject waste streams will continue to be managed in the on-site surface impoundments, i.e., Ponds 17 and 18, during the proposed CBC extension renewal until May 26, 2002. As previously discussed in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
In accordance with 40 CFR 268.5(e), the EPA consulted with the State of Idaho—Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to determine if the State had any permitting, enforcement, or other concerns regarding the Pocatello facility that the EPA should take into consideration in deciding to approve or deny the request for renewal of the current CBC extension of the LDR effective date. The State of Idaho has indicated its support for the approval of the CBC extension renewal requested by FMC/Astaris.
The majority of the Pocatello site, including most of the processing areas, is located on as well as adjacent to Shoshone-Bannock Tribes' lands, referred to as the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, on which is located the community of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes oppose the continued generation and disposal of these untreated wastes in the Pocatello on-site surface impoundments.
Consistent with the Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, the EPA has engaged in advance consultation with representatives of the Tribes on both the initial CBC extension and this proposed CBC extension renewal. The EPA has taken numerous steps to engage the Tribes on this matter, including the meeting on May 2, 2000 to formally consult with the Tribes, consisting of:
• Requested FMC/Astaris to make sure that the Tribes are provided the same information as is provided to the EPA in evaluating both the initial CBC extension request and the extension renewal request.
• Held staff level discussions to obtain feedback on both the initial CBC extension and CBC extension renewal.
• For both the initial CBC extension and CBC extension renewal, provided the Tribes with an advance copy of the draft
• Sent a letter offering to meet with Staff and/or the Fort Hall Business Council to discuss their comments on the draft
• Evaluated information submitted by the Tribes and, when appropriate, requested and reviewed additional information from FMC/Astaris.
• Subsequent to a meeting held on May 2, 2000, provided the Fort Hall Business Council with an additional opportunity to provide comments.
• Requested FMC/Astaris to make sure the Tribes were provided the monthly progress reports required as part of the approved CBC extension and that these reports be provided at the same time as when submitted to the EPA.
• Held a meeting on June 9, 2000, with representatives of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to discuss issues regarding the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, including the Agency's consultation process in general and specifically for the CBC Extension of the LDR for treating FMC/Astaris waste.
• Invited the Tribes to participate in a meeting, requested by FMC/Astaris held on August 1, 2000, to discuss the planned November 2000 submission by FMC/Astaris of a request to renew the current CBC extension.
• On September 1, 2000, the Tribes participated in a meeting with the EPA HQ and Region 10 staff to jointly develop a draft schedule by which the
• On October 31, 2000, the Tribes, along with the EPA HQ and Region 10 staff, participated in a meeting, requested by FMC/Astaris, to discuss the imminent submission and content of a request by FMC/Astaris that the EPA renew the current CBC extension.
• On December 12, 2000, a representative each for the Tribes, the EPA HQ, and the EPA Region 10, held a meeting to discuss concerns/issues regarding the information submitted by FMC/Astaris in their CBC extension renewal application of November 1, 2000. In followup to this meeting, a letter was sent to FMC/Astaris, requesting additional information and clarification of certain issues in their submittal.
The Tribes opposed granting the current CBC extension of the land disposal prohibition and pretreatment requirement, and remain opposed to any renewal of the current CBC extension, continuing to believe that these hazardous wastes must be treated prior to being land disposed. The United States continues to recognize and concurs that it does owe an important trust responsibility to the Tribes, on whose lands the Pocatello facility is located. Included in this responsibility is the duty of the United States to perform its obligations under RCRA and other statutes intended to protect the environment. We certainly recognize the Tribes's concerns regarding the continued placement of untreated hazardous wastes in on-site surface impoundments at the Pocatello facility. However, the EPA has closely evaluated FMC/Astaris efforts under section 3004 (h)(3) of the statute and the rules in 40 CFR 268.5 which implement that provision. The EPA is bound by the controlling law, and the ultimate and controlling issue in evaluating the FMC/Astaris application for renewal of the current CBC extension is whether FMC/Astaris has satisfied these statutory and regulatory conditions. The EPA finds that FMC/Astaris has met the rigorous requirements of those rules, and therefore, the mandatory renewal is triggered upon that finding.
As previously discussed in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
As previously noted, the EPA initially concludes that it is not yet feasible for FMC/Astaris to treat these wastes prior to placement in the on-site surface impoundments, constructed to meet the RCRA minimum technological requirements of 40 CFR 268.5(h)(2), and that there still is no available off-site commercial treatment capacity for these five waste streams. We continue to be convinced that the necessary treatment capacity and capability only will be available once the proposed LDR Treatment Plant is constructed and commences operation by May 2002. The EPA remains convinced that the Tribes's concerns about continued on-site disposal can most practically and judiciously be addressed by compelling FMC/Astaris to expeditiously proceed with the construction of the proposed treatment plant so as to have it operational at the earliest possible date. Based on progress made subsequent to the EPA's approval of the initial CBC extension for these five wastes, the EPA is satisfied that FMC/Astaris has made and is continuing to make a good-faith effort toward providing sufficient and appropriate treatment capacity for the five waste streams that are the subject of its request for a CBC extension renewal of the LDR effective date. The EPA also concludes that FMC/Astaris has made the necessary demonstrations to be granted a one-year renewal of the current CBC extension. Therefore, the EPA proposes to approve an extension of the applicable LDR effective date for these five waste streams: (1) NOSAP Slurry, (2) Medusa Scrubber Blowdown, (3) Furnace Building Washdown, (4) Precipitator Slurry, and (5) Phossy Water, generated at the Pocatello, Idaho facility, until May 26, 2002. If this proposed action is finalized, FMC/Astaris will be allowed to manage these five waste streams in on-site surface impoundments (Ponds 17 and 18), until May 26, 2002, without being subject to the land disposal restrictions applicable to these wastes. At that time, the proposed LDR Treatment Plant will have been constructed and will be in operation. No further extension of the LDR effective date is allowed. This extension renewal, if approved, would remain in effect unless the facility fails to make a good-faith effort to meet the schedule for completion, the Agency denies or revokes any required permit, conditions certified in the application change, or the facility violates any law or regulations implemented by the EPA. The EPA will maintain close oversight of the scheduled progress being made by FMC/Astaris towards bringing the LDR Treatment Plant into operation. Consistent with the current CBC extension, the EPA proposes that FMC/Astaris continue to submit a monthly progress report by the 26th day of each month, until June 26, 2002. FMC/Astaris continue to be bound by the terms of the RCRA Consent Decree to have this treatment plant operational by May 2002. If FMC/Astaris should fail to adhere to this schedule, such that compliance with the requirements of the Consent Decree is jeopardized, the EPA has the authority to terminate the current CBC extension, or proposed renewal of this extension of the LDR effective date.
We welcome your comments on the factual issues associated with each of the seven demonstrations made by FMC/Astaris to support the requested renewal of the current CBC extension and the EPA's evaluation of these demonstrations. In addition, we would like your comments on the appropriateness of the proposed one-year extension renewal of the LDR effective date for the five subject waste streams generated at the Pocatello facility. We are not requesting comments on the RCRA Consent Decree or regarding other ongoing or planned regulatory/enforcement activities at the Pocatello facility.
Your comments will be most effective if you follow the suggestions below:
• Explain your views as clearly as possible and why you feel that way.
• Tell us which parts you support, as well as those you disagree with.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
• Offer specific alternatives.
• Refer your comments to specific sections of the notice, such as the units or page numbers.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
• Be sure to include the name, date, and docket number with your comments.
After reviewing comments received, we will issue a final notice of determination to either approve or deny the FMC/Astaris request for a one-year CBC extension renewal of the LDR effective date. We plan to publish a final notice regarding the Agency's decision on this request for a one-year CBC extension renewal, prior to the May 26, 2001, expiration date of the current CBC extension for the subject waste streams. The extension renewal, if approved, would remain in effect until its expiration on May 26, 2002, unless the facility fails to make a good-faith effort to meet the schedule for completion, the Agency denies or revokes any required permit, conditions certified in the application change, the requirements of the RCRA Consent Decree are not met, or the facility violates any law or regulations implemented by the EPA.
As discussed in the March 8, 2000 (65 FR 12233) and May 31, 2000 (65 FR 34694)
Today, the EPA is proposing to approve the FMC/Astaris request for a one-year renewal of the current CBC extension of the effective date of the RCRA land disposal restrictions, for a facility located on Tribal Lands. This action, if approval is finalized, will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments by permitting this facility to continue to treat, store, or dispose of five waste streams as currently managed in on-site surface impoundments until May 26, 2002. This action will not impose any direct compliance costs on the communities.
This notice also does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of this Executive Order likewise do not apply to this action.
On November 6, 2000, the President issued Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249) entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 took effect on January 6, 2001, and revokes Executive Order 13084 as of that date. Under section 5(b) of Executive Order 13175, the EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute that has tribal implications, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or if the EPA consults with those governments. Under section 5(c) of Executive Order 13175, the EPA may not promulgate any regulation that has tribal implications and that preempts tribal law unless it consults with Tribes. If the EPA complies by consulting under sections 5(b) and 5(c) of Executive Order 13175 requires the EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of the EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, section 5(a) Executive Order 13175 requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.
Today's decision will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on such communities or preempt tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements under sections 5(b) and 5(c) of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this action.
However, this decision does have Tribal implications according to section 1(a) of Executive Order 13175, defined as substantial direct effects on (1) one or more federally-recognized Indian Tribes; (2) the relationship between the federal government and Tribes; or (3) the distribution of power and responsibility between the federal government and Tribes. The decision permits the facility to continue to treat, store, or dispose of five waste streams as currently managed in on-site surface impoundments until May 26, 2002. These impoundments are located on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
Because this decision has Tribal implications, several principles and policies of section 2 and 3 of Executive Order 13175 are triggered. In particular, the decision must respect, honor, and adhere to the unique government-to-government relationship between the federal and the Tribes, the Tribes' status as domestic dependent nation, and the federal government's trust responsibility to federally-recognized Indian Tribes.
The EPA believes it has honored the government to government relationship through the consultation processes elaborated upon in section IV, in particular through numerous meetings and calls with Tribal government officials from May to December 2000 concerning the CBC extension, such as the visits by Elizabeth Cotsworth, and the meeting with Tim Fields. The Agency will continue to consult with the Tribe in this process, as well as all other efforts to address environmental contamination affecting the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.
In addition, the Agency has closely evaluated the CBC extension in light of its trust responsibility to Tribes. We acknowledge the Tribes' concerns regarding the continued placement of untreated hazardous wastes in on-site surface impoundments at the Pocatello facility. However, the EPA has closely evaluated FMC/Astaris' efforts under section 3004 (h)(3) of the statute and the rules in 40 CFR 268.5 which implement that provision, and find it is acting in good faith. While the EPA is bound by the controlling law if FMC/Astaris meets the rigorous requirements of these rules—i.e. upon such a finding the extension is granted mandatorily—the EPA also believes that this decision is best to ensure the most effective mitigation of the environmental contamination for the long term benefit of the Tribes, consistent with the federal government's trust responsibility.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires the EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or the EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This notice does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule, the EPA did consult with the State of Idaho in developing this notice, as discussed in section IV of this notice.
Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001, and 3004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public meeting.
In the
The meeting will be held by conference call on Tuesday, March 20, 2001, from noon to 3 p.m. eastern standard time.
Members of the public may listen to the meeting discussions on site at: Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202; conference room 1123. Seating is limited and will be available on a first come, first serve basis.
By mail: Cameo Smoot, Field and External Affairs Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (703) 305-5454. Office location: 11th floor, Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA; e-mail: smoot.cameo@epa.gov.
Environmental protection, Pesticides, Inerts, PPDC.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Withdrawal of notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is withdrawing a notice of January 17, 2001 (66 FR 4021) describing draft plans for providing additional access to information about the potential off-site consequences of accidental chemical releases from industrial facilities. As part of the Administration's review of recent federal agency actions, we are evaluating the draft plans. When we have completed our review, we will make our plans for providing additional access available for public review.
Dorothy McManus, Program Analyst, (202) 564-8606, or Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical Engineer, (202) 564-7913, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, Environmental Protection Agency (5104), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Off-site consequence analysis (OCA) information is submitted to EPA by facilities subject to the Chemical Accident Prevention Regulations at 40 CFR part 68. Under the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (CSISSFRRA) of 1999, EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) last year promulgated a rule making OCA information available to the public in specified ways (see 40 CFR part 1400). CSISSFRRA calls on EPA, in consultation with DOJ, to supplement the access provided by the rule. We are now in the process of reviewing the draft plans. When we have completed our review, we will make our plans for providing additional access available for public review.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document seeks comment on reserve prices or minimum opening bids and other auction procedural issues.
Comments are due on or before March 19, 2001, and reply comments are due on or before March 26, 2001.
An original and four copies of all pleadings must be filed with the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-A325, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
Erik Salovaara, Auctions Attorney, or Jeff Crooks, Auctions Analyst, at (202) 418-0660; or Lisa Stover, Project Manager, at (717) 338-2888.
This is a summary of a Public Notice released March 7, 2001. The complete text of the Public Notice is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. It may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Serviced, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 837-3800. It is also available on the Commission's web site at
1. By the Public Notice, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“Bureau”) announces the auction of 14,000 licenses in the lower paging bands (35-36 MHz, 43-44 MHz, 152-159 MHz, and 454-460 MHz) (“Auction No. 40”) to commence on June 26, 2001. In addition, Auction No. 40 will include 1,514 licenses in the upper paging bands (929-931 MHz), that remained unsold in the first paging auction (“Auction No. 26”), which closed on March 2, 2000.
2. In the
3. The following tables contain the Block/Frequency Cross-Reference List for the paging bands:
(For Auction No. 40, licenses are not available in every block listed in the above 929-931 MHz Upper Bands Paging Channels table in every market as the Commission sold 985 upper bands licenses in Auction No. 26. See Attachment A of the Public Notice to determine what licenses will be offered for sale in Auction No. 40.)
4. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Commission to “ensure that, in the scheduling of any competitive bidding under this subsection, an adequate period is allowed * * * before issuance of bidding rules, to permit notice and comment on proposed auction procedures. * * *” Consistent with the provisions of the Balanced Budget Act and to ensure that potential bidders have adequate time to familiarize themselves with the specific rules that will govern the day-to-day conduct of an auction, the Commission directed the Bureau, under its existing delegated authority, to seek comment on a variety of auction-specific procedures prior to the start of each auction. We therefore seek comment on the following issues relating to Auction No. 40.
5. We propose to award the licenses in a single, simultaneous multiple-round auction. As described further, this methodology offers every license for bid at the same time with successive bidding rounds in which bidders may place bids. We seek comment on this proposal.
6. The Bureau has delegated authority and discretion to determine an appropriate upfront payment for each license being auctioned, taking into account such factors as the population in each geographic license area, and the value of similar spectrum. As described further, the upfront payment is a refundable deposit made by each bidder to establish eligibility to bid on licenses. For Auction No. 40, we propose to make the upfront payments equal to the minimum opening bids, which are established based on similar factors as described in section II.B. The specific upfront payments for each license are set forth in Attachment A of the Public Notice. We seek comment on this proposal.
7. We further propose that the amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder will determine the number of bidding units on which a bidder may place bids—this limit is a bidder's “maximum initial eligibility.” Each license is assigned a specific number of bidding units equal to the upfront payment listed in Attachment A of the Public Notice, on a bidding unit per dollar basis. This number does not change as prices rise during the auction. A bidder's upfront payment is not attributed to specific licenses. Rather, a bidder may place bids on any combination of licenses as long as the total number of bidding units associated with those licenses does not exceed its maximum initial eligibility. Eligibility cannot be increased during the auction. Thus, in calculating its upfront payment amount, an applicant must determine the
8. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively on a percentage of their
9. We propose to divide the auction into three stages, each characterized by an increased activity requirement. The auction will start in Stage One. We propose that the auction will generally advance to the next stage (
Stage One: In each round of the first stage of the auction, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on licenses representing at least 80 percent of its current bidding eligibility. Failure to maintain the requisite activity level will result in a reduction in the bidder's bidding eligibility in the next round of bidding (unless an activity rule waiver is used). During Stage One, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the current round activity by five-fourths (5/4).
Stage Two: In each round of the second stage, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 90 percent of its current bidding eligibility. During Stage Two, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the current round activity by ten-ninths (10/9).
Stage Three: In each round of the third stage, a bidder desiring to maintain its current eligibility is required to be active on 98 percent of its current bidding eligibility. In this final stage, reduced eligibility for the next round will be calculated by multiplying the current round activity by fifty/forty-ninths (50/49). We seek comment on these proposals.
10. Use of an activity rule waiver preserves the bidder's current bidding eligibility despite the bidder's activity in the current round being below the required minimum level. An activity rule waiver applies to an entire round of bidding and not to a particular license. Activity waivers are principally a mechanism for auction participants to avoid the loss of auction eligibility in the event that exigent circumstances prevent them from placing a bid in a particular round.
11. The FCC auction system assumes that bidders with insufficient activity would prefer to use an activity rule waiver (if available) rather than lose bidding eligibility. Therefore, the system will automatically apply a waiver (known as an “automatic waiver”) at the end of any bidding period where a bidder's activity level is below the minimum required unless: (i) there are no activity rule waivers available; or (ii) the bidder overrides the automatic application of a waiver by reducing eligibility, thereby meeting the minimum requirements.
12. A bidder with insufficient activity may wish to reduce its bidding eligibility rather than use an activity rule waiver. If so, the bidder must affirmatively override the automatic waiver mechanism during the bidding period by using the reduce eligibility function in the bidding software. In this case, the bidder's eligibility is permanently reduced to bring the bidder into compliance with the activity rules as described. Once eligibility has been reduced, a bidder will not be permitted to regain its lost bidding eligibility.
13. A bidder may proactively use an activity rule waiver as a means to keep the auction open without placing a bid. If a bidder submits a proactive waiver (using the proactive waiver function in the bidding software) during a bidding period in which no bids are submitted, the auction will remain open and the bidder's eligibility will be preserved. An automatic waiver invoked in a round in which there are no new valid bids will not keep the auction open.
14. We propose that each bidder in Auction No. 40 be provided with five activity rule waivers that may be used at the bidder's discretion during the course of the auction. We seek comment on this proposal.
15. For Auction No. 40, we propose that, by public notice or by announcement during the auction, the Bureau may delay, suspend, or cancel the auction in the event of natural disaster, technical obstacle, evidence of an auction security breach, unlawful bidding activity, administrative or weather necessity, or for any other reason that affects the fair and competitive conduct of bidding. In such cases, the Bureau, in its sole discretion, may elect to resume the auction starting from the beginning of the current round, resume the auction starting from some previous round, or cancel the auction in its entirety. Network interruption may cause the Bureau to delay or suspend the auction. We emphasize that exercise of this authority is solely within the discretion of the Bureau, and its use is not intended to be a substitute for situations in which bidders may wish to apply their activity rule waivers. We seek comment on this proposal.
16. In the
17. The Commission will use its Automated Auction System to conduct the electronic simultaneous multiple round auction for Auction No. 40. In contrast to prior auctions, Auction No. 40 will be conducted over the Internet. However, the Bureau's wide area network will be available at the standard charge, as in prior auctions. Prospective bidders concerned about
18. In past auctions, we have used the timing of bids to select a high bidder when multiple bidders submit identical high bids on a license in a given round. Given that bidders will access the Internet at differing speeds, we will not use this procedure in Auction No. 40. For Auction No. 40, we propose to use a National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) tested pseudo-random generator to select a high bidder at random from among such bidders. As with prior auctions, remaining bidders will be able to submit higher bids in subsequent rounds.
19. The Bureau has discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The Bureau may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds and review periods, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon the bidding activity level and other factors. We seek comment on this proposal.
20. The Balanced Budget Act calls upon the Commission to prescribe methods for establishing a reasonable reserve price or a minimum opening bid when FCC licenses are subject to auction, unless the Commission determines that a reserve price or minimum bid is not in the public interest. Consistent with this mandate, the Commission has directed the Bureau to seek comment on the use of a minimum opening bid and/or reserve price prior to the start of each auction.
21. Normally, a reserve price is an absolute minimum price below which an item will not be sold in a given auction. Reserve prices can be either published or unpublished. A minimum opening bid, on the other hand, is the minimum bid price set at the beginning of the auction below which no bids are accepted. It generally is used to accelerate the competitive bidding process. Also, the auctioneer often has the discretion to lower the minimum opening bid amount later in the auction.
22. In light of the Balanced Budget Act's requirements, the Bureau proposes to establish minimum opening bids for Auction No. 40. The Bureau believes a minimum opening bid, which has been utilized in other auctions, is an effective auction tool.
23. Because multiple licenses in the same geographic area are being auctioned at the same time, under the same general conditions, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to use a common baseline to establish the minimum opening bid formula for all the licenses in the auction. The gross high bids from the prior 929-931 MHz Paging Auction (Auction No. 26) provide the most comprehensive paging baseline. Therefore, we propose to base the minimum opening bid for each license available in Auction No. 40 on the average of the corresponding gross high bids received in Auction No. 26, as follows:
• For a license being auctioned by MEA, the minimum opening bid will be 20% of the average gross high bid received in Auction No. 26 in the same MEA.
• For a license being auctioned by EA, the minimum opening bid will be the EA population multiplied by 20% of the gross average dollars per population received in Auction No. 26 for the corresponding MEA.
24. The Commission will set a “floor” for minimum opening bids at $1000 for licenses in the upper paging bands (929-931 MHz) and $500 for the licenses in the lower paging bands (35-36 MHz, 43-44 MHz, 152-159 MHz, and 454-460 MHz).
25. This formula is intended to apply to all geographic paging licenses in Auction No. 40, and takes into account the considerations discussed. The specific proposed minimum opening bid for each license is set forth in Attachment A of the Public Notice. We seek comment on this proposal.
26. If commenters believe that these minimum opening bids will result in substantial numbers of unsold licenses, or are not reasonable amounts, or should instead operate as reserve prices, they should explain why this is so, and comment on the desirability of an alternative approach. Commenters are advised to support their claims with valuation analyses and suggested reserve prices or minimum opening bid levels or formulas. In establishing the minimum opening bids, we particularly seek comment on such factors as the amount of spectrum being auctioned, levels of incumbency, the availability of technology to provide service, the size of the geographic service areas, issues of interference with other spectrum bands and any other relevant factors that could reasonably have an impact on valuation of the paging bands. Alternatively, comment is sought on whether, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act, the public interest would be served by having no minimum opening bid or reserve price.
27. In each round, eligible bidders will be able to place acceptable bids on a given license in any of ten different amounts. The Automated Auction System interface will list as acceptable bids for each license a minimum acceptable bid and nine higher bids equal to the minimum acceptable bid plus one to nine times a defined increment. Until a bid has been placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to its minimum opening bid. In the rounds after an acceptable bid is placed on a license, the minimum acceptable bid for that license will be equal to the standing high bid plus the defined increment.
28. For Auction No. 40, we propose to set the defined increment for each license based on a percentage of the standing high bid on the license or, if no bid has been placed on the license, a percentage of the minimum opening bid for the license. The defined increment will be calculated as follows. Presuming, for example, that the percentage being used is 20 percent, we will multiply the standing high bid (or, if no standing high bid exists for the particular license, the minimum opening bid) by 1.2. (If the percentage being used is 30 percent, we would multiply by 1.3, etc.) We will round the result to the nearest $100 for results below $10,000 and to the nearest $1,000 for amounts above $10,000. The defined increment then will be determined by subtracting the standing high bid (or, if applicable, the minimum opening bid) from the rounded result. At the start of the auction, we propose to use 20 percent to calculate the defined increment. We also propose to retain discretion to change the percentage used to calculate the defined increment. Further, we propose to retain discretion to set a floor for the increment used to calculate the minimum acceptable bid at an absolute dollar amount.
29. In addition, we propose that in Stage Three the Bureau have discretion to use a smaller defined increment to
30. For example, the Bureau could calculate Stage Three bids using 20 percent to calculate the defined increment for the minimum acceptable bid and 10 percent to calculate the smaller defined increment. Assuming that the standing high bid on a given license is $50,000, in the next round of Stage Three,
31. In summary, we propose the Bureau have discretion at any time during the auction to change the initial 20 percent used to calculate the defined increment and/or to set an absolute dollar amount floor for the increment used to calculate the minimum acceptable bid. We also propose that the Bureau have additional discretion in Stage Three to calculate the minimum acceptable bid using one percentage and to calculate higher acceptable bids using another percentage. Advanced notice of the Bureau's decision to exercise its discretion with regard to acceptable bids in any manner would be announced via the Automated Auction System. We seek comment on these proposals.
32. For Auction No. 40, we propose the following bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures. Before the close of a bidding period, a bidder has the option of removing any bid placed in that round. By using the remove bid function in the bidding software, a bidder may effectively “unsubmit” any bid placed within that round. A bidder removing a bid placed in the same round is not subject to a withdrawal payment.
33. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. However, in any subsequent round, a high bidder may withdraw its standing high bids from previous rounds using the withdraw bid function in the bidding software. A high bidder that withdraws its standing high bid from a previous round is subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions of the Commission rules. We seek comment on these bid removal and bid withdrawal procedures.
34. In the
35. Applying this reasoning, we propose to limit each bidder in Auction No. 40 to withdrawing standing high bids in no more than two rounds during the course of the auction. To permit a bidder to withdraw bids in more than two rounds would likely encourage insincere bidding or the use of withdrawals for anti-competitive purposes. The two rounds in which withdrawals are utilized will be at the bidder's discretion; withdrawals otherwise must be in accordance with the Commission's rules. There is no limit on the number of standing high bids that may be withdrawn in either of the rounds in which withdrawals are utilized. Withdrawals will remain subject to the bid withdrawal payment provisions specified in the Commission's rules. We seek comment on this proposal.
36. For Auction No. 40, the Bureau proposes to employ a simultaneous stopping rule approach. The Bureau has discretion to establish stopping rules before or during multiple round auctions in order to terminate the auction within a reasonable time. A simultaneous stopping rule means that all licenses remain open until the first round in which no new acceptable bids or proactive waivers are received. After the first such round, bidding closes simultaneously on all licenses. Thus, unless circumstances dictate otherwise, bidding would remain open on all licenses until bidding stops on every license.
37. However, the Bureau proposes to retain the discretion to exercise any of the following options during Auction No. 40:
(i) Utilize a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule. The modified stopping rule would close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder submits a proactive waiver or a new bid on any license on which it is not the standing high bidder. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a license for which it is the standing high bidder would not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule. The Bureau further seeks comment on whether this modified stopping rule should be used at any
(ii) Keep the auction open even if no new acceptable bids or proactive waivers are submitted. In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had submitted a proactive waiver. The activity rule, therefore, will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use a remaining activity rule waiver.
(iii) Declare that the auction will end after a specified number of additional rounds (“special stopping rule”). If the Bureau invokes this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the specified final round(s) only for licenses on which the high bid increased in at least one of the preceding specified number of rounds.
38. The Bureau proposes to exercise these options only in certain circumstances, such as, for example, where the auction is proceeding very slowly, there is minimal overall bidding activity, or it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time. Before exercising these options, the Bureau is likely to attempt to increase the pace of the auction by, for example, increasing the number of bidding rounds per day, and/or increasing the amount of the minimum bid increments for the limited number of licenses where there is still a high level of bidding activity. We seek comment on these proposals.
39. Comments are due on or before March 19, 2001, and reply comments are due on or before March 26, 2001. An original and four copies of all pleadings must be filed with the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-A325, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington DC 20554, in accordance with § 1.51(c) of the Commission's rules. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be delivered to each of the following locations: (i) The Commission's duplicating contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), 1231 20th Street NW., Washington DC 20036; (ii) Office of Media Relations, Public Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington DC 20554; (iii) Rana Shuler, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Room 4-A628, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Public Reference Room, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW.., Washington DC 20554.
40. This proceeding is a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by April 2, 2001. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions have expired.
Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. (CC Docket No. 97-21).
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 10:01 a.m. on Tuesday, March 13, 2001, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters relating to the Corporation's personnel, corporate, supervisory and resolution activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Ellen S. Seidman (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), seconded by Director John M. Reich, concurred in by Ms. Julie L. Williams, acting in the place and stead of Director John D. Hawke, Jr. (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Donna Tanoue, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no notice earlier than March 8, 2001, of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), and (c)(9)(B)).
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, 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 information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), this notice seeks comments concerning a voluntary customer satisfaction survey of individuals, Federal, State, and Local officials who receive products and services from the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP).
In order to carry out the principle of performance-based management mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), CSEPP will measure and benchmark five national performance indicators as stated in the program's strategic plan. Data collected from this survey will be used to set performance goals and establish a quantitative baseline to monitor program effectiveness and customer satisfaction.
Interested persons should submit written comments to Muriel Anderson, Chief, Records Management Branch, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Room 316, Washington, DC 20472.
Sylvia U. Correa, Surveys Manager, Federal Emergency Management Agency, (202) 646-4247 or email sylvia.correa@fema.gov. For copies of the proposed collection of information, contact Muriel Anderson at (202) 646-2625 or by facsimile number (202) 646-3524 or by email muriel.anderson@fema.gov.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 9, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 12, 2001.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2001 funds for a cooperative agreement program for the Resident Postdoctoral Research Associates Program in Microbiology. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area of Immunization and Infectious Diseases. For additional information on “Healthy People 2010” visit the internet site
The purpose of the program is to assist in a Resident Postdoctoral Research Associates Program in Microbiology. The program will continue to emphasize microbiology related to infectious disease prevention and control, with a particular emphasis given to studies at the molecular level.
Areas of investigation may include viral and rickettsial infections, nosocomial infections, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, vector-borne infectious diseases, respiratory and food-borne bacterial diseases, sexually transmitted diseases, parasitic diseases, and other diseases or conditions relevant to the disciplines of bacteriology, virology, parasitology, medical entomology, mycology, immunology, and pathology. The recipient shall provide support for postdoctoral scientists of unusual ability and promise or proven achievement by giving them an opportunity to conduct applied and operational research on significant public health problems identified with these research interests. Associateships should be for two-year periods.
Assistance will be provided only to public or private nonprofit scientific organizations. Eligible applicants must be national in scope, devoted to scientific pursuits in all areas of microbiology that relate to infectious diseases, including general, clinical, medical, environmental, animal, virology, molecular microbiology, immunology and medical technology. Applicants should have experience in administering postdoctoral training programs in medical microbiology and public health microbiology which are designed to assist associates conducting microbiologic research to solve medical and public health problems.
Public Law 104-65 states that an organization, described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, cooperative agreement, contract, loan, or any other form.
Approximately $950,000 is available in FY 2001 to fund one award. It is expected that the award will begin on or about September 30, 2001, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to five years. The funding estimate may change.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. (Recipient Activities), and CDC will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. (CDC Activities).
a. Develop and conduct a Resident Postdoctoral Research Associates Program in Microbiology to support development of new approaches, methodologies, and knowledge in infectious disease prevention and control.
b. Identify specific research opportunities from descriptions provided by CDC.
c. Establish program policies/procedures for application and selection (e.g., establish applicant eligibility criteria).
d. Develop announcements/advertisements and an application package describing the program, listing research opportunities, and providing application instructions. Widely distribute the announcements and application package with the objective of soliciting applications from qualified individuals throughout the United States. Contribute to the racial and gender diversity of the program by assuring a wide distribution of the materials among eligible women and minority microbiologists.
e. Develop a competitive associate application review and approval process. Based on the review process, select applicants to be awarded a two-year associateships.
f. Provide administrative support to associates during their tenure, including the payment of a stipend (consistent with PHS levels identified by CDC Policy), enrollment in a health insurance plan, and reimbursement of expenses for professional travel. Administer the program such that associates will not be employees of either recipient organization or CDC.
g. Establish associate publication/presentation policies which encourage the dissemination of associate research results.
h. Develop a plan for monitoring and evaluating the progress of associates and progress toward achieving goals of the program.
a. Provide assistance in developing and conducting the Resident Postdoctoral Research Associates Program in Microbiology.
b. Provide descriptions of microbiological research and areas of investigation that are appropriate for potential associates.
c. Provide a list of potential CDC scientific advisers for associates.
d. Assist in review of potential research proposals and provide comments and/or suggested changes in the scope or method of the research.
e. Review publications and presentations resulting from research investigations conducted under the program.
f. Assist in the development of a plan for monitoring progress of the program and achieving program goals.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0937-0189). Forms are available at the following Internet address: www.cdc.gov/...Forms, or in the application kit. On or before June 1, 2001, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
Deadline: Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date and received in time for submission to the independent review group. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing).
Late Applications: Applications which do not meet the criteria in (a) or (b) above are considered late applications, will not be considered, and will be returned to the applicant.
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
1. Background (10 points):
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of the background and objectives of this cooperative agreement program.
2. Capacity (55 points total):
a. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the organization has a significant history of promoting the science of microbiology as it relates to infectious diseases. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates it has the science of microbiology by conducting regular national meetings and workshops devoted to current topics. (10 points)
b. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates experience in microbiology education and training. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates experience in conducting postdoctoral programs similar to that proposed in this cooperative agreement announcement. (30 points)
c. The extent to which the applicant demonstrates it has adequate resources and facilities (e.g., administrative and financial management operations, office functions, etc). to conduct the proposed program. (5 points)
d. The extent to which applicant documents (e.g., by curriculum vitae), that all key personnel have adequate relevant experience to successfully develop and conduct the proposed program. (10 points)
3. Operational Plan (35 points total):
a. Extent to which applicant presents a detailed and time-phased operational plan for developing and conducting the program. The extent to which the plan clearly and appropriately addresses all Recipient Activities. The extent to which the applicant clearly identifies specific assigned responsibilities of all key professional personnel. The extent to which the applicant's plan appears feasible and likely to achieve program objectives. (15 points)
b. The extent to which the applicant clearly describes collaboration with CDC that utilizes CDC's unique expertise in public health infectious disease microbiology. (15 points)
c. The extent to which the applicant describes in detail a plan for evaluating progress of individual associates and for evaluating progress toward achieving overall program objectives. (5 points)
4. Budget: (No Score)
The extent to which the proposed budget is reasonable, clearly justifiable, and consistent with the intended use of cooperative agreement funds.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of
1. progress reports (annual);
2. financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the application kit.
This program is authorized under section 301 and 317(k) of the Public Health Service Act, (42 U.S.C. 241 and 247b(k)), as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
This and other CDC announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address—
To receive additional written information and to request an application kit, call 1-888-GRANTS4 (1-888 472-6874). You will be asked to leave your name and address and will be instructed to identify the Announcement number of interest. If you have questions after reviewing the contents of all the documents, business management technical assistance may be obtained from: Merlin Williams, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Room 3000, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone number (770) 488-2765, Email address: mqw6@cdc.gov.
For program technical assistance, contact: Janet Nicholson, Ph.D., National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone number: (404) 639-3945, Email address: jkn1@cdc.gov.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
Authority for these committees will expire on the date indicated below unless the Commissioner formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.
Donna M. Combs, Committee Management Office (HFA-306), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-5496.
Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
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.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA).
Notice of modified or altered system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, we are proposing to modify or alter a system of records, “Record of Individuals Authorized Entry to HCFA Buildings Via A Card Key Access System (RICKS), HHS/HCFA/OBA, System No. 09-70-3001.” We are also proposing to delete previously published routine use number 1 pertaining to the Federal Protective Services, number 2 pertaining to management officials inquiring about an individual's arrival time, number 3 pertaining to contractors and other Federal agencies, number 6 pertaining to a contractor, and an unnumbered routine use which authorized disclosure to the Social Security Administration (SSA). Disclosures allowed by routine uses number 1, 3 pertaining to “Federal agencies,” and to the SSA will be covered by proposed routine use number 2 to permit release of information to “another Federal agency.” Routine use number 2 is being deleted because it is not clear what “management officials” are being identified and who should receive information referred to in routine use number 2. Disclosures to a “management official inquiring about an individual's arrival time” are covered by exception 1 of the Privacy Act and should not be treated as a routine use. Disclosures previously allowed by routine uses number 3 pertaining to contractors and number 6 will now be
The primary purpose of the system of records is to issue and control United States Government card keys to all HCFA employees and other authorized individuals who require access into certain designated or secured areas. Information retrieved from this system of records will be used to: support regulatory and policy functions performed within the agency or by a contractor or consultant, assist other Federal agencies to conduct activities related to this system, support constituent requests made to a congressional representative, and support litigation involving the agency. We have provided background information about the modified system in the
HCFA filed a modified or altered system report with the Chair of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the Chair of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on March 12, 2001. To ensure that all parties have adequate time in which to comment, the modified or altered system of records, including routine uses, will become effective 40 days from the publication of the notice, or from the date it was submitted to OMB and the Congress, whichever is later, unless HCFA receives comments that require alterations to this notice.
The public should address comments to: Director, Division of Data Liaison and Distribution, HCFA, Room N2-04-27, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. Comments received will be available for review at this location, by appointment, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m.-3 p.m., eastern time zone.
Marcia Levin, Division of Facilities Management Services, Administrative Services Group, HCFA, SLL-11-18, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850. The telephone number is 410-786-7840.
In 1981, HCFA established a system of records under the authority of Title 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 101-20.302, “Conduct on Federal Property,” Title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 552a(e)(10), and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, “Internal Control Systems.” Notice of this system, “Record of Individuals Authorized Entry to HCFA Buildings via A Card Key Access System, HHS/HCFA/OBA, System No. 09-70-3001” was published in the
The system contains names of Federal employees, contractors and consultants, Government Services Administration (GSA) employees, and contract guards working in the central office complex in Baltimore, assigned card key number, and the building/secure area location. The system also contains the date and time of actual or attempted entry to secured areas.
The Privacy Act permits us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such disclosure of data is known as a “routine use.” The government will only release RICKS information as provided for under “Section III. Entities Who May Receive Disclosures Under Routine Use.”
We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of RICKS. HCFA has the following policies and procedures concerning disclosures of information which will be maintained in the system. In general, disclosure of information from the system of records will be approved only for the minimum information necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure only after HCFA:
(a) Determines that the use or disclosure is consistent with the reason that the data is being collected, e.g., to issue and control United States Government card keys to all HCFA employees and other authorized individuals.
(b) Determines:
(1) That the purpose for which the disclosure is to be made can only be accomplished if the record is provided in individually identifiable form;
(2) That the purpose for which the disclosure is to be made is of sufficient importance to warrant the effect and/or risk on the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring; and
(3) That there is a strong probability that the proposed use of the data would in fact accomplish the stated purpose(s).
(c) Requires the information recipient to:
(1) Establish administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use of disclosure of the record;
(2) Remove or destroy at the earliest time all individually-identifiable information; and
(3) Agree to not use or disclose the information for any purpose other than the stated purpose under which the information was disclosed.
(d) Determines that the data are valid and reliable.
These routine uses specify circumstances, in addition to those provided by statute in the Privacy Act of 1974, under which HCFA may release information from the RICKS without the consent of the individual to whom such information pertains. Each proposed disclosure of information under these routine uses will be evaluated to ensure that the disclosure is legally permissible, including but not limited to ensuring that the purpose of the disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the information was collected. We are proposing to establish
1. To agency contractors, or consultants who have been engaged by the agency to assist in accomplishment of a HCFA function relating to the purposes for this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to assist HCFA.
We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which HCFA may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with a third party to assist in accomplishing a HCFA function relating to purposes for this system of records.
HCFA occasionally contracts out certain of its functions when doing so would contribute to effective and efficient operations. HCFA must be able to give a contractor or consultant whatever information is necessary for the contractor or consultant to fulfill its duties. In these situations, safeguards are provided in the contract prohibiting the contractor or consultant from using or disclosing the information for any purpose other than that described in the contract and requires the contractor or consultant to return or destroy all information at the completion of the contract.
2. To another federal agency to conduct activities related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.
We contemplate disclosing information under this routine use only in situations in which HCFA may enter into a contractual or similar agreement with another Federal agency to assist in accomplishing HCFA functions relating to purposes for this system of records.
The Federal Protection Service may require RICKS information if investigating a crime and/or in the administration of its assigned responsibilities.
3. To a Member of Congress or to a congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.
Federal employees and other individuals sometimes request the help of a Member of Congress in resolving an issue relating to a matter before HCFA. The Member of Congress then writes HCFA, and HCFA must be able to give sufficient information to be responsive to the inquiry.
4. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:
(a) The agency or any component thereof, or
(b) Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or
(c) Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or
(d) The United States Government,
Whenever HCFA is involved in litigation, or occasionally when another party is involved in litigation and HCFA's policies or operations could be affected by the outcome of the litigation, HCFA would be able to disclose information to the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body involved.
The RICKS system will conform with applicable law and policy governing the privacy and security of Federal automated information systems. These include but are not limited to: the Privacy Act of 1974, Computer Security Act of 1987, the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, and OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, “Security of Federal Automated Information Resources.” HCFA has prepared a comprehensive systems security plan as required by the OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III. This plan conforms fully to guidance issued by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) in NIST Special Publication 800-18, “Guide for Developing Security Plans for Information Technology Systems.” Paragraphs A-C of this section highlight some of the specific methods that HCFA is using to ensure the security of this system and the information within it.
Personnel having access to the system have been trained in Privacy Act and systems security requirements. Employees and contractors who maintain records in the system are instructed not to release any data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate administrative, technical, procedural, and physical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality of the data and to prevent unauthorized access to the data. In addition, HCFA is monitoring the authorized users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Records are used in a designated work area or work station and the system location is attended at all times during working hours.
To ensure security of the data, the proper level of class user is assigned for each individual user as determined at the agency level. This prevents unauthorized users from accessing and modifying critical data. The system database configuration includes five classes of database users:
•
•
All server sites have implemented the following minimum requirements to assist in reducing the exposure of computer equipment and thus achieve an optimum level of protection and security for the RICKS system:
Access to all servers is controlled, with access limited to only those support personnel with a demonstrated need for access. Servers are to be kept in a locked room accessible only by specified management and systems support personnel. Each server requires a specific log-on process. All entrance doors are identified and marked. A log is kept of all personnel who were issued a security card, key and/or combination which grants access to the room housing the server, and all visitors are escorted while in this room. All servers are housed in an area where appropriate environmental security controls are implemented, which include measures implemented to mitigate damage to Automated Information System resources caused by fire, electricity, water and inadequate climate controls.
Protection applied to the workstations, servers and databases include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
There are several levels of security found in the RICKS system. Windows NT provides much of the overall system security. The Windows NT security model is designed to meet the C2-level criteria as defined by the U.S. Department of Defense's Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria document (DoD 5200.28-STD, December 1985). Netscape Enterprise Server is the security mechanism for all transmission connections to the system. As a result, Netscape controls all information access requests. Anti-virus software is applied at both the workstation and NT server levels.
Access to different areas on the Windows NT server is maintained through the use of file, directory and share level permissions. These different levels of access control provide security that is managed at the user and group level within the NT domain. The file and directory level access controls rely on the presence of an NT File System hard drive partition. This provides the most robust security and is tied directly to the file system. Windows NT security is applied at both the workstation and NT server levels.
All automated systems must comply with Federal laws, guidance, and policies for information systems security as stated previously in this section. Each automated information system should ensure a level of security commensurate with the level of sensitivity of the data, risk, and magnitude of the harm that may result from the loss, misuse, disclosure, or modification of the information contained in the system.
HCFA proposes to establish this system in accordance with the principles and requirements of the Privacy Act and will collect, use, and disseminate information only as prescribed therein. We will only disclose the minimum personal data necessary to achieve the purpose of RICKS. Disclosure of information from the system of records will be approved only to the extent necessary to accomplish the purpose of the disclosure. HCFA has assigned a higher level of security clearance for the information maintained in this system in an effort to provide added security and protection of data in this system.
HCFA will take precautionary measures to minimize the risks of unauthorized access to the records and the potential harm to individual privacy or other personal or property rights. HCFA will collect only that information necessary to perform the system's functions. In addition, HCFA will make disclosure from the proposed system only with consent of the subject individual, or his/her legal representative, or in accordance with an applicable exception provision of the Privacy Act.
HCFA, therefore, does not anticipate an unfavorable effect on individual privacy as a result of the disclosure of information relating to individuals.
Record of Individuals Authorized Entry to HCFA Buildings via a Card Key Access System (RICKS), HHS/HCFA/OICS.
Level Three Privacy Act Sensitive Data.
HCFA, 7500 Security Boulevard, North Building, First Floor (magnetic media), and South Building, Lower Level (paper), Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
The identified individual includes Federal employees; contractors and consultants; and Government Services Administration employees and contract guards working in HCFA's central office complex at 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland.
This system contains the name of the employees or the other authorized individual, assigned card key number, and building/secure area. The system also contains the date and time of actual or attempted entry to secured areas.
Authority for maintenance of this system is given under Title 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 101-20.302, “Conduct on Federal Property,” Title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 552a(e)(10), and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123, “Internal Control Systems.
The primary purpose of the system of records is to issue and control United States Government card keys to all HCFA employees and other authorized individuals who require access into certain designated or secured areas. Information retrieved from this system of records will be used to: support regulatory and policy functions performed within the agency or by a contractor or consultant, assist other Federal agencies to conduct activities related to this system, support constituent requests made to a congressional representative, and support litigation involving the agency.
The Privacy Act allows us to disclose information without an individual's consent if the information is to be used for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the information was collected. Any such compatible use of data is known as a “routine use.” The proposed routine use in this system meets the compatibility requirement of the Privacy Act. We are proposing to establish the following routine use disclosures of information which will be maintained in the system:
1. To agency contractors, or consultants who have been engaged by the agency to assist in accomplishment of a HCFA function relating to the purposes for this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to assist HCFA.
2. To another Federal agency engaged by the agency to assist in the performance of a service related to this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to perform the activity.
3. To a Member of Congress or to a congressional staff member in response to an inquiry of the congressional office made at the written request of the constituent about whom the record is maintained.
4. To the Department of Justice (DOJ), court or adjudicatory body when:
(a) The agency or any component thereof, or
(b) Any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or
(c) Any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or
(d) The United States Government, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, HCFA determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and that the use of such records by the DOJ, court or adjudicatory body is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records.
All records are stored on paper and magnetic disk.
Magnetic media records are retrieved by the name of the employees or other authorized individual and/or card key number. Paper records are retrieved alphabetically by name.
HCFA has safeguards for authorized users and monitors such users to ensure against excessive or unauthorized use. Personnel having access to the system have been trained in the Privacy Act and systems security requirements. Employees who maintain records in the system are instructed not to release any data until the intended recipient agrees to implement appropriate administrative, technical, procedural, and physical safeguards sufficient to protect the confidentiality of the data and to prevent unauthorized access to the data.
In addition, HCFA has physical safeguards in place to reduce the exposure of computer equipment and thus achieve an optimum level of protection and security for the RICKS system. For computerized records, safeguards have been established in accordance with HHS standards and National Institute of Standards and Technology guidelines,
Records are retained for up to 3 years following expiration of an individual's authority to enter secured areas. When an individual is no longer authorized, information is deleted from magnetic media immediately.
Director, Division of Facilities Management Services, Administrative Services Group, Office of Internal Customer Support, Health Care Financing Administration, 7500 Security Boulevard, SLL-11-08, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
For purpose of access, the subject individual should write to the system manager who will require the system name, assigned card key number, and building/secure area, and for verification purposes, the subject individual's name (woman's maiden name, if applicable), and social security number (SSN). Furnishing the SSN is voluntary, but it may make searching for a record easier and prevent delay.
For purpose of access, use the same procedures outlined in Notification Procedures above. Requestors should also reasonably specify the record contents being sought. (These procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.5(a)(2).)
The subject individual should contact the system manager named above, and reasonably identify the record and specify the information to be contested. State the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification. (These procedures are in accordance with Department regulation 45 CFR 5b.7.)
HCFA obtains information in this system from the individuals who submit a request for access to a secure building or area.
None.
Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is publishing this notice of petitions received under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (“the Program”), as required by section 2112(b)(2) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended. While the Secretary of Health and Human Services is named as the respondent in all proceedings brought by the filing of petitions for compensation under the Program, the United States Court of Federal Claims is charged by statute with responsibility for considering and acting upon the petitions.
For information about requirements for filing petitions, and the Program in general, contact the Clerk, United States Court of Federal Claims, 717 Madison Place, NW., Washington, DC 20005, (202) 219-9657. For information on HRSA's role in the Program, contact the Director, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 8A-46, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-6593.
The Program provides a system of no-fault compensation for certain individuals who have been injured by specified childhood vaccines. Subtitle 2 of title XXI of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10
A petition may be filed with respect to injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and deaths resulting from vaccines described in the Vaccine Injury Table (the Table) set forth at section 2114 of the PHS Act or as set forth at 42 CFR 100.3, as applicable. This Table lists for each covered childhood vaccine the conditions which will lead to compensation and, for each condition, the time period for occurrence of the first symptom or manifestation of onset or of significant aggravation after vaccine administration. Compensation may also be awarded for conditions not listed in the Table and for conditions that are manifested after the time periods specified in the Table, but only if the petitioner shows that the condition was caused by one of the listed vaccines.
Section 2112(b)(2) of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 300aa-12(b)(2), requires that the Secretary publish in the
Section 2112(b)(2) also provides that the special master “shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to submit relevant, written information” relating to the following:
1. The existence of evidence “that there is not a preponderance of the evidence that the illness, disability, injury, condition, or death described in the petition is due to factors unrelated to the administration of the vaccine described in the petition,” and
2. Any allegation in a petition that the petitioner either:
(a) “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition not set forth in the Table but which was caused by” one of the vaccines referred to in the Table, or
(b) “Sustained, or had significantly aggravated, any illness, disability, injury, or condition set forth in the Table the first symptom or manifestation of the onset or significant aggravation of which did not occur within the time period set forth in the Table but which was caused by a vaccine” referred to in the Table.
This notice will also serve as the special master's invitation to all interested persons to submit written information relevant to the issues described above in the case of the petitions listed below. Any person choosing to do so should file an original and three (3) copies of the information with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims at the address listed above (under the heading
Chapter 35 of title 44, United States Code, related to paperwork reduction, does not apply to information required for purposes of carrying out the Program.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
Clifford Taffet, room 7266, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with 24 CFR part 581 and section 501 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), as amended, HUD is publishing this Notice to identify Federal buildings and other real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. The properties were reviewed using information provided to HUD by Federal landholding agencies regarding unutilized and underutilized buildings and real property controlled by such agencies or by GSA regarding its inventory of excess or surplus Federal property. This Notice is also published in order to comply with the December 12, 1988 Court Order in
Properties reviewed are listed in this Notice according to the following categories: Suitable/available, suitable/unavailable, suitable/to be excess, and unsuitable. The properties listed in the three suitable categories have been reviewed by the landholding agencies, and each agency has transmitted to HUD: (1) Its intention to make the property available for use to assist the homeless, (2) its intention to declare the property excess to the agency's needs, or (3) a statement of the reasons that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use as facilities to assist the homeless.
Properties listed as suitable/available will be available exclusively for homeless use for a period of 60 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in any such property should send a written expression of interest to HHS, addressed to Brian Rooney, Division of Property Management, Program Support Center, HHS, room 5B-41, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; (301) 443-2265. (This is not a toll-free number.) HHS will mail to the interested provider an application packet, which will include instructions for completing the application. In order to maximize the opportunity to utilize a suitable property, providers should submit their written expressions of interest as soon as possible. For complete details concerning the processing of applications, the reader is encouraged to refer to the interim rule governing this program, 24 CFR part 581.
For properties listed as suitable/to be excess, that property may, if subsequently accepted as excess by GSA, be made available for use by the homeless in accordance with applicable law, subject to screening for other Federal use. At the appropriate time, HUD will publish the property in a Notice showing it as either suitable/available or suitable/unavailable.
For properties listed as suitable/unavailable, the landholding agency has decided that the property cannot be declared excess or made available for use to assist the homeless, and the property will not be available.
Properties listed as unsuitable will not be made available for any other purpose for 20 days from the date of this Notice. Homeless assistance providers interested in a review by HUD of the determination of unsuitability should call the toll free information line at 1-800-927-7588 for detailed instructions or write a letter to Clifford Taffet at the address listed at the beginning of this Notice. Included in the request for review should be the property address (including zip code), the date of publication in the
For more information regarding particular properties identified in this Notice (
Office of the Assistant Secretary—Water and Science, Department of the Interior.
Notice of intent to negotiate contract(s) and agreement(s) among and between the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Moon Lake Water Users Association, U.S. Forest Service, and Department of the Interior for the proposed development of the Uinta Basin Replacement Project, Utah, as authorized in Section 203(a) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
The Uinta Basin Replacement Project is authorized in Section 203(a) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA). The Lake Fork Uinta Basin Replacement Project as described in the Draft Environmental Assessment includes: the enlargement of the non-federal Big Sand Wash Dam and Reservoir; modification of the outlet works at Moon Lake Dam and Reservoir to provide regulation for instream flows; construction of a Big Sand Wash Feeder Diversion Dam on the Lake Fork River; Construction of a Big Sand Wash Feeder pipeline and a Big Sand Wash-Roosevelt distribution pipeline; stabilization of high mountain lakes in the High Uintas Wilderness; and providing fish and wildlife habitat mitigation and enhancement.
Section 203(a)(1-4) of CUPCA, authorizes funds to be appropriated to construct features of the “Uinta Basin Replacement Project.” If constructed, the project would develop new water supplies for M&I and supplemental irrigation, replacement storage for the high mountain lakes irrigation water, enhance wilderness recreation, fish, and wildlife values, and provide instream flows for fishery habitat. A Draft Environmental Assessment for the Section 203(a), Uintah Basin Replacement Project was released for agency and public review on February 12, 2001. The document describes the Project and the results of the environmental impact analyses for the proposed action and the reasonable alternatives.
Section 203(c) requires that binding contracts be executed for the purchase of project water supplies before project funds can be expended and Section 203(d) of CUPCA specifies that the Uinta Basin Replacement Project be constructed under the guidelines of the Drainage Facilities and Minor Construction Act. Also, all project contracts and agreements must be negotiated and executed by all parties except the Secretary of the Interior by June 1, 2001 to provide adequate time to process final NEPA reports and environmental decision documents before the project authorization expires. Section 203(b) provides that the authorization will terminate 5 years from the date of completion of the feasibility study. The initial feasibility study was completed in November 1996 and all contracts, agreements, final NEPA report and environmental decision document, and the final Feasibility Study must be completed by November 2001 or the authorization will sunset. Negotiated contract(s) and agreement(s) among and between the District, Moon Lake Water Users Association, U.S. Forest Service, and DOI will comply with sections 203(a) thru 203(d) of CUPCA and the terms of the Compliance Agreement.
Dates for public negotiation sessions for the separate contracts or agreements will be announced in local newspapers.
Additional information on matters related to this
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 ten captive hatched scarlet-chested parakeets (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant request a permit to import biological samples of cotton-top Marmoset (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
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 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,
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
Notice of availability is hereby given for a 45-day public comment period on the proposed set of Data Elements for Reporting Water Quality Results of Chemical and Microbiological Analytes developed by the National Water Quality Monitoring Council. The Council prepared this critical core set of data elements to facilitate the sharing of chemical and microbiological water quality data and promote efficiency in the monitoring of water resource quality programs. The Council will hold public meetings to take public comment on this proposal at four locations. The suggested audiences for this proposal include program managers responsible for developing and using water quality data, researchers, data analysts, and database managers in the public and private sectors and the general public with interests in development and use of water quality data.
Water quality monitoring is an increasingly important element of water quality management activities. It provides information for an accurate understanding of the conditions of waters and the trends in observed water quality. Water quality must be understood in order that valid and effective restoration and protection programs can be designed for waterbodies that vary significantly in their vulnerability and pollution stress. Because of the cost of its collection, water quality data must be viewed as a resource worthy of careful management both to preserve it for future analyses by the agency that collects it and to share it among local, state, and federal agencies, and the private sector involved in resource management activities.
The National Water Quality Monitoring Council has identified the standardization of water quality data elements as important in the preservation and use of data and is proposing today a list of data elements that offer both definitions of each element and lists of related groups of elements needed to provide a complete picture of the sampling and analytic activity. In 1995, the predecessor organization to the Council, the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM), identified the need for a set of minimum data elements to facilitate sharing and exchange of information (ITFM, 1995a). The ITFM also developed a recommended list of data elements for use in establishing new, or modernizing existing, databases, which served as the starting point for today's proposal (ITFM, 1995b). This list is expected to influence the collection of water quality data by federal, state, and local agencies; academic institutions; the private sector; and citizens who volunteer their efforts. These are the groups that together collect the majority of ambient water quality data in the country.
The core set of Data Elements for Reporting Water Quality Results of Chemical and Microbiological Analytes is expected to be presented to the Advisory Committee on Water Information at its May 2001 meeting and to be available to the U.S.
In the future, the National Water Quality Monitoring Council is planning to develop data elements to address higher level biological indicators of water and habitat quality for ecological analysis. The Council has concurrent efforts to foster more consistent analytic techniques and more widespread information sharing as a means of reducing costs and increasing the data available for decisions.
The Council believes that by proposing a core set of data elements, agencies collecting water quality data will be spared the task of creating their own systems for organizing metadata and their own set of definitions of the metadata elements. When implemented, a standard set of data elements will spare all data users the complex task of reconciling diverse metadata systems as they draw on multiple data sets to carry out their studies or analyses. The Council believes that the standardization inherent in the use of standard data elements holds the prospect of reducing costly duplicate monitoring efforts.
These data elements are proposed as guidelines to define a measure of good practice within the water quality monitoring community. They will encourage greater data consistency, allow the quality of data to be determined by future users, and simplify the process for all who choose to enter these metadata elements. It is not required that all the proposed data elements be used. Metadata selected must fit the data they describe. Sampling data from ground water, for instance, is described by several metadata elements that are of no use for surface water samples. Therefore, the Council does not intend to require anyone to provide all of the proposed elements in order for data to be entered in a federally maintained database. The Council's advocacy of these data elements is not intended to discourage the use of existing water quality data solely because it does not meet these guidelines.
The core set of Data Elements for Reporting Water Quality Results of Chemical and Microbiological Analytes cover wells, surface water stations, and precipitation. This list is intended to standardize the preservation of data and to facilitate its sharing by standardizing definitions and by defining the list of data, metadata and their descriptive definitions. A data element is the name of a set of information with the same attribute. A data element may be a data field in a database such as a laboratory name, and analyte, or the latitude of the sampling station. Examples of metadata elements include such things as sampling and laboratory procedures, quality controls, and locational measurement accuracy.
The list of data elements is not specific to any particular database, but is intended to be used voluntarily by agencies, organizations and individuals to guide their reporting, storage, and sharing of water quality data. This list is intended primarily to guide the collection of ambient water quality data, but many of the allowable sample location and sample type descriptions are versatile enough to be useful in collecting these data in other settings.
The list of data and metadata elements is divided into categories that describe who collected and analyzed the sample, what was analyzed, why the sample was undertaken, when the sample was collected and analyzed, where the sampling occurred, and how the analysis was done. The list is intended to describe the breadth of information needed to ensure the continuing utility of the information both within an organization and between organizations as information is stored and shared, but without being an exhaustive list of every possible data element that could be reported. The Council devoted great efforts to focus the core set of data elements on the essential data needed across programs, recognizing that if more extensive data from a particular monitoring program were collected, it could be made available as well.
The Office of Management and Budget memorandum M-92-01, Coordination of Water Resources Information (OMB, 1991), established the Water Information Coordination Program (WICP) to ensure coordination of water information programs.
The Department of the Interior, through the U.S. Geological Survey, was designated as the lead agency for the WICP. The Memorandum M-92-01 directed all other Federal organizations funding, collecting, or using water resources information to assist the U.S. Geological Survey in ensuring the implementation of an effective WICP. The WICP was specifically charged with developing uniform standards, guidelines, and procedures for the collection, analysis, management, and dissemination of water information in order to improve quality, consistency, and accessibility nationwide.
The WICP created the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). FACA provides the procedures for an advisory committee to be established in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies or officers of the Federal Government. ACWI created the National Water Quality Monitoring Council to make recommendations on how to coordinate and provide guidance and technical support for the voluntary implementation of the recommendations presented in the Strategy for Improving Water Quality Monitoring in the United States (ITFM, 1995b) by government agencies and the private sector.
The intent of the Strategy is to stimulate the monitoring improvements needed to achieve comparable and scientifically defensible information on interpretations, and evaluations of water quality in fresh surface, water, estuaries and near coastal water, ground water, and precipitation at local, watershed units, regional, and national levels. The information is required to support decision making at local, state, tribal, interstate, and national scales.
During the assembly of the list of data elements, the work groups assembled by the Council attempted to reduce the number of recommended data elements in order to minimize the burden of recording the information each element requires. The Council believes the current list is the core set of elements that are reasonable to collect and record in order to allow people, in addition to those initially collecting the data, to use the data with confidence. This position is predicated on the Council's belief that water quality data is an investment with value over time in a single organization and between organizations and that the investment must be adequately protected with metadata describing the data such as the Council proposes today. This represents a departure from current practice for many water quality monitoring programs, and the Council would like to learn of different and/or opposing views on this issue.
One specific issue within the wider issue of metadata is the recording of information about quality control samples, and whether the set of data elements affords adequate reference to them.
As with any list of data elements, the selection of the specific names to be used and their definitions are important. The Council welcomes any specific
The Core Set of Data Elements for Reporting Water Quality Results was developed through a collaborative effort with representatives from the following local, State, and Federal agencies and the water industry, which are members of the Council:
• East Bay Municipal Utility District (California)
• Hampton Roads Sanitation District (Virginia)
• Orange County Water District (California)
• Merck, Inc.
• National Water Research Institute
• George Washington University
• Association of Public Health Laboratories
• Delaware River Basin Commission
• Florida Department of Environment Protection
• Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
• New Jersey State Geological Survey
• New York Department of Health
• Washington State Department of Ecology
• Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
• National Institute of Standards and Technology
• US Geological Survey
• US Environmental Protection Agency
The Council also held a National Water Quality Monitoring Conference in Austin, Texas, in April 2000, at which it sponsored a workshop attended by a wide range of representatives from local, state, and federal agencies and the private sector concerning the content, focus, need and future use of a core set of water quality data elements. The workshop participants overwhelmingly supported this effort.
Public hearings will be held to take public comment on the core set of Data Elements for Reporting Water Quality Results at the following locations, dates and times:
Chicago, IL—March 23, 2001 from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m., in the Morrison Room at the General Services Administration Conference Center, 3rd Floor, Room 331, Metcalf Building, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL.
San Francisco Bay Area, CA—March 27, 2001, from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m., in Room 3240A at the U.S. Geological Survey offices at 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA.
Denver, CO—March 28, 2001, from 9 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. in the Sabine-Cleere Room, first floor of Building A, of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South, Denver, CO.
Washington, DC—April 4, 2001, from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. in the Sydney Yates Auditorium, floor 1, of the U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC.
The suggested audiences for this proposal include program managers responsible for developing and using water quality data, researchers, data analysts, and database managers in the public and private sectors, and the general public with interests in development and use of water quality data.
You may view and download the draft recommendations for the core set of Data Elements for Reporting Water Quality Results on the USGS Water Information Coordination Program's Internet site at: http://wi.water.usgs.gov/pmethods/elements/elements.html
The Question and Answer section of the web site provides additional information. If you require a paper copy to be sent to you, you must contact the EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 428-4791 and request that it be sent to you. You may submit comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to ow-docket@epa.gov. Submit comments as an ASCII or WordPerfect file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Comments may also be mailed to: Water Docket, Docket No. W-01-02, MC 4101, U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Comments being hand-delivered should be addressed to: Water Docket, Docket No. W-01-02, MC 4101, Room BE 57, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. Identify all comments and data in electronic or written form by docket Number W-01-02. Electronic and written comments must be received by the docket by April 30, 2001, for consideration in formulating a final core set of Data Elements for Reporting Water Quality Results.
Documents relevant to this proposal are available for inspection from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays at the Water Docket, East Tower, Room EB 57, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC. For access to docket (Docket No. W-01-02) materials, please call (202) 260-3027 between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday to schedule an appointment. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
For additional information concerning today's proposal, you may contact: Charles Job, Drinking Water Protection Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MC-4606), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460, or Charles Peters, U.S. Geological Survey, 8505 Research Way, Middleton, WI 53562.
Office of Management and Budget. 1991. Coordination of Water Resources Information. Memorandum M-92-01 (dated December 10, 1991).
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. 1995a. Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States, Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality.
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. 1995b. Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States, Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality; Technical Appendices.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of method of distribution and use of Fiscal Year 2001 Contract Support Funds.
The purpose of this announcement is to provide instructions to Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in carrying out their responsibilities when distributing Contract Support Funds (CSF) for contracts awarded under Public Law 93-638, as amended. The instructions are not regulations to establish program requirements.
The CSF Needs Report for ongoing/existing contracts and annual funding agreements are due on July 15, 2001. The CSF Needs Reports for new and expanded contracts and annual funding agreements are due periodically throughout the year as the need arises. All new and expanded contracts and annual funding agreements starting between October 11, 2000 and January
Submit the CSF Needs Report to Jim Thomas, Chief, Division of Self-Determination Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, NW., MS-4660-MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
Jim Thomas, (202) 208-5727.
A total of $130,485,000 is available for contract support requirements (excluding construction requirements) during FY 2001. Congressional language authorizes the use of $125,485,000 in FY 2001 to pay costs of ongoing/existing self-determination and self-governance awards for programs under contract/compact prior to FY 2001 and $5,000,000 for the Indian Self-Determination Fund (ISD) to be utilized for new and expanded contracts/compacts. Each BIA Regional Office and the Office of Self-Governance (hereinafter office) has the responsibility for tribes located within their respective jurisdiction to work with the tribes in identifying new and expanded contracts and annual funding agreements and reporting this information to the Division of Self-Determination Services as specified in this announcement. CSF shall be added to awards made under section 102 and title IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended. Awards made under the authority of section 103 (Grants to Tribal Organizations or Tribes) of the Act shall not receive CSF.
The BIA may only pay indirect costs attributable to program funds included in the BlA's appropriation. Awards by the BIA with funds originating from other agencies which have been transferred to the BIA for award under Public Law 93-638 are not eligible for BIA CSF. Contract support/indirect costs requirements for these awards must be met from within the amounts transferred. (One example would include funds transferred to the BIA from the Department of Transportation for roads construction.) BIA will utilize tribal indirect cost rates to determine the amount of CSF to be paid to contracting tribes and tribal organizations and self-governance tribes and tribal consortia. In determining legitimate indirect cost requirements, each office shall fund only those contracting or compacting tribal organizations that have an approved indirect cost rate or indirect cost proposal currently under consideration by the Office of Inspector General. In those instances where a tribe or tribal organization has more than one approved rate or a current proposal under consideration by the Office of the Inspector General, the office should use the most current rate or pending proposal in determining the amount to award. For tribes unable to negotiate an indirect cost rate because of circumstances beyond their control (i.e., which do not have the administrative capability to negotiate a rate), awarding officials may negotiate reasonable lump sum amounts with these tribes.
The following steps must be followed by BIA personnel when computing contract support annual funding requirements:
(1) Determine total current year program funds;
(2) Subtract exclusions (See indirect cost agreements). Examples of exclusions include capital expenditures and pass through funds (those programs requiring minimal administrative effort). Exclude other agency appropriations awarded by the BIA (i.e., Roads Construction funds transferred from the Department of Transportation);
(3) Direct cost base (results of steps 1 and 2);
(4) Multiply indirect cost rate against base determined in step 3;
(5) Results of step 4 equals indirect cost amount at 100 percent;
(6) Multiply current year contract support fund funding percentage against step 5; and
(7) The result of step 6—The amount of current year contract support funds to be added to contracts.
Each office will submit a CSF Needs Report to the Central Office for ongoing contracts and annual funding agreements by July 15, 2001. CSF for Public Law 102-477, contracts and grants awarded under the authority of Public Law 93-638, shall be calculated at the Regional Offices and reported separately when submitting the July 15, 2001, Report. A final distribution of contract support will be made on or about July 31, 2001. CSF will be provided to each office from the remaining based on these reports. If the need reports indicate that $125,485,000 will be insufficient to cover the entire need, the amount available shall be distributed pro rata, so that all contractors and compactors receive the same percentage share of their reported need.
Should the amount of CSF provided for these contracts and annual funding agreements prove insufficient, contracting tribes may use program funds to make up deficiencies necessary to administer their contracts. This tribal reprogramming authority is limited to funds from their Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA), or annual funding agreement. Congressional appropriations prohibits the BIA from reprogramming funds from other Bureau programs to meet any CSF shortfalls.
For other non-TPA programs, tribes may recover full indirect costs from within the overall program funds awarded.
Each office in FY 2001 was provided 85 percent of the total CSF amount which was allotted in FY 2000. From this amount each office should award 75 percent of required contract support to each contract/annual funding agreement to meet the criteria established below.
All contractors and self-governance tribes/consortia with either an approved indirect cost rate, current indirect cost proposal, or FY 2001 approved lump sum amount shall receive 75 percent of the reported need to be paid with the first allotment of CSF in FY 2001. After the second allotment of CSF is made (approximately July 31, 2001) all contractors and self-governance tribes/consortia shall receive a pro rata share of CSF.
An ongoing/existing contract or annual funding agreement is defined as a BIA program operated by the tribal contractor or compactor on an ongoing basis which has been entered into prior to the current fiscal year. An increase or decrease in the level of funding from year-to-year for such contracts or annual funding agreements would not affect the designation of such contracts or annual funding agreements as being ongoing. The assumption of additional BIA program responsibilities would be required to trigger a change in designation.
Each office shall submit CSF Need Reports to the Central Office, Office of Tribal Services, for new and expanded contracts and annual funding agreements periodically throughout the year as new contracts or annual funding agreements are awarded or existing contracts or annual funding agreements are expanded. Funds will be provided to the offices as these reports are received and will be taken from the $5,000,000 appropriated. These funds will be distributed on a first-come, first-served basis at 100 percent of the need reported.
In the event the $5,000,000 is insufficient to meet the reported need, new or expanded contracts or annual funding agreements awarded after this fund has been exhausted will not be provided CSF during this fiscal year. Requests received after this fund has been exhausted will be considered first for funding in the following year, if such funds are appropriated.
The Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638) defines the term Start-Up Cost (Section 106(a)(5)) as follows:
Subject to paragraph (6) of section 106, during the initial year of a self-determination contract, the amount required to be paid under paragraph (2) shall include startup costs which are reasonable and are incurred on a one-time only basis and are considered necessary to:
(1) Plan, prepare for, and assume operation of the program, function, service, or activity that is the subject of the contract; and
(2) Ensure compliance with the terms of the contract and prudent management.
For specific guidance, including examples of start-up costs, see the BIA website under Tribal Services/Self-Determination Services.
Contract support will be awarded from the ISD fund to all new and expanded contracts/annual funding agreements based on the start date of the award, and the application date, on a first-come, first-served basis. An Indian Self-Determination fund “applicant roster” shall be maintained, which lists, in order of priority, the name of the tribe or tribal organization, the title of the program, the start date, the application date, the amount of program funds, the program cost code(s), the amount of contract support funds required, and the date of approved indirect cost rate agreement or lump sum agreement.
Start date means the date or commencement of operation of the new or expanded portion of the contract or annual funding agreement by a tribe, consortium, or tribal organization. However, because the Self-Determination Act provides that contracts/annual funding agreements will be on a calendar year basis unless otherwise provided by the tribe, any start date on or prior to January 1 of each year shall be considered a January 1 start date.
The application date shall be the date of the request by the tribe which includes:
(1) A tribal resolution requesting a contract or annual funding agreement;
(2) A summary of the program or portion thereof to be operated by the tribe/consortium or tribal organization; and
(3) A summary identifying the source and amount of program or services funds to be contracted or included in an annual funding agreement and contract support requirements. In the event that two tribes or tribal organizations have the same start date and application date, then the next date for determination of priority shall be the date the fully complete application was received by the BIA.
If all of the above are equal, and if funds remaining in the ISD fund are not adequate to fill the entire amount of each award's contract support requirement, then each will be awarded a proportionate share of its requirement and shall remain on the Indian Self-Determination fund roster in appropriate order of priority for future distributions on a first-come, first-served basis, as such funds are appropriated.
A new contract or annual funding agreement is defined as the initial transfer of a program, previously operated by the BIA to the tribe/consortium or tribal organization.
An expanded contract or annual funding agreement is defined as a contract or annual funding agreement which has become enlarged during the current fiscal year through the assumption of additional programs previously operated by the BIA.
CSF for ongoing and existing contracts and annual funding agreements will be determined using the following criteria:
(1) All TPA contracted programs or those programs included in annual funding agreements in FY 2000 and continued in FY 2001, including contracted or annual funding agreement programs moved to TPA in FY 2001.
(2) Direct program funding increases due to inflation adjustments and general budget increases.
(3) TPA programs started or expanded in FY 2001 that are a result of a change in priorities from other already contracted/annual funding agreement programs.
(4) CSF differentials associated with tribally-operated schools that receive indirect costs through the application of an administrative cost grant formula. These differentials are to be calculated in accordance with the criteria prescribed in the Choctaw decision dated September 18, 1992, issued by the Contracting Officer, Eastern Regional Office. Copies of this decision can be obtained by calling the telephone number provided in this announcement.
(5) CSF will be distributed to the Office of Self-Governance for ongoing annual funding agreements, on the same basis as regional offices.
(6) Funds available for Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) programs or reprogrammed from ICWA to other programs will be considered ongoing for the purposes of payment of contract support costs.
(7) The use of CSF to pay prior year shortfalls is not authorized.
(8) Programs funded from sources other than those listed above which were awarded in FY 2000 and are to be awarded in FY 2001 shall be considered as ongoing programs.
United States International Trade Commission.
March 21, 2001 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meeting: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. Nos. 731-TA-868-869 (Final) (Steel Wire Rope from China and India)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on March 30, 2001.)
5. Inv. No. TA-204-4 (Wheat Gluten: Extension of Action)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit Commissioners' opinions to the President on April 2, 2001.)
6. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
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 this 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 ETA, 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, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration is soliciting comments concerning the proposed extension of the collection of the ETA 218, Benefits Rights and Experience.
A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addressee section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addressee's section below on or before May 15, 2001.
Cynthia Ambler, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Room S-4231, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20210. Phone number: 202-693-3177. (This is not a toll free number.) E-mail: cambler@doleta.gov. Fax: 202-693-3229.
Attachment to the labor force, usually measured as amount of past wages earned, is used to determine eligibility for State unemployment compensation programs. The data in the ETA 218, Benefit Rights and Experience Report, includes numbers of individuals who were and were not monetarily eligible, those eligible for the maximum benefits, those eligible classified by potential duration categories, and exhaustees classified by actual duration categories. This data is used by the National Office in solvency studies, cost estimating and modeling, and to assess State benefit formulas.
The Department of Labor 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 clarify 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
We are requesting a simple extension of this clearance. If this data were not available, cost estimating and modeling would be far less accurate.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.
General Wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wage payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedeas decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of the decisions added to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determination Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts” are listed by Volume and States:
The number of decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under The Davis-Bacon And Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
Notice.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed reinstatement of the “Veterans Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS),” to be conducted in September 2001. A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed below in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Ausie B. Grigg, Jr., BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 3255, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Washington, DC 20212, telephone number 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number).
Ausie B. Grigg, Jr., BLS Clearance Officer, telephone number 202-691-7628. (See
The CPS has been the principal source of the official Government statistics on employment and unemployment for over 50 years. Collection of labor force data through the CPS is necessary to meet the requirements in Title 29, United States Code, Sections 1 and 2. The Veterans Supplement provides information on the labor force status of disabled veterans, Vietnam-theater veterans, and recently discharged veterans. The supplement also provides information on veterans' participation in various employment and training programs. The data collected through this supplement also will be used by the Veterans Employment and Training Service and the Department of Veterans Affairs to determine policies that better meet the needs of our Nation's veteran population.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• 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, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for the Veterans Supplement to the CPS.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces: (1) The application of Canadian Standards Association for renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory under 29 CFR 1910.7, and (2) the application of Canadian Standards Association for expansion of its recognition to use additional standards and presents the Agency's preliminary finding. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of these applications.
Comments submitted by interested parties, or any request for extension of the time to comment, must be received no later than April 2, 2001.
Submit written comments concerning this notice to: Docket Office, Docket NRTL-2-92, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. Commenters may transmit written comments of 10 pages or less in length by facsimile to (202) 693-1648. Submit request for extensions concerning this notice to: Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3653, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Bernard Pasquet, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Room N3653 at the above address, or phone (202) 693-2110.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice that the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has applied for renewal and for expansion of its current recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). CSA's expansion request covers the use of additional test standards.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, OSHA can accept products “properly certified” by the NRTL. OSHA processes applications related to an NRTL's recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish this public notice of the preliminary finding on an application.
The most recent notices published by OSHA for CSA's recognition covered an expansion for additional standards, which OSHA announced on July 20, 1999 (64 FR 38926) and granted on November 4, 1999 (64 FR 60240). The following is a chronology of the other
The current address of the CSA testing facilities already recognized by OSHA are:
CSA originated in 1919 as the Canadian Engineering Standards Association (CESA), which was changed in 1944 to the present name. In 1940, CSA began to test and certify products. CSA received its recognition as an NRTL on December 24, 1992 (see 57 FR 61452), for a period of five years ending December 24, 1997. Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7 stipulates that the period of recognition of an NRTL is five years and that an NRTL may renew its recognition by applying not less than nine months, nor more than one year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. CSA submitted its renewal request on March 20, 1997 (see Exhibit 26A), within the time allotted, and CSA retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process.
In July 1997, CSA acquired testing facilities that OSHA had recognized for the American Gas Association on June 7, 1990 (55 FR 23312). Although OSHA was generally aware that CSA had made the acquisition, CSA did not officially inform OSHA until March 1999 as to how it wanted to treat these sites within its NRTL operations. The NRTL Program staff had withheld action on CSA's renewal request until it received this information.
CSA has submitted a request, dated June 16, 1999 (see Exhibit 26B), to
CSA seeks renewal of its recognition for the six sites that OSHA has previously recognized. The renewal of each of these sites is limited to performing testing to the test standards for which OSHA has recognized CSA, and for which the site has the proper capability and control programs. The renewal will allow CSA to maintain its current operation as an NRTL.
CSA also seeks renewal of its recognition for testing and certification of products to demonstrate compliance to the following 416 test standards, which OSHA has previously recognized for CSA. All these standards are “appropriate,” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). However, some of the test standards for which OSHA currently recognizes CSA were no longer appropriate at the time of preparation of this preliminary notice, primarily because they have been withdrawn by the standards developing organization. As appropriate, OSHA has eliminated or replaced these test standards in the list shown below.
OSHA recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for which OSHA standards require third party testing and certification before use in the workplace. As a result, the Agency's recognition of an NRTL for a test standard excludes any product(s), falling within the scope of the test standard, for which OSHA has no such requirements.
(1) These standards are approved for equipment or materials intended for use in commercial and industrial power system applications. These standards are not approved for equipment or materials intended for use in installations that are excluded by the provisions of Subpart S in 29 CFR part 1910, in particular § 1910.302(a)(2).
Testing and certification of gas operated equipment is limited to equipment for use with “liquefied petroleum gas” (“LPG” or “LP-Gas”).
Footnote “(1)” has been added for clarification and for consistency with similar standards that are included for the expansion request.
The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice. Many of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) test standards listed in this notice are approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience in compiling the lists, we use the designation of the standard developing organization (e.g., UL 22) for the standard, as opposed to the ANSI designation (e.g., ANSI/UL 22). Under our procedures, an NRTL recognized for an ANSI approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard, regardless of whether it is currently recognized for the proprietary or ANSI version. Contact ANSI or the ANSI web site to find out whether or not a standard is currently ANSI approved.
CSA seeks continued use of the following supplemental programs and procedures, based upon the criteria detailed in the March 9, 1995
OSHA developed the program descriptions to limit how an NRTL may perform certain aspects of its work and to permit the activities covered under a program only when the NRTL meets certain criteria. In this sense, they are special conditions that the Agency
CSA seeks recognition for testing and certification of products to demonstrate compliance with the following 144 test standards, and OSHA has determined the standards are appropriate, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7(c). OSHA recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for which OSHA standards require third party testing and certification before use in the workplace. As a result, the Agency's recognition of an NRTL for a test standard excludes any product(s), falling within the scope of the test standard, for which OSHA has no such requirements.
Testing and certification of gas operated equipment is limited to equipment for use with “liquefied petroleum gas” (“LPG” or “LP-Gas”).
CSA has submitted acceptable requests for renewal and expansion of its recognition as an NRTL. In processing these requests, OSHA has performed an on-site review (evaluation) of CSA's facilities. CSA has addressed the discrepancies noted by the assessor following the review, and the assessor has included the resolution in the on-site review report (see Exhibit 27).
Following a review of the application file, the on-site review report, and other pertinent information, the NRTL Program staff has concluded that OSHA can grant to CSA: (1) The renewal for the 6 sites and the test standards and programs listed above, and (2) the expansion for the additional 144 test standards. The staff therefore recommended to the Assistant Secretary that the applications be preliminarily approved.
Based upon the recommendation of the staff, the Assistant Secretary has made a preliminary finding that the Canadian Standards Association can meet the requirements as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for the renewal and
OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether CSA has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for the renewal and expansion of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Your comment should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. To consider it, OSHA must receive the comment at the address provided above (see
The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant CSA's renewal and expansion requests. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the renewal and expansion, and in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the application of Entela, Inc., for renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7, and presents the Agency's preliminary finding. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of this application.
Comments submitted by interested parties, or any request for extension of the time to comment, must be received no later than April 2, 2001.
Submit written comments concerning this notice to: Docket Office, Docket NRTL-2-93, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. Commenters may transmit written comments of 10 pages or less in length by facsimile to (202) 693-1648. Submit request for extensions concerning this notice to: Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3653, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Bernard Pasquet, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Room N3653 at the above address, or phone (202) 693-2110.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice that Entela, Inc. (ENT), has applied for renewal of its current recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL). ENT requests renewal for its existing scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition, and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, OSHA can accept products “properly certified” by the NRTL. OSHA processes applications related to an NRTL's recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish this public notice of the preliminary finding on an application.
The most recent notices published by OSHA for ENT's recognition covered an expansion of recognition for additional test standards, which OSHA announced on November 10, 1998 (63 FR 63084), and granted on March 9, 1999 (64 FR 11501). The following is a chronology of the other
The current addresses of the testing facilities (sites) that OSHA recognizes for ENT are:
Entela, Inc., was originally founded in 1974 as a Michigan Corporation specializing in structural steel inspection. In 1981, equipment and personnel were added to initiate an in-house materials laboratory. This was followed by a formation of certification programs within Entela, Inc. The original company was founded as Entel Engineering Services.
Entela received its recognition as an NRTL on July 26, 1994 (59 FR 37997), for a period of five years ending July 26, 1999. Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7 stipulates that the period of recognition of an NRTL is five years and that an NRTL may renew its recognition by applying not less than nine months, nor more than one year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. Entela submitted a request to renew its recognition on, August 10, 1998 (see Exhibit 15), within the time allotted, and retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process.
ENT's request covers only renewal of its existing scope of recognition, which includes the facilities listed above, and 148 test standards and 8 supplemental programs.
ENT seeks renewal of its recognition for testing and certification of products to demonstrate compliance to the following 148 test standards, all of which OSHA has determined are appropriate, within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). OSHA's recognition of ENT, or any NRTL, for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for which OSHA standards require third party testing and certification before use in the workplace. As a result, OSHA's recognition of an NRTL for a test standard excludes any product(s), falling within the scope of the test standard, for which OSHA has no such requirements.
Testing and certification of gas operated equipment is limited to equipment for use with “liquefied petroleum gas” (“LPG” or “LP-Gas”).
The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice.
Many of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) test standards listed above are approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience in compiling the list, we show the designation of the standards developing organization (e.g., UL 22) for the standard, as opposed to the ANSI designation (e.g., ANSI/UL 22). Under our procedures, an NRTL recognized for an ANSI approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard, regardless of whether it is currently recognized for the proprietary or ANSI version. Contact ANSI or the ANSI web site to find out whether or not a standard is currently ANSI approved.
ENT's renewal also covers use of the supplemental programs listed below, based upon the criteria detailed in the March 9, 1995
Program 2: Acceptance of testing data from independent organizations, other than NRTLs.
Program 3: Acceptance of product evaluations from independent organizations, other than NRTLs.
Program 4: Acceptance of witnessed testing data.
Program 5: Acceptance of testing data from non-independent organizations.
Program 6: Acceptance of evaluation data from non-independent organizations (requiring NRTL review prior to marketing).
Program 7: Acceptance of continued certification following minor modifications by the client.
Program 8: Acceptance of product evaluations from organizations that function as part of the International Electrotechnical Commission Certification Body (IEC-CB) Scheme.
Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation performed by subcontractors or agents.
OSHA developed the program descriptions to limit how an NRTL may perform certain aspects of its work and to accept the activities covered under a program only when the NRTL meets certain criteria. In this sense, they are special conditions that the Agency places on an NRTL's recognition. OSHA does not consider these programs in determining whether an NRTL meets the requirements for recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. However, OSHA does treat these programs as one of the three elements that defines an NRTL's scope of recognition.
The following limitations currently apply to the recognition of the Taiwan facility, and would continue to apply for the renewal:
a. The Taiwan facility shall be limited to carrying out minor mechanical and electrical testing of instruments and small appliances.
b. Performance of inspections shall be limited to Entela personnel.
ENT has submitted an acceptable request for renewal of its recognition as an NRTL. While processing this request, OSHA performed on-site reviews (audits) of ENT's NRTL testing facilities. Entela has addressed the discrepancies noted by the auditors following the review. NRTL Program assessment staff reviewed information from these reviews and, in a memo dated October 6, 2000 (see Exhibit 20), recommended the renewal of ENT's recognition.
Following a review of the application file, the assessor's memo, and other pertinent documents, the NRTL Program staff has concluded that OSHA can grant to ENT the renewal of its recognition as an NRTL to use the facilities, test standards, and programs listed above. The staff therefore recommended to the Assistant Secretary that the application be preliminarily approved.
Based upon the recommendation of the staff, the Assistant Secretary has made a preliminary finding that Entela, Inc., can meet the recognition requirements as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for the renewal of its recognition. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of the application for Entela.
OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether ENT has met the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of its recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory. Your comment should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits. To consider it, OSHA must receive the comment at the address provided above (see
The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant ENT's application for renewal of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the renewal and, in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA); Labor.
Notice.
This notice announces the application of TUV Product Services GmbH for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) under 29 CFR 1910.7, and presents the Agency's preliminary finding. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of this application.
Comments submitted by interested parties, or any request for extension of the time to comment, must be received no later than April 16, 2001.
Submit written comments concerning this notice to: Docket Office, Docket NRTL-1-01, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2350. Commenters may transmit written comments of 10 pages or less in length by facsimile to (202) 693-1648. Submit request for extensions concerning this notice to: Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3653, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Bernard Pasquet, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program, Room N3653 at the above address, or phone (202) 693-2110.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby gives notice that TUV Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG) has applied for recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) for testing and certification of the equipment or materials and using the site, listed below. TUVPSG has also requested recognition to use certain supplemental programs.
OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met the legal requirements in § 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR part 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, OSHA can accept products “properly certified” by the NRTL. OSHA processes applications related to an NRTL's recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish this public notice of the preliminary finding on an application.
The current address of the laboratory covered by this application is: TUV Product Services GmbH, Ridlerstrasse 65, D-80339, Munich, Germany.
According to the application, TUV Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG) is a limited liability company founded under German law in 1988. TUVPSG states that it is an “international organization for testing, evaluation, and certification of products and management systems.” Also, the applicant states that it traces its origins to German steam boiler inspection associations formed as early as 1866 “to protect workers against injury and to prevent damage to industrial installations.” TUVPSG owns and operates a number of laboratories in Germany and in many other countries, including the U.S. However, the recognition would only apply to the one location listed above.
The regulations for the NRTL Program in 29 CFR 1910.7 allow any testing organization, whether or not it is US-based, to apply to OSHA for recognition as an NRTL. However, in determining eligibility for a foreign-based testing organization, such as TUVPSG, the regulations require OSHA to take into consideration reciprocal treatment by the foreign government of certain US-based testing agencies. Germany is part of the European Union (EU), and the US and the EU have signed a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) on conformity assessment, which went into effect in May 1999. The MRA includes provisions for the reciprocal treatment of US-based testing agencies by governments of countries that are part of the EU. As a result of the MRA, reciprocity is assumed for all countries in the EU, and OSHA does not have to go through a country-by-country determination. The MRA does not change any of the requirements or processes that OSHA follows under its NRTL Program. For more information on the MRA, refer to the U.S. Department of Commerce web site.
In the application, TUVPSG states that it is owned by TUV Suddeutschland and TUV Nord, both based in Germany. However, recently TUV Suddeutschland (TUVS) became sole owner of TUVPSG. Organizationally, the applicant falls within the “Product Division” of TUVS, one of its three main divisions. TUVS in general provides testing and other technical services in a number of areas throughout the world.
TUVPSG submitted an application for recognition, dated August 21, 1998 (see Exhibit 2-1). OSHA received this application from the European Commission (EC) on March 1, 1999, along with applications from other organizations located in the EU. The EC submitted the applications under the provisions of the Electrical Safety Annex of the MRA. However, none of these applications contained sufficient information for processing, and OSHA returned them to the Commission in April 1999 to obtain the additional information.
The Commission resubmitted the application for TUVPSG to OSHA, which the Agency received on March 3, 2000 (see Exhibit 2-2). This application includes the substantive portion originally submitted and is therefore dated August 21, 1998. In the application, TUVPSG requested recognition for four test standards, originally specifying international test standards but, to meet OSHA requirements, later specifying the equivalent US test standards. Some of the documents in the application needed translation, which were received on June 5, 2000. In response to requests from OSHA for clarification and additional information, TUVPSG supplemented its application in submissions dated August 11 and August 28, 2000 (see Exhibits 2-3 and 2-4). It also supplemented its application in a submission dated November 8, 2000 (see Exhibit 2-5), which included a request for recognition of 34 additional test standards, bringing the total standards requested for recognition to 38.
Some documents in the submissions, and parts of the original application, have been designated as “confidential” by the applicant. Generally, the applicant maintains the 4 levels of operational documentation mentioned in international quality standards. It generally considers its level 3 and 4 documents to be confidential or privileged. OSHA has evaluated the applicant's designations and believes the documents in question could be withheld from disclosure under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As a result, OSHA has not included these documents in the public docket for the application, which we further describe later in this notice.
Staff of the NRTL Program performed an on-site review (assessment) of the Munich, Germany, facility on September 18-22, 2000. In the on-site review report (see Exhibit 3), the program staff recommended a “positive finding.”
Regarding the merits of the application, the applicant has presented detailed documentation that describes how it currently performs its testing and certification activities. The policies, procedures, work instructions, methods, and other practices described in this documentation would be used in its operations as an NRTL. Where appropriate, it has supplemented or modified the policies and procedures to conform to OSHA's requirements for an NRTL under 29 CFR 1910.7.
TUVPSG currently performs a large range of product testing and certification activities, primarily testing to European based testing standards, such as EN and IEC standards. For example, it currently performs testing required under EN 60950, and has provisions for addressing national deviations adopted by various countries, including those for the US. One of the test standards for which it requests recognition is UL 1950, which is equivalent to EN60950 but includes the US deviations. TUVPSG performs its testing and certification activities primarily to assure compliance of products to requirements under directives issued within the European Union. However, it has also performed testing to US based test standards, such as UL 1950. As part of its current certification activities, it conducts initial and follow-up inspections at manufacturers' facilities, one facet of the activities that NRTLs recognized by OSHA must perform. It also authorizes the use of certification marks, another aspect of the work that NRTLs must perform. However, the marks it authorizes are primarily necessary for the European marketplace. For purposes of its certification under OSHA's NRTL Program, TUVPSG will utilize a US registered certification owned by its subsidiary in the US.
The four recognition requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 are presented below, along with an explanation illustrating how TUVPSG has met or plans to meet each of these requirements.
Section 1910.7(b)(1) states that for each specified item of equipment or material to be listed, labeled or accepted, the laboratory must have the capability (including proper testing equipment and facilities, trained staff, written testing procedures, and calibration and quality control programs) to perform appropriate testing.
The application and on-site review report indicates that TUVPSG has adequate testing equipment and an adequate facility to perform the tests required under the test standards for which it seeks recognition. Security measures are in place to restrict or control access to their facility, and procedures exist for handling test samples. The report also indicates that testing and processing procedures are in place, and the application describes the program for the development of new testing procedures. The applicant submitted 24 specific test methods that it currently uses and would utilize for its proposed NRTL testing activities. For some of the test standards, it will develop testing report formats prior to performing testing and certification of products under the specific standard.
It utilizes outside calibration sources and also has procedures for and performs internal calibrations of certain equipment. The application indicates that TUVPSG maintains records on testing equipment, which include information on repair, routine maintenance, and calibrations. The application and on-site review report address personnel qualifications and training, and identify the applicant's staff involved with product testing, along with a summary of their education and experience. Also, the report indicates that TUVPSG personnel have adequate technical knowledge for the work they perform. Moreover, the review report describes the applicant's quality assurance program, which is explained in more detail in TUVPSG's Quality Manual. Finally, the applicant performs internal system and internal technical audits of its operations on a regular basis.
Section 1910.7(b)(2) requires that the NRTL provide certain controls and services, to the extent necessary, for the particular equipment or material to be listed, labeled, or accepted. They include control procedures for identifying the listed or labeled equipment or materials, inspections of production runs at factories to assure conformance with test standards, and field inspections to monitor and assure the proper use of identifying marks or labels.
The applicant has procedures and related documentation for initially qualifying a manufacturer and for performing the required follow-up inspections at a manufacturer's facility. In its procedures, it identifies criteria it will use to determine the frequency with which it will perform these follow-up factory inspections. It has adopted the criteria detailed in OSHA policies for NRTLs, which specify that NRTLs perform no fewer than four (4) inspections per year at certain facilities and no fewer than two (2) inspections per year under certain conditions. The factory inspections would be one part of the activities that the applicant will utilize in controlling its certification mark. In its application, TUVPSG included evidence of the application by its American subsidiary for registration of a TUV certification mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
The applicant has procedures for control and issuance of product certifications. According to the review report, it has issued in excess of 25,000
Section 1910.7(b)(3) requires that the NRTL be completely independent of employers subject to the tested equipment requirements, and of any manufacturers or vendors of equipment or materials being tested for these purposes.
As previously stated, TUV Suddeutschland (TUVS) is currently the sole owner of TUVPSG. In addition, application and other information reviewed by OSHA has not revealed that TUVPSG has the kinds of relationships described in OSHA policy that would cause the applicant to fail to meet the independence requirement. Based on this information, TUVPSG does not own or control and is not owned or controlled by the kind of entities of concern to OSHA. In addition, information on business activities and subsidiaries of the TUVPSG's parent company has not revealed any apparent conflicts of interest that could adversely influence the applicant's testing and certification activities. TUVPSG has an employment contract that control conflicts of interest.
Section 1910.7(b)(4) provides that an NRTL must maintain effective procedures for producing credible findings and reports that are objective and without bias, as well as for handling complaints and disputes under a fair and reasonable system.
The applicant utilizes standardized formats for recording and reporting testing data and inspection data. It has procedures for evaluating and reporting the findings for testing and inspection activities to check conformance to all requirements of a test standard. The applicant included examples of completed inspection forms.
Regarding the handling of complaints and disputes, the applicant's complaint management procedure provides the framework to handle complaints it receives from its clients or from the public or other interested parties. According to the review report, under one certification system operated by the applicant, it must respond to an initial complaint within 24 hours. OSHA has no such requirements for NRTLs, but the review report indicates that the applicant will utilize its current form of system controls and documentation to handle complaints stemming from its NRTL certification activities.
TUVPSG seeks recognition for testing and certification of products to determine compliance with the following 38 test standards, and OSHA has determined the standards are “appropriate,” within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c). OSHA recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for which OSHA standards require third party testing and certification before use in the workplace. As a result, the Agency's recognition of an NRTL for a test standard excludes any product(s), falling within the scope of the test standard, for which OSHA has no such requirements.
The designations and titles of the above test standards were current at the time of the preparation of this notice.
Many of the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) test standards listed above are approved as American National Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However, for convenience in compiling the list, we show the designation of the standards developing organization (e.g., UL 22) for the standard, as opposed to the ANSI designation (e.g., ANSI/UL 22). Under our procedures, an NRTL recognized for an ANSI approved test standard may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or the latest ANSI version of that standard, regardless of whether it is currently recognized for the proprietary or ANSI version. Contact ANSI or the ANSI web site to find out whether or not a standard is currently ANSI approved.
TUV Product Services GmbH also seeks to use the supplemental programs listed below, based upon the criteria detailed in the March 9, 1995
Program 2: Acceptance of testing data from independent organizations, other than NRTLs.
Program 3: Acceptance of product evaluations from independent organizations, other than NRTLs.
Program 4: Acceptance of witnessed testing data.
Program 8: Acceptance of product evaluations from organizations that function as part of the International Electrotechnical Commission Certification Body (IEC-CB) Scheme.
Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation performed by subcontractors or agents.
OSHA developed the program descriptions to limit how an NRTL may perform certain aspects of its work and to permit the activities covered under the programs only when the NRTL meets certain criteria. In this sense, they are special conditions that the Agency places on an NRTL's recognition. OSHA does not consider these programs in determining whether an NRTL meets the requirements for recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. However, OSHA does treat these programs as one of the three elements that defines an NRTL's scope of recognition.
TUVPSG also sought recognition for the three remaining supplemental programs, but OSHA is not granting recognition for these programs at this time. Under these programs, an NRTL may use manufacturer's data in performing the testing and evaluation activities required for a test standard. However, as noted in the review report, the manufacturers for which TUVPSG performs testing could lack sufficient familiarity with testing to the US deviations. As stated in the report, TUVPSG may reapply for the 3 programs “in a few years when (the) manufacturers have participated in the witness testing program” and it is familiar with their “testing capability and confidence in their ability to test to US deviations, with respect to products destined for the US marketplace.”
As already indicated, TUVPSG plans to utilize the proprietary US registered mark of its US subsidiary in certifying products as an NRTL. This is a new undertaking for the applicant and although it has procedures for controlling a certification mark, it still needs to further develop and refine the detailed procedures it will use to control this particular mark. As a result, OSHA would conditionally recognize TUVPSG subject to an assessment of the detailed procedures and practices for controlling this mark once they are in place.
The US registered mark is the only one that OSHA would recognize for TUVPSG. In addition, only the site listed in this notice will be able to authorize use of this mark. Since this mark is specific to the NRTL Program, the US subsidiary may not authorize its use unless it were to be recognized as an NRTL. Similarly, none of the other TUVPSG laboratories or locations may authorize the use of this mark. To ensure the applicant and the public understand this fact, OSHA plans to impose a condition to this effect.
As also noted, the applicant has just adopted procedures concerning the criteria for determining the frequency at which it will conduct factory follow-up inspections. Here too it needs more detailed procedures to effectively and properly implement the criteria. OSHA would have to review TUVPSG's approach in implementing the criteria for the twice per year inspections before it begins to conduct inspections at this frequency. As a result, OSHA would conditionally recognize TUVPSG subject to an assessment of the details of this approach once it is in place.
Imposing the proposed conditions is consistent with OSHA's past recognition of certain organizations as NRTLs, which met the basic requirements but needed to further develop or refine their procedures (for example, see 63 FR 68306 12/10/1998; and 65 FR 26637, 05/08/2000). Given the applicant's current breadth of activities in testing and certification, OSHA is confident that TUVPSG would develop and implement procedures and practices to appropriately perform the activities in the areas noted above.
Therefore, OSHA would impose the following conditions in the final notice to officially recognize TUVPSG as an NRTL. These conditions apply solely to TUVPSG's operations as an NRTL and solely to those products that it certifies for purposes of enabling employers to meet OSHA product approval requirements. These conditions would be in addition to all other conditions that OSHA normally imposes in its recognition of an organization as an NRTL.
1. Within 30 days of certifying its first products under the NRTL Program, TUVPSG will notify the OSHA NRTL Program Director so that OSHA may review TUVPSG's implementation of its procedures for controlling the US registered certification mark of its US subsidiary, TUV Product Services, Inc., based in Danvers, Massachusetts.
2. Only TUV Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG) may authorize the US registered certification mark currently owned by its US subsidiary, TUV Product Services, Inc., based in Danvers, Massachusetts. TUVPSG may authorize the use of this mark only at the facility recognized by OSHA.
3. Prior to conducting inspections of manufacturing facilities based on a frequency of twice per year, OSHA must review and accept the detailed procedures that TUVPSG will utilize to determine when to use this frequency for such inspections.
TUV Product Services GmbH (TUVPSG) has addressed the requirements that must be met for recognition as an NRTL, as summarized above. In addition, the NRTL Program staff has performed an on-site review of TUVPSG's Munich, Germany, facility and investigated the processes, procedures, practices, and general operations used by the laboratory. Discrepancies noted by the review staff were addressed by TUVPSG following the on-site review, as detailed above, and are included as an integral part of the on-site review report (see Exhibit 3).
Following a review of the complete application file and the on-site review report, the NRTL Program staff has concluded that the applicant can be granted recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory for the Munich, Germany, facility and for the 38 test standards identified above, subject to the conditions described above. The staff therefore recommended to the Assistant Secretary that the application be preliminarily approved.
Based upon the recommendation of the staff, the Assistant Secretary has made a preliminary finding that TUV Product Services GmbH can meet the recognition requirements, as prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7, for the 38 test standards and the facility noted above, with the conditions to be applied as noted.
OSHA welcomes public comments, in sufficient detail, as to whether TUV Product Services GmbH has met the
The NRTL Program staff will review all timely comments and, after resolution of issues raised by these comments, will recommend whether to grant TUVPSG's application for recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the recognition, and in making this decision, may undertake other proceedings that are prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA will publish a public notice of this final decision in the
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 1978, Public Law 95-541.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. This is the required notice.
Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
On January 31, 2001, the National Science Foundation published notice in the
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following five meetings of the Advisory Panel for Cognitive, Psychological and Language Sciences (#1758);
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision
2. The title of the information collection:
3. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 313, 313A and 313B
4. How often the collection is required: Reports of medical events, doses to an embryo/fetus or nursing child, or leaking sources are reportable on occurrence. A certifying entity desiring to be recognized by the NRC must request recognition.
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Physicians and medical institutions holding an NRC license authorizing the administration of byproduct material or radiation therefrom to humans for medical use.
6. An estimate of the number of responses: 214,402 (61,182 NRC licensees, 153,220 Agreement State licensees). In addition, 23 organizations are expected to prepare requests for recognition.
NRC Form 313: 7 (2 NRC licensees, 5 Agreement State licensees) applications for new modalities.
7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 5793 (1,655 NRC licensees and 4,138 Agreement State licensees).
8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: Part 35: 889,754 hours (254,059 hours for NRC licensees and 635,695 hours for Agreement State licensees) (an average of 154 hours per licensee). In addition, there is a one-time burden of 368 hours on certifying boards involved in their preparing requests for recognition. NRC Form 313: 673 hours (193 hours for NRC licensees and 480 hours for Agreement State licensees).
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies: Applicable
10. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 35, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material”, is being restructured into a more risk-informed, more performance-based regulation. The final rule contains mandatory requirements that apply to NRC licensees authorized to administer byproduct material or radiation therefrom to humans for medical use.
The information in the required reports and records is used by the NRC to ensure that public health and safety is protected, and that the possession and use of byproduct material is in compliance with the license and regulatory requirements.
A copy of the supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance packages are available at the NRC worldwide web site: http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/OMB/index.html. The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer by April 16, 2001:
Amy Farrell, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0010, and -0120), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC 20503.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-7318.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will convene a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) on April 18, 2001. The meeting will take place at the address provided below. The entire meeting will be open to the public. Topics of discussion will include: (1) status of issuance of the new 10 CFR part 35, Medical Use of Byproduct Material; (2) transition and implementation issues for the new 10 CFR part 35; (3) recognition of certification boards for training and experience qualifications; and (4) licensing issues for brachytherapy.
The meeting will be held on April 18, 2001, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North Building, Conference Room T2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738.
Angela R. Williamson, telephone (301) 415-5030, e-mail arw@nrc.gov, of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Manuel D. Cerqueira, M.D., will chair the meeting. Dr. Cerqueira will conduct the meeting in a manner that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The following procedures apply to public participation in the meeting:
1. Persons who wish to provide a written statement should submit reproducible copy to Angela Williamson (address previously listed) by April 11, 2001. Statements must pertain to the topics on the agenda for the meeting.
2. Questions from members of the public will be permitted during the meeting, at the discretion of the Chairman.
3. The transcript and written comments will be available for inspection and copying for a fee, at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738, telephone (800) 397-4209, on or about May 20, 2001. Minutes of the meeting will be available on or about June 8, 2001.
4. Seating for the public will be on a first-come, first served basis.
This meeting will be held in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (primarily Section 161a); the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App); and the Commission's regulations in Title 10,
The ACRS Subcommittee on Planning and Procedures will hold a meeting on April 4, 2001, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACRS, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows:
The Subcommittee will discuss proposed ACRS activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and to formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
Oral statements may be presented by members of the public with the concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements will be accepted and made available to the Committee. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public, and questions may be asked only by members of the Subcommittee, its consultants, and staff. Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the cognizant ACRS staff person named below five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, the scheduling of sessions open to the public, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements, and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting the cognizant ACRS staff person, Dr. John T. Larkins (telephone: 301/415-7360) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EST). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual one or two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any changes in schedule, etc., that may have occurred.
Notice is hereby given that by Petition dated December 4, 2000, Deborah Katz, Marilyn Elie, Tim Judson, Kyle Rabin, Mark Jacobs, Paul Gunter, and Jim Riccio (petitioners) have requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take the following six actions with regard to Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit No. 2 (IP2): (1) Suspend the license for the IP2 reactor because of the licensee's “persistent and pervasive, negligent management of the reactor,” (2) investigate whether the potential misrepresentation of material fact by the utility regarding “significantly insufficient” engineering calculations was due to a lack of rigor and thoroughness or was deliberate, (3) revoke the IP2 operating license if it is found that the licensee deliberately provided insufficient and false information, (4) if the license is not revoked, maintain IP2 on the “list of agency's focus reactors” until management demonstrates it can fulfill its regulatory requirements and commitments, (5) not approve the transfer of the IP2 license until management can demonstrate that the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), the condition report backlog, and the maintenance requirements are up-to-date and workers have been retrained, and (6) not allow the IP2 reactor to restart until the fundamental breakdown in management is analyzed and corrected.
As a basis for this request, the petitioners state that the NRC inspections and other plant performance measurement processes have uncovered serious weaknesses and inaccuracies in the UFSAR, the Technical Specifications, the design and licensing bases, communications, maintenance, procedures, and worker training which, in the aggregate, point to a systemic mismanagement problem. The petitioners further state that without solid evidence that the licensee has addressed the root causes of systemic mismanagement, brought the reactor within compliance with its licensing and design bases, and established that the material condition of safety-significant reactor components is within safe limits, the licensee is no more prepared to operate IP2 than it was before the two recent operating events.
The Petition has been accepted for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations, and has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). In accordance with Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this Petition within a reasonable time. The NRR Petition Review Board (PRB) met on December 20, 2000, to consider Requested Action 6, that the NRC prevent the IP2 reactor from restarting. The PRB recommended that the request be denied, and the Director denied it. The Director denied Requested Action 6 because the Petitioners' bases for prohibiting IP2's restart had been previously evaluated individually and in aggregate by the NRC for regulatory and safety significance. The Director found that the issues did not warrant prohibiting the restart of IP2. The petitioners Deborah Katz, Tim Judson, Kyle Rabin, Mark Jacobs, Paul Gunter, and Jim Riccio met with the NRR PRB on January 24, 2001, to discuss the Petition. The results of that discussion were considered in the board's determination regarding the schedule for the review of the Petition. The Petition and the NRC's acknowledgment letter are available in ADAMS for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, and from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC's Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued for public comment a draft of a proposed guide in its Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the staff in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The draft guide, temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1105 (which should be mentioned in all correspondence concerning this draft guide), is titled “Procedures and Criteria for Assessing Seismic Soil Liquefaction at Nuclear Power Plant Sites.” This draft guide is being developed to provide guidance to license applicants on methods acceptable to the NRC staff for evaluating the potential for earthquake-induced instability of soils resulting from liquefaction and strength degradation.
This draft guide has not received complete staff approval and does not represent an official NRC staff position.
Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Written comments may be submitted to the Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Comments will be most helpful if received by June 15, 2001.
You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the ability to upload comments as files (any format) if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking web site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail
Although a time limit is given for comments on this draft guide, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
Regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205; fax (301) 415-3548; email PDR@NRC>GOV. Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; or by e-mail to <
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Extension of comment period.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the availability of the draft document entitled: “Risk-Based Performance Indicators: Results of Phase-1 Development,” dated January 2001 for review and comment by external stakeholders in a document published in the February 1, 2001
Submit comments by May 14, 2001. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
A public meeting will be held on April 24, 2001 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss external stakeholder comments on the results of Phase-1 RBPI development, and the technical feasibility of applying these concepts in the Reactor Oversight Process.
Submit comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Deliver comments to: 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
The public meeting will be held at Two White Flint North Auditorium, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
The draft document and certain other documents related to this action, including comments received, may be examined in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Hossein G. Hamzehee, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: 301-415-6228, e-mail:
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Management and Budget.
Revisions to Appendix C of OMB Circular A-94.
The Office of Management and Budget revised Circular A-94 in 1992. The revised Circular specified
The revised discount rates are effective immediately and will be in effect through January 2002.
Robert B. Anderson, Office of Economic Policy, Office of Management and Budget, (202) 395-3381.
Analyses of programs with terms different from those presented above may use a linear interpolation. For example, a four-year project can be evaluated with a rate equal to the average of the three-year and five-year rates. Programs with durations longer than 30 years may use the 30-year interest rate.
Postal Rate Commission.
Notice and order on reconsideration of Commission's docket no. R2000-1 further opinion and recommended decision.
This document informs the public that the Governors of the Postal Service have requested reconsideration of the Commission's further opinion and recommended decision in docket no. R2000-1 as it relates to the Service's revenue requirement. It invites comments on several questions. It also sets deadlines for initial and reply comments.
Initial comments are due March 19, 2001. Reply comments are due March 26, 2001.
Send comments to the attention of Steven W. Williams, acting secretary, 1333 H Street NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20268-0001.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6820.
39 U.S.C. 3625(f).
65 FR 79141, Dec. 18, 2000.
On November 13, 2000 the Commission issued its initial opinion and recommended decision in docket no. R2000-1. On December 5, 2000 the Governors of the United States Postal Service accepted that recommended decision under protest and returned it for reconsideration of certain specified issues. After obtaining an explanation from the Postal Service, comments from other participants, and reply comments from the Postal Service the Commission provided its opinion and further recommended decision addressing these issues on February 9, 2001.
On March 6, 2001 the decision of the Governors of the United States Postal Service on the further recommended decision of the Postal Rate Commission on postal rate and fee changes, docket No. R2000-1 (Governors decision) was transmitted to the Commission. The Governors decision rejects the Commission's opinion and further recommended decision and returns docket no. R2000-1 for reconsideration of the Postal Service's revenue requirement.
The Governors believe that the revenue requirement is $69.8 billion. They forthrightly urge the Commission either to recommend rates that would generate this amount of revenue, or to provide some other recommended decision “with great expedition so that we can consider exercising our statutorily-limited modification option.”
The Governors recognize that the Commission has previously found that the existing evidentiary record in docket no. R2000-1 does not support a $69.8
Last month, the chief financial officer told us that the Postal Service stands to lose between $2 billion and $3 billion this fiscal year, which is the rate case test year. While we are not asking the Commission to recommend rates to eliminate this latest projected net loss, we are asking the Commission to recommend rates and fees that meet the updated cost estimates already developed on the record, including a 2.5 percent contingency provision. This would reduce the projected net loss.
The Commission will again review the record evidence on the items identified by the Governors, and respond expeditiously to the Governors' request. The issues before the Commission have been sufficiently developed in the Governors decision so that the process can be shortened by foregoing an initial explanatory statement by the Postal Service. The Commission has identified three questions that directly relate to the issues before it. All participants, including the Postal Service are invited to provide comments on these questions as well as other issues before the Commission, and to reply to comments filed by other participants.
The three questions are: (1) Can the Commission lawfully recommend higher rates as requested by the Governors; (2) should the Commission recommend higher rates as requested by the Governors; and (3) if the answer to the first two questions is yes, how should higher rates be developed?
The Governors now ask the Commission to recommend rates that will annually generate $69.8 billion. The initial rate request sought rates that would annually generate $69.0 billion. Are there any statutory or procedural impediments to a Commission recommendation of rates designed to produce the higher revenue amount?
Although the Governors contend that further Commission action can be based on the evidentiary record developed before September 8, 2000, their request for reconsideration is obviously predicated on their access to information on current postal finances. See for example, “we find ourselves, almost halfway into the test year, operating under rates inadequate to meet the Postal Service's revenue needs.” Governors decision at 3. See also, “the Postal Service stands to lose between $2 billion and $3 billion this fiscal year,” id. at 4. The Governors state that a new rate case is now being prepared and that immediate additional rate increases will affect the amount of additional funds it will have to seek.
Thus, the Governors present indirectly the question of whether the Service's financial health depends to some degree on an immediate infusion of additional rate revenues. This issue certainly may play a major role in any decision the Governors make on the Commission's next recommended decision. Whether, and how, the Commission's findings in the current proceeding can be influenced by such statements is less clear. See
With regard to whether rates should be increased, participants might express a preference for an immediate small increase, if that would reduce the size of the expected, substantial increase planned for next year. On the other hand, participant comments on issues raised in the earlier request for reconsideration indicated that small increases can be so disruptive to mailing practices as to be counter-productive. See Reply of the United States Postal Service to Comments of Participants in Response to the Postal Service's Memorandum on Reconsideration, January 19, 2001, at 35-38 and 40, and comment cited therein.
The attribution methods applied in this case by the Commission are not in controversy on reconsideration. Thus, participants should be able to estimate the amount by which the attributable costs of any class of mail would increase if the Commission finds that the revenue requirement should include those additional items highlighted by the Governors.
In the memorandum of the Postal Service on reconsideration and request for expedition, December 20, 2000, at 22-26, the Service expressed the general view that there is sufficient record evidence to allow the Commission to design rates that would provide all necessary revenues and be consistent with the policies of the [Postal Reorganization] Act as required by 39 U.S.C. 3622(b). Although it chose not to suggest any specific rates, it further advised the Commission that rate adjustments in Bound Printed Matter should not reduce workshare differentials. Id. at 31. Other participants may have suggestions of this nature.
Because the issues presented by this request for further reconsideration have already been the subject of comments to the Commission, and in light of the Governors' request for maximum expedition, only ten days will be allowed for initial comments, and seven days will be allowed for replies.
Ordering paragraph No. 1 provides that participants' comments on the request for further reconsideration are to be filed on or before March 19, 2001. Ordering paragraph No. 2 provides that reply comments are to be filed on or before March 26, 2001. Ordering paragraph No. 3 provides that the acting secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
March 5, 2001.
Closed.
66 FR 11190, February 22, 2001.
Experimental Priority Mail Presort (Niche) Classification. At its meeting on March 5, 2001, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to add this item to the agenda of its closed meeting and that no earlier announcement was possible. The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service certified that in her opinion discussion of this item could be properly closed to public observation.
David G. Hunter, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.
Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Filings and Information Services 450 Fifth Street, NW. Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Rule 15g-9, Sales Practice Requirements for Certain Low-Priced Securities Section 15(c)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) authorizes the Commission to promulgate rules that prescribe means reasonably designed to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative practices in connection with over-the-counter (“OTC”) securities transactions. Pursuant to this authority, the Commission in 1989 adopted Rule 15a-6 (the “Rule”), which was subsequently redesignated as Rule 15g-9, 17 CFR 240.15g-9. The Rule requires broker-dealers to produce a written suitability determination for, and to obtain a written customer agreement to, certain recommended transactions in low-priced stocks that are not registered on a national securities exchange or authorized for trading on NASDAQ, and whose issuers do not meet certain minimum financial standards. The Rule is intended to prevent the indiscriminate use by broker-dealers of fraudulent, high-pressure telephone sales campaigns to sell low-priced securities to unsophisticated customers.
The staff estimates that approximately 270 broker-dealers incur an average burden of 78 hours per year to comply with this rule. Thus, the total burden hours to comply with the Rule is estimated at 21,060 hours (270 × 78).
The broker-dealer must keep the written suitability determination and customer agreement required by the Rule for at least three years. Completing the suitability determination and obtaining the customer agreement in writing is mandatory for broker-dealers who effect transactions in penny stocks and do not qualify for an exemption, but does not involve the collection of confidential information. Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by April 3, 2001, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After April 3, 2001, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
American Electric Power Company, Inc. (“AEP”), 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus, Ohio 43215, a registered holding company, has filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9)a), 10, 12(b), 12(c), 12(f), 32, and 33 of the Act and rules 42, 45, 46, and 53 under the Act.
AEP proposes to organize and acquire all of the common stock or other equity interests of one or more subsidiaries, financing subsidiaries, (collectively “FS”) for the purpose of effecting various financing transactions through June 30, 2004 involving the issuance and sale of up to an aggregate of $1.5 billion, cash proceeds to AEP in any combination of preferred securities, debt securities, interest rate hedges, anticipatory hedges, stock purchase contracts and stock purchase units, as well as its common stock issuable under the stock purchase contracts and stock purchase units to acquire the securities of associate companies and interests in other businesses including exempt wholesale generators (“EWGs”) and foreign utility companies (“FUCOs”). AEP further proposes that it may effect directly, without the FS, any such transaction involving preferred securities, debt securities, stock purchase contracts or stock purchase units, provided that AEP shall not issue any secured indebtedness. Also, no FS or Special Purpose Subsidiary (“SPS”) shall acquire or dispose of, directly or indirectly, any interest in any utility asset, as that term is defined under the Act.
AEP will acquire all of the outstanding shares of common stock or other equity interests of the FS for amounts (inclusive of capital contributions that may be made from time to time to the FS by AEP) aggregating up to 35% of the total capitalization of the FS (
In connection with the issuance of preferred securities (“Preferred Securities”), AEP proposes that it or the FS will organize one or more separate SPSs as any one or any combination of (a) a limited liability company under the Limited Liability Company Act (the “LLC Act”) of the State of Delaware or other jurisdiction considered advantageous by AEP, (b) a limited partnership under the Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act of the State of Delaware or other jurisdiction considered advantageous by AEP, (c) a business trust under the laws of the State of Delaware or other jurisdiction considered advantageous by AEP, or (d) any other entity or structure, foreign or domestic, that is considered advantageous by AEP. In the event that any SPS is organized as a limited liability company, AEP or the FS may also organize a second special purpose wholly owned subsidiary under the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware or other jurisdiction (“Investment Sub”) for the purpose of acquiring and holding SPS membership interests so as to comply with any requirement under the applicable LLC Act that a limited liability company have at least two members. In the event that any SPS is organized as a limited partnership, AEP or the FS also may organize an Investment Sub for the purpose of acting as the general partner of such SPS and may acquire, either directly or indirectly through such Investment Sub, a limited partnership interest in such SPS to ensure that such SPS will at all times have a limited partner to the extent required by applicable law. The respective SPS then will issue and sell to private or public investors, at any time or from time to time, unsecured preferred securities (“Preferred Securities”) with a specified par or stated value or liquidation preference per security.
AEP, the FS and/or an Investment Sub will acquire all of the common stock or all of the general partnership or other common equity interests, as the case may be, of any SPS for an amount not less than the minimum required by any applicable law and not exceeding 21% of the total equity capitalization from time to time of such SPS (
The FS may issue and sell to any SPS, at any time or from time to time in one or more series, unsecured subordinated debentures, unsecured promissory notes or other unsecured debt instruments (collectively, “Notes”) governed by an indenture or other document, and such SPS will apply both the Equity Contribution made to it and the proceeds from the sale of Preferred Securities by it from time to time to purchase Notes. Alternatively, the FS may enter into a loan agreement or agreements with any SPS under which such SPS will loan to the FS (individually, a “Loan” and collectively, the “Loans”) both the Equity Contribution to such SPS and the proceeds from the sale of the Preferred Securities by such SPS from time to time, and the FS will issue to such SPS Notes evidencing such borrowings.
Each Note will have a term of up to 50 years. Prior to maturity, the FS will pay interest only on the Notes at a rate equal to the dividend or distribution rate on the related series of Preferred Securities, which dividend or distribution rate may be either a fixed rate or an adjustable rate to be determined on a periodic basis by auction or remarketing procedures, in accordance with a formula or formulae based upon certain reference rates, or by other predetermined methods. Such interest payments will constitute each respective SPS's only income and will be used by it to pay dividends or distributions on the Preferred Securities issued by it and dividends or distributions on the common stock or the general partnership or other common equity interests of such SPS.
Dividend payments or distributions on the Preferred Securities will be made on a monthly or other periodic basis and must be made to the extent that the SPS issuing such Preferred Securities has legally available funds and cash sufficient for such purposes. However, the FS may have the right to defer payment of interest on any issue of Notes for up to five or more years. Each SPS will have the parallel right to defer dividend payments or distributions on the related series of Preferred Securities for up to five or more years, provided that if dividends or distributions on the Preferred Securities of any series are not paid for up to 18 or more consecutive months, then the holders of the Preferred Securities of such series may have the right to appoint a trustee, special general partner or other special representative to enforce the SPS's rights under the related Note and Guaranty.
The dividend or distribution rates, payment dates, redemption and other similar provisions of each series of Preferred Securities will be substantially identical to the interest rates, payment dates, redemption and other provisions of the Note issued by the FS. The Preferred Securities may be convertible or exchangeable into common stock of AEP.
AEP or the FS also proposes to guarantee (collectively, the “Guaranties”) (a) payment of dividends or distributions on the Preferred Securities of any SPS if and to the extent such SPS has funds legally available, (b) payments to the Preferred Securities holders of amounts due upon liquidation of such SPS or redemption of the Preferred Securities of such SPS, and (c) certain additional amounts that may be payable in respect of such Preferred Securities. AEP's credit will support any such Guaranty by the FS.
The Notes and related Guaranties will be subordinate to all other existing and future unsubordinated indebtedness for borrowed money of the FS or AEP, and may have no cross-default provisions with respect to other indebtedness of the FS or AEP. A default under any other outstanding indebtedness of the FS (or AEP) would not result in a default under any Note or Guaranty. However, AEP and/or the FS may be
In the event of any voluntary or involuntary liquidation, dissolution or winding up of any SPS, the holders of the Preferred Securities of such SPS will be entitled to receive, out of the assets of such SPS available for distribution to its shareholders, partners or other owners, an amount equal to the par or stated value or liquidation preference of such Preferred Securities plus any accrued and unpaid dividends or distributions.
The distribution rate to be borne by the Preferred Securities and the interest rate on the Notes will not exceed the greater of (a) 300 basis points over U.S. Treasury securities having comparable maturities or (b) a gross spread over U.S. Treasury securities that is consistent with similar securities having comparable maturities and credit quality issued by other companies. Current market conditions suggest the costs for issuing long-term indebtedness with a three to five year maturity are less than or equal to the costs for issuing short-term indebtedness over the same time period.
AEP proposes that, in addition to, or as an alternative to, any Preferred Securities financing as described above, AEP and/or the FS may issue and sell notes directly to public or private investors without an intervening SPS (“Debt Securities”). Any notes so issued will be unsecured, may be either senior or subordinated obligations of AEP or the FS, as the case may be, may be convertible or exchangeable into common stock of AEP or Preferred Securities, and may have the benefit of a sinking fund. Debt Securities of the FS will have the benefit of a guarantee or other credit support by AEP. AEP will not issue the Debt Securities, either directly or through the FS, unless it has evaluated all relevant financial considerations (including, without limitation, the cost of equity capital) and has determined that to do so is preferable to issuing common stock or short-term debt. Current market conditions suggest the costs for issuing long-term indebtedness with a three to five year maturity are less than or equal to the costs for issuing short-term indebtedness over the same time period.
The interest rate on the Debt Securities will not exceed the greater of (a) 300 basis points over U.S. Treasury securities having comparable maturities or (b) a gross spread over U.S. Treasury securities that is consistent with similar securities having comparable maturities and credit quality issued by other companies.
AEP or the FS may issue and sell to public or private investors from time to time stock purchase contracts (“Stock Purchase Contracts”), including contracts obligating holders to purchase from AEP, and AEP to sell the holders, a specified number of shares or aggregate offering price of common stock of AEP at a future date or dates up to ten years from the date of issuance. The consideration per share of common stock may be fixed at the time the Stock Purchase Contracts are issued or may be determined by reference to a specific formula set forth in the Stock Purchase Contracts. The Stock Purchase Contracts may be issued separately or as a part of units (“Stock Purchase Units”) consisting of a Stock Purchase Contract and Debt Securities, Preferred Securities, or other debt obligations of third parties, including U.S. Treasury securities, securing holders' obligations to purchase the common stock of AEP under the Stock Purchase Contracts. The funds to purchase obligations would be provided by, and the interest income will be for the benefit of the investors. The Stock Purchase Contracts may require AEP or the FS to make periodic payments to the holders of the Stock Purchase Units or vice versa. Any such payments by AEP or the FS not to exceed 5% per annum, and such payments may be unsecured or prefunded on some basis. The Stock Purchase Contracts may require holders to secure their obligations in a specified manner, which may include the pledging of U.S. Treasury securities.
AEP request authorization for it and/or the FS to enter into interest rate hedging transactions with respect to existing indebtedness (“Interest Rate Hedges”), subject to certain limitations and restrictions, in order to reduce or manage interest rate cost or risk. Interest Rate Hedges will only be entered into with counterparties (“Approved Counterparties”) whose senior debt ratings, or whose parent companies' senior debt ratings, as published by Standard and Poor's Ratings Group, are equal to or greater than BBB, or an equivalent rating from Moody's Investor's Service or Fitch Investor Service. Interest Rate Hedges will involve the use of financial instruments and derivatives commonly used in today's capital markets, such as interest rate swaps, options, caps, collars, floors, and structured notes (
In addition, AEP requests authorization for it and/or the FS to enter into interest rate hedging transactions with respect to anticipate debt offerings (the “Anticipatory Hedges”), subject to certain limitations and restrictions. Anticipatory Hedges will only be entered into with Approved Counterpaties, and will be utilized to fix and/or limit the interest rate risk associated with any new issuance through: (a) A forward sale of exchange-traded U.S. Treasury futures contracts, U.S. Treasury obligations and/or a forward swap (each a “Forward Sale”); (b) the purchase of put options on U.S. Treasury obligations (a “Put Options Purchase”); (c) a Put Options Purchase in combination with the sale of call options on U.S. Treasury obligations (a “Zero Cost Collar”); (d) transactions involving the purchase or sale, including short sales, of U.S. Treasury obligations; or (e) some combination of a Forward Sale, Put Options Purchase, Zero Cost Collar and/or other derivative or cash transactions, including, but not limited to structured notes, options, caps and collars, appropriate for the Anticipatory Hedges. Anticipatory Hedges may be executed on-exchange (“On-Exchange Trades”) with broker through the opening of futures and/or options positions traded on the Chicago Board of Trade or the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the opening of over-the-counter positions with one or more counterparties (“Off-Exchange Trades”), or a combination of On-Exchange Trades and Off-Exchange Trades. AEP and/or the FS will
AEP represents that each Interest Rate Hedge and Anticipatory Hedge will qualify for hedge accounting treatment under generally accepted accounting principles. AEP will comply with the then existing financial disclosure requirements of the Financial Accounting Standards Board associated with hedging transactions.
The proceeds of any financing by the FS or any SPS will be remitted, paid as a dividend, loaned or otherwise transferred to AEP or its designee. The proceeds of the Preferred Securities, Debt Securities, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units will be used to acquire the securities of associate companies and interests in other businesses, including interests in EWGs and FUCOs, or in any transactions permitted under the Act and for other general corporate purposes, including the reduction of short-term indebtedness. No proceeds will be used to purchase generation assets currently owned by AEP or any affiliate unless such purchase has been approved by order of the Commission pursuant to S.E.C. File No. 70-9785 or other similar application. AEP had approximately $2.3 billion outstanding short-term indebtedness as of September 30, 2000. AEP represents that no financing proceeds will be used to acquire the equity securities of any company unless such acquisition has been approved by the Commission in this proceeding or in a separate proceeding or is in accordance with an available exemption under sections 32, 33, and 34 or rule 58 of the Act. AEP does not seek in this proceeding any increase in the amount it is permitted to invest in EWGs and FUCOs.
Allegheny Energy, Inc., (“Allegheny”), a registered holding company, and Allegheny Energy Service Corporation (“AESC”), a service company subsidiary of Allegheny, both located at 10435 Downsville Pike, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740, Monongahela Power Company (“Monongahela Power”), a wholly owned combination gas and electric utility subsidiary of Allegheny, located at 1310 Fairmont Avenue, Fairmont, West Virginia 26554, and Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (“Genco”), a wholly owned generating company subsidiary of Allegheny located at R.R. 12, P.O. Box 1000, Greensburg, Pennsylvania 15601 (collectively, “Applicants”), have filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10, 12(b), 12(c), 12(d) and 13(b) of the Act, and rules 43, 44, 45, 46, 54, 90 and 91 under the Act.
Monongahela Power, subject to obtaining the requisite regulatory approvals, intends to leave the generating business entirely. To accomplish this, Applicants request authority for Monongahela Power to transfer its electric generating business to Genco, which was organized to compete in deregulated, competitive electricity generation markets.
The Generating Assets consist of the undivided ownership interests in the following generating facilities: A 25% interest in unit No. 1 and a 20% interest in Unit No. 2 of the Fort Martin Power station located in Maidsville, West Virginia; a 66% interest in the Albright Power Station located in Albright, West Virginia; a 25% interest in the Harrison Power Station located in Shinnston, West Virginia; a 27.5% interest in the Hatfield's Ferry Power Station located in Masontown, Pennsylvania; a 25% interest in the Pleasants Power Station, located in Saint Mary's, West Virginia; a 100% interest in the Willow Island Station located in Willow Island, West Virginia. Applicants state that the total net book value of the Generating Assets was approximately $456.5 million as of December 31, 2000. Monongahela Power also intends to transfer Inventory to Genco.
The Related Assets consist of current assets, deferred charges, cash, temporary cash investments and an undivided 27% ownership interest in the stock of Allegheny Generating Company (“AGC”).
The Related Liabilities consist of accounts payable, accrued taxes, tax deferrals, pollution control bonds, solid waste bonds and other deferred credits related to the Generating Assets. Applicants state that the book value of the Related Liabilities was approximately $253.9 million as of December 31, 2000. Applicants state that the Related Liabilities do not include Monongahela Power's first mortgage bonds. Applicants state that Monongahela Power expects to obtain a release from the lien of the first mortgage by certifying or pledging additional bondable property in an amount not less than the net book value of the Generating Assets, which could include remaining utility assets of Monongahela Power, and request authority to pledge those assets to obtain the described release.
To accomplish the proposed transfers, Applicants request authority to form two companies, MP Transferring Agent, LLC (“MP Transferring Agent”), a limited liability company and MP Genco (“MP Genco”), a corporation. Monongahela Power would acquire the ownership interests in MP Transferring Agent in exchange for an initial cash contribution of $200,000, and MP Transferring Agent in exchange for an initial cash contribution of $200,000, and MP Transferring Agent would acquire the interests in MP Genco for an initial cash contribution of $100,000, with the contributions to be in the form of collateralized government obligations.
Monongahela Power would then transfer its undivided ownership interests in the Generating Assets, Related Assets, Related Liabilities, Inventory and Other Interests to MP Transferring Agent. MP Transferring Agent would issue an interest bearing unsecured promissory note to
MP Transferring Agent proposes to contribute the Generating Assets, Related Assets, Inventory and Other Interests to MP Genco, which would also assume the Related Liabilities. The Liquidation Note and Balancing Note would remain at MP Transferring Agent, as well as the Purchase Note obligation. MP Transferring Agent proposes to dividend its interests in MP Genco, the Balancing Note, and the Liquidation Note, net of the Purchase Note to Monongahela Power. Monongahela Power proposes to then dividend the MP Genco interests to Allegheny, after which MP Genco would merge with Genco. Applicants would then liquidate MP Transferring Agent.
Monongahela Power and Genco propose to enter into a debt assumption agreement under which Genco would assume the obligation for $100 million in outstanding debt (“Debt Assumption Agreement”). Applicants note that the Debt Assumption Agreement is a result of Monongahela Power's first mortgage obligations, a portion of which relate to the Generating Assets being transferred. In addition, Applicants request authority for Monongahela Power and Genco to enter into leaseback, service and operating agreements with respect to the Generating Assets, until Genco obtains the necessary permits and licenses to operate the Generating Assets. These services would be rendered at cost, in accordance with rules 90 and 91 under the Act.
Cinergy Corp. (“Cinergy”), a registered holding company, 139 East Fourth Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, has filed an application-declaration with the Commission under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10 and 12(c) of the Act and rules 42 and 54 under the Act.
By order dated February 7, 1997, Holding Co. Act Release No. 26662 (“1997 Order”), the Commission authorized Cinergy to establish a nonutility subsidiary, Cinergy Solutions, to engage in nonutility energy-related businesses, directly or indirectly through its subsidiaries, in the United States and, with respect to certain of these activities, within and anywhere outside of the United States.
Cinergy now seeks authorization for its nonutility subsidiaries, in addition to Cinergy Solutions, to: (a) Market Energy Management Services and Consulting Services anywhere in the world;
Cinergy requests that the Commission reserve jurisdiction over Cinergy's proposal for: (a) Its nonutility subsidiaries to engage in the business of brokering and marketing energy commodities anywhere in the world outside of the United States and Canada; and (b) Cinergy to invest up to $1 billion over a ten-year period in nonutility energy-related assets located anywhere in the world that are incidental to and used to support their Energy Management Services and Consulting Services.
Cinergy also requests authorization for Cinergy to change the terms of, or otherwise, adjust, the capital stock or any other equity securities of its wholly owned utility and nonutility subsidiaries' capital stock or other equity securities as it deems appropriate or necessary, without further Commission authorization. As examples, Cinergy states that it may convert a subsidiary's par value capital stock to no par value stock, to effect a reverse stock split, or change the total number of shares of capital securities it holds in a subsidiary while maintaining its percentage of ownership. Any change in capitalization will be subject to the approval of the State commission in the State in which the subsidiary is incorporated and doing business.
Cinergy requests that the Commission reserve jurisdiction over any of Cinergy's proposed adjustments to capital securities of subsidiaries that are not wholly owned by Cinergy.
Xcel Energy Inc. (“Xcel”), 800 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402, a registered holding company, has filed an application-declaration under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10 and 12(c) of the Act and rules 42, 46 and 54 under the Act.
Xcel request authority to implement a stockholder protection rights plan (“Plan”) and related agreement creating the stockholder rights (“Rights Agreement”). The Plan is intended to maximize stockholder value due to opportunistic takeover proposals. Under the Plan, the board of directors of Xcel (“Board”) would declare a dividend of one right (“Rights”) for each outstanding share of Xcel common stock, par value $2.50 per share (“Common Stock”), payable to all stockholders of record on the close of business in the tenth business day following the first public announcement by Xcel of the granting of an order by the Commission approving this application-declaration.
Each Right issued to a registered holder of Common Stock would, after the Right becomes exercisable, entitle the holder to purchase from Xcel one share of Common Stock at a price of $95.00 per Right, subject to adjustment (“Exercise Price”). The Rights would not entitle the holders to make a discounted purchase of shares of Common Stock or the common stock of the person acquiring Xcel until the occurrence of one of the events described below. The Rights will expire at the close of business ten years from the date of the Rights Agreement, unless earlier redeemed exchanged by Xcel.
Until the earlier of the two dates described below (“Flip-In Date”), Rights would not be exercisable and would trade with the outstanding shares of Common Stock. One date occurs on the day the Board publicly announces (or a later date if the board so chooses) that a person or group (“Acquiring Person”) has acquired beneficial ownership of 15% or more of the Common Stock. The second date occurs ten business days (unless extended by the Board) after any person or group has commenced a tender or exchange offer which would, upon its consummation, result in such person or group becoming an Acquiring Person.
After the Flip-In Date, the holders of the Rights would immediately have the right to receive, for each Right exercised, Common Stock having a market value equal to two times the Exercise Price then in effect. Under certain circumstances where Xcel is acquired in a business combination transaction with, or 50% or more of its assets or earning power is sold or transferred to, another person or entity (“Acquiror”), exercise of a Right will entitle its holder to receive common stock of the Acquiror having a market value equal to two times the Exercise Price then in effect. Rights beneficially owned by any Acquiring Person and certain transferees of the Acquiring Person will be null and void.
The Rights may be redeemed, as a whole, at the discretion of the Board, at a Redemption Price of $0.01 per Right, subject to adjustment, which will be paid, at Xcel's option, in cash, shares of Common Stock or other equivalent Xcel securities, at any time prior to the close of business on the date that any person has become an Acquiring Person.
At any time after a Flip-in Date and prior to the time that any person (other than Xcel and certain related entities), together with its affiliates and associates, becomes the beneficial owner of 50% or more of the outstanding shares of Common Stock, the Board may direct the exchange of shares of Common Stock for all of the Rights (other than Rights which have become void) at the exchange ratio of one share of Common Stock per right, subject to adjustment.
The Exercise Price payable, and the number of shares of Common Stock (or other securities, as the case may be) issuable upon exercise of the Rights are subject to adjustment from time to time to prevent dilution (a) in the event of a stock dividend on, or a subdivision or combination of, the Common Stock, or (b) upon the distribution to holders of the Common Stock of securities or assets (excluding regular periodic cash dividends) whether by dividend, reclassification, recapitalization or otherwise.
The terms of the Rights may be amended by the Board (a) prior to the Flip-in Date in any manner and (b) on or after the Flip-in Date to cure any ambiguity, to correct or supplement any provision of the Rights Agreement which may be defective or inconsistent with any other provisions, or in any manner not adversely affecting the interests of the holders of the Rights generally.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 1012, Commentary .05 by creating one point strike price intervals for options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares. In addition, the Phlx proposes to amend Phlx Rule 101 to establish the hours of trading for options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock, a particular class of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares,
.02-.03 No Change.
(a)-(d) No Change.
.01-.04 No Change.
.05.
(a) The interval of strike prices of series of options on individual stocks [or Exchange-Traded Fund Shares] will be $2.50 or greater where the strike price is $25 or less, $5.00 or greater where the strike price is greater than $25 but less than $200, and $10 or greater where the strike price is $200 or more, except as provided in paragraph (b) below.
(b) The Exchange may select up to a specified number of its listed options on individual stocks [or Exchange-Traded Fund Shares] for which the interval of strike prices will be $2.50 where the strike price is greater than $25 but less than $50. In addition to those options selected by the Exchange, the strike price interval may be $2.50 in any multiply-traded option once another exchange trading that option selects such option, as part of this program.
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide one point strike price intervals for options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and to establish the hours of trading in options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock from 9:30 AM to 4:15 PM EST, except the last trading day of each calendar month, when trading in options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock will end at 4:05 PM EST.
The Phlx received approval by the Commission to trade options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares on February 2, 2001.
Additionally, the Phlx proposes to amend its hours of business
The Phlx believes that these amendments should increase investor protection by allowing Options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares and, in particular, options on the Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock to trade at the same strike price intervals and trading hours on the Phlx as on other exchanges. Further, the Phlx believes that these amendments do not impose any significant burden on competition because these amendments further enable the Phlx to compete with other exchanges in these products.
The Phlx believes that the proposed amendments should assist in allowing the Exchange to offer investors another choice of venue to conduct trading in these products. Thus, the Phlx believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Phlx 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 Phlx has neither solicited nor received any written comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the Phlx has given written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing the rule change, or such shorter time as
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Phlx has requested that the Commission accelerate the operative date to March 8, 2001. The Commission finds that accelerating the operative date of the proposed rule change to enable the Phlx to compete with other exchanges in these products and provide investors with an additional venue to trade these products is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, and thus designates March 8, 2001 as the operative date of this filing.
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 such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx.
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-01-32 and should be submitted by April 6, 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 Phlx proposes to file its Employee Code of Conduct and its Code of Conduct for Board Members and Committee Members (collectively “Codes of Conduct”). The Phlx proposes to incorporate in its Codes of Conduct language similar in import to that of proposed new Commentary .01 (“Prohibition Against Harassment”) to Exchange Rule 707 (“Just and Equitable Principles of Trade”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Phlx or the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item III below. The Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange has long insisted that members of the Boards of Governors of the Exchange and its subsidiaries, committee members of the Exchange and its subsidiaries, and employees, officers, and agents of the Exchange and its subsidiaries (“Covered Persons”) observe the highest standards of business ethics and fair dealing. The Exchange has therefore had an Employee Code of Conduct and a Code of Conduct of Board Members and Committee Members. The Exchange is now proposing to file these Codes of Conduct, which contain new proposed anti-harassment language similar to Commentary .01 of Rule 707, with the Commission.
The Phlx proposes to amend the Codes of Conduct to state that Covered Persons may not directly or indirectly threaten, harass, intimidate, refuse to deal with, or retaliate against any member, member organization, person associated with or employed by a member or member organization, or other market participant because such person or entity has: (a) Made a proposal to any exchange or other market to list or trade any option class; (b) advocated or proposed to list or trade
The Codes of Conduct also would generally discuss certain practices that may improperly affect competition and the need to discuss certain issues with the Exchange's Antitrust Compliance Officer. The proposed language would specifically prohibit agreements with employees or members of any other exchange: that any option class shall be traded exclusively on any one exchange; to allocate trading of any option class or classes between or among exchanges; or to require, prevent or limit the listing, delisting, or trading of any option class.
The purpose of adding the new proposed language prohibiting harassment for listing and competitive conduct in the Codes of Conduct is to extend to Covered Persons the Exchange's codification, in File No. SR-Phlx-00-94, of existing Exchange policy prohibiting harassment and intimidation on its trading floors and certain other similar improper trading practices.
While the Exchange has no rule that specifically prohibits conduct such as harassment or intimidation because of listing or competitive practices, the Phlx has long taken the position that harassing or intimidating behavior on its trading floors is inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade in violation of Exchange Rule 707 and is detrimental to the interest and welfare of the Exchange in violation of Exchange Rule 708. The Exchange has therefore brought disciplinary actions, in furtherance of its obligations as a self-regulatory organization, involving violations of Exchange Rules 707 and 708. In order to emphasize the importance to Phlx members and reinforce the Exchange's prohibition of any such conduct, the Exchange has codified, in Commentary .01 to Rule 707, in File No. SR-Phlx-00-94, the prohibition against harassment, intimidation, or retaliation because of listing or competitive practices. The Exchange wants to similarly emphasize to Covered Persons the import of this prohibition by including it in the Codes of Conduct applicable to such persons.
In addition, the Phlx believes that the conduct prohibited in the Codes of Conduct may be fundamentally inconsistent with the obligations of Covered Persons, and contrary to the best interests of the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
The Phlx has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
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 such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-01-03 and should be submitted by April 16, 2001.
The Commission finds that the portion of the proposed rule change prohibiting harassment and other improper conduct is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange,
The Phlx's new proposed language prohibiting harassment and other similar improper conduct for listing and competitive actions in the Codes of Conduct is intended to extend to Covered Persons the Exchange's codification of existing Exchange policy prohibiting harassment and intimidation on its trading floors and certain other similar improper trading practices contained in Commentary .01 to Phlx Rule 707. These sections provide genrally that it is conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade for Covered Persons to engage in harassing and certain improper retaliatory actions as a result of another market participant's listing or competitive behavior. The Commission believes that this codification of existing policy in Phlx's Codes of Conduct is a reasonable means to ensure that the existing prohibitions against harassment and other similar improper conduct are extended to members of the Boards of Governors of the Exchange and its subsidiaries, committee members of the Exchange and its subsidiaries, and employees, officers, and agents of the Exchange and its subsidiaries.
The Commission finds good cause for approving the portion of the proposed rule change prohibiting harassment and
It is Therefore Ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act, that the portion of the proposed rule change prohibiting harassment and other similar improper conduct (SR-Phlx-01-03), is approved on an accelerated basis.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Phlx proposes to increase its automatic execution guarantee for options overlying the NASDAQ 100 Index Tracking Stock (“QQQ”) to 100 contracts.
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx 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 Phlx has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
AUTOM is the Exchange's electronic order routing, delivery, execution, and reporting system for options.
Exchange Rule 1080(c) provides that the Options Committee may, in its discretion, increase the size of orders in one or more classes of multiply-traded equity options eligible for AUTO-X execution to the extent necessary to match the size of orders in the same options eligible for entry into the automated execution system of any other options exchange, provided that the effectiveness of any such increase shall be conditioned upon its having been filed with the Commission pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.
The Exchange notes that the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”) recently increased its AUTO-X guarantee for options overlying the QQQ to 100 contracts.
The Exchange believes that the increase should provide customers with quicker executions for a larger number of orders in QQQ options by providing automatic rather than manual executions, thereby reducing the number of orders subject to manual processing. The Exchange also believes that increasing the AUTO-X maximum order size in QQQ options should not impose a significant burden on operation or capacity of the AUTOM System.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will not impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the date filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest; provided that the Phlx has given written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of filling the rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) may not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Phlx seeks to have the proposed rule change become operative immediately to allow the Phlx to begin automatically executing up to 100 contracts for the QQQ options.
The Commission believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest that the proposed rule change become operative as of March 8, 2001, because investors will have access to automatic execution for a larger number of options orders.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the forgoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making writing submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-01-31 and should be submitted by April 6, 2001.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that Windamere Capital Ventures, L.P., 12230 El Camino Real, Suite 300 San Diego California 92130, an applicant for a Federal License under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730 (2000)). Windamere Capital Ventures, L.P. proposes to provide equity financing to Santarus, Inc., 12230 El Camino Real, Suite 300B San Diego California 92130. The financing is contemplated for patent license payment for new product, pre-clinical and clinical product development.
The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because Windamere, LLC and Windamere Venture Partners, Associates of Windamere Capital Ventures, L.P., currently own greater than 10 percent of Santarus, Inc. and therefore Santarus, Inc. is considered an Associate of Windamere Capital Ventures, L.P., as defined in § 107.50 of the regulations.
Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.
The U. S. Small Business Administration, Region IV Georgia District Advisory Council, will hold a public meeting on Friday, April 20, 2001, at 9 a.m., at the Sheraton Hotel, 5351 Simons Boulevard, Columbus, Georgia 31904; to discuss such matters as may be presented by members, staff of the U. S. Small Business Administration, or others present. For further information, write or call Mr. Charles E. Anderson, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 233 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 1900, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; (404) 331-0266.
Federal Aviation Administration.
Finding of no significant impact record of decision.
On March 8, 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved a Finding of No Significant Impact and Record of Decision (FONSI/ROD) for a proposed noise-abatement departure procedure at Sarasota Bradenton International Airport. The change in departure procedures was requested by the Sarasota Manatee Airport Authority to achieve noise level reductions over the neighboring community in Manatee County north of the airport. The proposed actions include turning aircraft departing Runway 32 over land-use areas northwest of the airport that are more compatible with the noise emissions of aircraft, and avoiding new significant residential noise impacts. The FONSI/ROD was approved after the FAA evaluated the potential benefits and impacts of nine alternatives in an Environmental Assessment.
Pursuant to section 10(A)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the FAA Research, Engineering and Development (R,E&D) Advisory Committee.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of meeting.
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space available. Persons wishing to attend the meeting or obtain information should contact Gloria Dunderman at the Federal Aviation Administration, AAR-200, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591 (202) 267-8937. Please inform us if you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable accommodation for this meeting.
Members of the public may present a written statement to the Committee at any time.
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 Government/Industry Free Flight Steering Committee meeting to be held April 2-6, 2001, starting at 9 a.m. The meeting will be held at EUROCONTROL, Rue de la Fusee, 96, B-1130, Brussels, Belgium.
The agenda will include: April 2: Plenary Session: (1) Welcome and Introductory Remarks; (2) Review Agenda; (3) Review Previous Meeting Minutes; (4) Presentations; (5) Sub-group (Terrain and Obstacle Databases); (a) Review Previous Meeting Minutes; (b) Review Action of Previous Meeting; (c) Presentation; (d) Review Draft Document; April 3: (6) Continue Sub-group 2 (Terrain and Obstacle Databases); April 4: (7) Sub-group 3 (Airport Databases); (e) Review Previous Meeting Minutes; (f) Review Action of Previous Meeting; (g) Presentations; (h) Review Draft Document; April 5: (8) Continue Sub-group 3 (Airport Databases); April 6: Closing Plenary Session: (9) Review Summary of SG-2 (Terrain and Obstacles) and 3 (Airport Databases); (10) Assign Task; (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 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).
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew the five information collections which are summarized below under Supplementary Information. We are required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by May 15, 2001.
You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to 202/493-2251; or submit electronically at
You are asked to comment on any aspect of these information collections, including: (1) Whether the proposed collections are necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that burdens could be minimized, including use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of these information collections.
Ms. Debbie Barger, 202-366-2877, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Budget and Finance, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. Paul Scott, 202-366-4104, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Infrastructure Core Business Unit, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Ms. Gloria Williams, 202-366-5032, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Policy Service Business Unit, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Mr. Robert Sparrow, 202-366-9483, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Lands Highway Core Business Unit, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project in City of East Wenatchee & Douglas County, Washington.
Megan Hall, Transportation and Environmental Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 711 South Capital Way, Evergreen Plaza, Suite 501, Olympia, Washington 98501-1284, Telephone: (360) 753-9413.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Washington State Department of Transportation, city of East Wenatchee, & Douglas County, will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for mobility improvement to State Route 28 in Douglas County, Washington. The main problem area is approximately four miles of existing State Route 28 in East Wenatchee, from the Ninth Street intersection to the junction of SR2/97. The study area for improvements will be east of the Columbia River, between Rock Island Dam and Rocky Beach Dam, approximately 20 miles in length.
Improvements are considered necessary to provide for existing and projected traffic demands. Alternatives under consideration include (1) taking no action; (2) using the alternative travel modes; (3) widening the existing two-lane highway to five lanes; and (4) improving an alternative corridor to provide the needed capacity. Incorporated into and studied with the various build alternatives will be variations of grade and alignment, and locations.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, affected Indian Tribes, private organizations, and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal. A series of public meetings will be held in Douglas County. One of the public meetings will be an official scoping meeting, which is expected to be scheduled in the summer of 2001. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given of the time and place of the meetings and hearing. The draft EIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the public hearing.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of availability.
This notice announces publication by NHTSA of the annual insurer report on motor vehicle theft for the 1995 reporting year. Section 33112(c) of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, requires this information to be compiled periodically and published by the agency in a form that will be helpful to the public, the law enforcement community, and Congress. As required by section 33112(c), this report provides information on theft and recovery of vehicles; rating rules and plans used by motor vehicle insurers to reduce premiums due to a reduction in motor vehicle thefts; and actions taken by insurers to assist in deterring thefts.
Due to the voluminous content of this report, interested persons may obtain a copy of this report by contacting the Docket Section, NHTSA, Room 5109, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Docket hours are from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Requests should refer to Docket No. 98-001; Notice 04.
Ms. Rosalind Proctor, Office of Planning and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Proctor's telephone number
The Motor Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act of 1984 (Theft Act) was implemented to enhance detection and prosecution of motor vehicle theft (Pub. L. 98-547). The Theft Act added a new Title VI to the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act, which required the Secretary of Transportation to issue a theft prevention standard for identifying major parts of certain high-theft lines of passenger cars. The Act also addressed several other actions to reduce motor vehicle theft, such as increased criminal penalties for those who traffic in stolen vehicles and parts, curtailment of the exportation of stolen motor vehicles and off-highway mobile equipment, establishment of penalties for dismantling vehicles for the purpose of trafficking in stolen parts, and development of ways to encourage decreases in premiums charged to consumers for motor vehicle theft insurance.
Title VI (which has since been recodified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 331), was designed to impede the theft of motor vehicles by creating a theft prevention standard which required manufacturers of designated high-theft car lines to inscribe or affix a vehicle identification number onto major components and replacement parts of all vehicle lines selected as high theft. The theft standard became effective in Model Year 1987 for designated high-theft car lines.
The Anti Car Theft Act of 1992 (Pub.L. 102-519) amended the law relating to the parts-marking of major component parts on designated high-theft vehicles. One amendment made by the Anti Car Theft Act was to 49 U.S.C. 33101(10), where the definition of “passenger motor vehicle” now includes a “multipurpose passenger vehicle or light-duty truck when that vehicle or truck is rated at not more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight.” Since “passenger motor vehicle” was previously defined to include passenger cars only, the effect of the Anti Car Theft Act is that certain multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) and light-duty truck (LDT) lines may be determined to be high-theft vehicles subject to the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541).
Section 33112 of Title 49 requires subject insurers or designated agents to report annually to the agency on theft and recovery of vehicles, on rating rules and plans used by insurers to reduce premiums due to a reduction in motor vehicle thefts, and on actions taken by insurers to assist in deterring thefts. Rental and leasing companies also are required to provide annual theft reports to the agency.
The annual insurer reports provided under section 33112 are intended to aid in implementing the Theft Act and fulfilling the Department's requirements to report to the public the results of the insurer reports. The first annual insurer report, referred to as the section 612 Report on Motor Vehicle Theft, was prepared by the agency and issued in December 1987. The report included theft and recovery data by vehicle type, make, line, and model which were tabulated by insurance companies and, rental and leasing companies. Comprehensive premium information for each of the reporting insurance companies was also included. This report, the eleventh, discloses the same subject information and follows the same reporting format.
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
Request for OMB approval and public comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Research and Special Programs Administration's (RSPA) Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is publishing its intention to combine two existing information collections into one. OPS is combining Management Information System (MIS) Standardized Data Collection and Reporting of Drug Testing Materials (2137-0579) and Alcohol Testing (2137-0587) (65 FR 76704-05 December 7, 2000). No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow the public an additional 30 days to comment and request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The combined information collection will be titled “Drug and Alcohol Testing” (2137-0579).
OPS believes that alcohol and drug testing requirements are an important tool for operators to monitor drug and alcohol usage in the industry. OPS has found that drug and alcohol use in the pipeline industry is less than 1% of employees.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before April 16, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Comments should identify the docket number of this notice, RSPA-98-4957, and be mailed directly to OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer for DOT.
Marvin Fell, Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6205 or by electronic mail at marvin.fell@rspa.dot.gov.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is rewriting its drug and alcohol testing regulations in 49 CFR part 40. As a result, the bulk of the burden hours that were accounted for by the modes will now be accounted for in a new information collection issued by DOT.
OPS is using this opportunity to combine its information collections for drug and alcohol testing information collections.
Copies of this information collection can be reviewed at the Dockets Facility, Plaza 401, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 from 9 am to 5 pm. Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. They also can be viewed over the Internet at
Comments are invited on: (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
Request for OMB approval and public comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) published a notice seeking public comments on a proposed renewal of an information collection for
Comments on this notice must be received April 16, 2001.
Comments should identify the docket number of this notice, RSPA-98-4957, and be mailed directly to OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN: Desk Officer for DOT.
Marvin Fell, Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6205 or by electronic mail at
Copies of this information collection can be reviewed at the Dockets Facility, Plaza 401, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays. They also can be viewed over the Internet at
Comments are invited on: (a) The need for the proposed collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
Notice of meeting.
RSPA has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) to co-fund a two-year research program to identify and characterize mechanical damage, a leading cause of reportable accidents in both gas and hazardous liquid pipelines, using the technology of magnetic flux leakage (MFL) oriented in the circumferential direction on an in-line inspection tool. RSPA, along with GTI, invite the pipeline industry, in-line inspection (“smart pig”) vendors, and the general public to a quarterly performance review meeting to report on progress with the research “Better Understanding of Mechanical Damage in Pipelines.” The meeting is open to anyone, and no registration is required. This work is being managed by GTI and performed by Battelle Memorial Institute (Battelle), along with the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI). The meeting will cover a review of the overall project plan, the status of the contract tasks, progress made during the past quarter, and projected activity for the next quarter.
The quarterly performance review meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 18, 2001 beginning at 2 p.m. and ending around 5 p.m.
The quarterly review meeting will be held at the Marriott Rivercenter Hotel, 101 Bowie, San Antonio, TX.
Lloyd W. Ulrich, Agreement Officer's Technical Representative, Office of Pipeline Safety, telephone: (202) 366-4556, FAX: (202) 366-4566, e-mail: lloyd.ulrich@rspa.dot.gov. You may also contact Harvey Haines, Principal Investigator, GTI, telephone: (773) 399-8223, FAX: (773) 864-3495, e-mail: harvey.haines@gastechnology.org.
RSPA has entered into a Cooperative Agreement (Cooperative Agreement DTRS656-00-H-0004) with the Gas
We plan to conduct public semi-annual quarterly performance review meetings for the duration of this research. This meeting is the second semi-annual one to be conducted to provide an update on the research to the public, pipeline operators, vendors and interested governmental parties, such as RSPA technical and regional staff and the National Transportation Safety Board. Semi-annual meetings in the future will be held in conjunction with industry meetings, such as ones with the Association of Oil Pipelines, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, and the American Gas Association, in order to reach a broad audience. We want the pipeline industry and especially that segment of the pipeline industry involved with in-line inspection to be aware of the status of this research. The meetings allow disclosure of the results to interested parties and provide an opportunity for interested parties to ask questions concerning the research. Attendance at this meeting is open to all and does not require advance registration or advance notice to RSPA. Each of the semi-annual meetings will be announced in the
The quarterly performance review meetings held between the semi-annual meetings described above will be held in conjunction with GTI/PRCI Technical Committee meetings.
This research continues work that DOT supported at Battelle to improve in-line inspection of mechanical damage and more closely coordinates work that GTI is supporting at Southwest Research Institute to develop critical assessment criteria based on these NDE measurements. This program extends the work conducted under the RSPA-funded contract “Detection of Mechanical Damage in Pipelines” (Contract DTRS-56-96-C-0010)
The research will extend the failure assessment methodology for mechanically damaged pipes to include the influence of local cold working due to the gouging/denting process on the pipe's remaining life. The program will combine full scale tests and MFL monitoring of pipes, laboratory tests and elastic-plastic finite element analyses to develop a validated methodology for determining the remaining life of a damaged pipe. The proposed SwRI research will complement the work at Battelle in developing criteria for characterizing mechanical damage found through in-line inspection.
The following is the agenda for the meeting :
On Thursday morning, April 19, 2001, Southwest Research Institute will offer a tour to anyone interested in the facilities used in this research project. Interested parties should contact Al Crouch at SwRI, (210) 522-3157.
Office of Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
Notice of grant of waiver and finding of no significant impact.
The Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) is approving a waiver of certain regulatory requirements relating to class location changes on four natural gas pipeline segments (the “waiver segments”) operated by Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP) and is permitting TGP to carry out alternative risk control activities (the “Activities”) in lieu of compliance with these requirements. The waiver segments are located on the parallel Lines 800-1, 500-1, 500-2, and 500-3, approximately 11.2 miles downstream of Compressor Station 860, in Hickman and Dickson Counties, Tennessee. The waiver segments include a total of 15,006 feet of pipeline.
OPS has determined that the conduct of the Activities in lieu of compliance with 49 CFR 192.611 is consistent with pipeline safety. The following factors were considered when making this determination:
OPS has reviewed the TGP waiver for conformity with section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Sections 1500-1508), and Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.1c, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. OPS conducted an Environmental Assessment of granting the TGP waiver (65 FR 77422, “Pipeline Safety: Intent to Consider Waiver and Environmental Assessment of Waiver for Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company,” December 11, 2000).
OPS received no public comment on the Environmental Assessment. Based on the analysis and conclusions of the Environmental Assessment, OPS has determined that no significant impacts on the environment are associated with granting this waiver. The Environmental Assessment is incorporated by reference into this FONSI.
In summary, OPS believes that the Activities performed under the waiver by TGP in lieu of regulatory requirements are consistent with pipeline safety and environmental protection. Although the waiver is expected to provide net environmental benefits, these beneficial impacts are not expected to be significant, because of the minimal environmental impact associated with gas pipeline failures. In addition, if OPS denied the proposed waiver, TGP would be required to replace or requalify pipe in the waiver segments. Pipe replacement would likely introduce some adverse environmental impacts that are avoided with the proposed action. Denying the waiver request would likely result in TGP replacing pipe along portions of the waiver segments, thereby causing environmental disruption due to excavation activity.
Detroit River Tunnel Company (DRTC), through its lessee Detroit River Tunnel Partnership (DRT Partnership), has agreed to grant to Canadian National Railway Company (CN) trackage rights to and through the Detroit River Tunnel (Tunnel), approximately between CN's access to the Tunnel at Detroit, MI (at about milepost 228.08) and the U.S.-Canada boundary within the Tunnel (at about milepost 226.29), a total distance of approximately 1.79 miles.
The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or soon after the March 6, 2001 effective date of the exemption (7 days after the exemption was filed).
CN states that it does not anticipate any changes in operations over the trackage rights line as a result of this transaction, and does not believe that any CN employees in the United States will be affected by the transaction. CN further states that DRTC has no employees. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its United States employees. Therefore, CN states that any United States employee affected by this transaction will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34001, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Paul A. Cunningham, Esq., HARKINS CUNNINGHAM, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004-2664.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Detroit River Tunnel Company, through its lessee Detroit River Tunnel Partnership (DRT Partnership), has agreed to grant to Canadian Pacific Railway Company (CPR) trackage rights to and through the Detroit River Tunnel (Tunnel) between Detroit, MI (milepost 228.1) and Windsor, ON (milepost 225.0).
The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or soon after the March 6, 2001 effective date of the exemption (7 days after the exemption was filed).
CPR states that the trackage rights to and through the Tunnel simply replace existing trackage rights and will affect no CPR employees. Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its United States employees. As a condition to this exemption, any United States employee affected by the trackage rights will be protected by the conditions imposed in
This notice is filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If it contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34006, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on George W. Mayo, Jr., Esq., Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., 555 Thirteenth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20004-1109.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
On February 26, 2001, the County of Coahoma, Mississippi (County) and the Gulf and Ohio Railways, Inc. d/b/a Mississippi Delta Railroad (MSDR) (jointly, petitioners) jointly filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903-05.
The County proposes to abandon its 51.06-mile rail line consisting of: (1) the 18.6-mile Lula Segment between milepost 55.40 near Lula and milepost 74.00 near Lyon, MS; and (2) the 32.46-mile Swan Lake Line between milepost 74.00 near Lyon and milepost 79.00 near Clarksdale, MS, and between milepost 76.54 near Clarksdale and milepost 104.00 at Swan Lake. The County also proposes to discontinue incidental overhead trackage rights over 1.39 miles of an Illinois Central Railroad Company (IC) rail line between milepost 104.00 and the connection with IC's main line at milepost 105.39.
MSDR proposes to discontinue service over the County's above-described 51.06-mile rail line, and also proposes to discontinue trackage and lease operating rights over the above-described 1.39 miles of IC's rail line.
Located in Tallahatchie and Coahoma Counties, MS, the line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 38614, 38645, 38617, 38963 and 38921 and includes the station of Clarksdale.
In addition to an exemption from 49 U.S.C. 10903, petitioners also seek exemptions from 49 U.S.C. 10904 (offer of financial assistance procedures) and 49 U.S.C. 10905 (public use conditions). In support, they state that the County intends to retain the track and bridges on the line and seek a new operator to provide service on a non-regulated, contractual basis. Petitioners indicate that MSDR has agreed to continue to operate the line through June 30, 2001; they request that the exemption be made effective the date MSDR proposes to terminate service, which may require a shortened period before the abandonment becomes effective. These requests will be addressed in the final decision.
The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in petitioners' possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interests of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by June 15, 2001.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each offer must be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee.
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than April 5, 2001. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-579X,
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1545. [TDD for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-877-8339.]
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This is Supplement No. 11 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 2000 Revision, published June 30, 2000, at 65 FR 40868.
Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-7102.
A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued to the following Company under 31 U.S.C. 9304 to 9308. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 2000 Revision, on page 40905 to reflect this addition:
Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR part 223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and other information.
The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO) Subscription Service, Washington, DC, Telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-000-00536-5.
Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.
In rule document 01-5168 beginning on page 13424 in the issue of Tuesday, March 6, 2001, make the following correction:
On page 13426, in §39.13(a)(2), in the first column, the table is corrected to read as set forth below:
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.
Final rule.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls in their respective jurisdictions. The Tariff sets forth the level of tolls assessed on all commodities and vessels transiting the facilities operated by the SLSDC and the SLSMC. The SLSDC is revising its regulations to reflect the fees and charges charged by the SLSMC in Canada starting in the 2001 navigation season and related editorial, format, and substantive changes, the latter of which are effective only in Canada. The SLSDC also is increasing the toll for pleasure vessels charged by the SLSDC for transit through the U.S. locks, which the SLSMC is also doing for Canadian locks. Through agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC also is revising its “Preclearance of vessels” regulation to clarify that certain non-commercial vessels are considered pleasure vessels for the purposes of tolls and making a conforming revision to its “Payment of tolls” provision of the joint Seaway Regulations and Rules requiring that pleasure vessel tolls be paid in U.S. funds or the equivalent in Canadian funds at each U.S. lock, instead of at par. Also through agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is clarifying the definition for “flashpoint”. Only these four amendments concerning the SLSDC toll for pleasure vessels and the definition of “flashpoint” are of applicability in the United States.
The 2001 Seaway navigation season is scheduled to open on March 23. The Tariff of Tolls will be in effect in Canada on that date. For consistency, because these are, under international agreement, joint regulations, and to avoid confusion among users of the Seaway, the SLSDC finds that there is good cause to make this U.S. version of the amendments effective on that date, March 23, 2001.
This rule is effective on March 23, 2001.
Marc C. Owen, Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, (202) 366-6823.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation (SLSMC) of Canada, under international agreement, jointly publish and presently administer the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls in their respective jurisdictions. (The Tariff is called the Schedule of Fees and Charges in Canada.) A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published on February 9, 2001 (66 FR 9752). Interested parties have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of the amendments applicable in the United States. No comments were received. The amendments are described in the following summary.
The Tariff sets forth the level of tolls assessed on all commodities and vessels transiting the facilities operated by the SLSDC and the SLSMC. The SLSDC is revising part 402 to reflect the fees and charges charged by the SLSMC in Canada starting in the 2001 navigation season, a change in the toll for pleasure vessels for both the Canadian and U.S. locks, and related editorial, format, and substantive changes. (Because of the number of edits and format changes, the entire text of part 402 is set out as an amendment below.) This final rule also includes the text of § 402.10, “Operational Surcharges after postponements”, which was inadvertently omitted from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. This section is applicable only in Canada. With the exception of the change for pleasure vessel tolls, the substantive changes affect the tolls for commercial vessels and are applicable only in Canada as the collection of the U.S. portion of tolls for commercial vessels is waived by law (33 U.S.C. 988a(a)).
The SLSDC is also increasing the toll for pleasure vessels charged by the SLSDC for transit through the U.S. locks, which the SLSMC is also doing for Canadian locks. Through agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC also is revising § 401.22, “Preclearance of vessels”, clarifying that certain non-commercial vessels are considered pleasure vessels for the purposes of tolls and making a conforming amendment to § 401.75, “Payment of tolls”, of the joint Seaway Regulations and Rules requiring that pleasure vessel tolls be paid “in U.S. funds or the pre-established equivalent in Canadian funds” at each U.S. lock, instead of at par. Also through agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is revising § 401.2 to clarify the definition for “flashpoint”. Since only the four amendments concerning the SLSDC toll for pleasure vessels at U.S. locks are applicable in the United States, comments were invited on only these. Specifically, § 402.8, “Schedule of tolls”, is revised to increase the toll for pleasure vessels for transit through a U.S. lock from $10 to $20 in U.S. funds or $30 in Canadian funds, the current equivalent, instead of at par. Since approximately 97% of pleasure craft tolls are collected in Canadian funds, the SLSDC has been losing a substantial amount of revenue due to the high exchange rate. The SLSDC believes that discounting the Canadian funds at the locks on an
Also through agreement with the SLSMC, the SLSDC is revising § 401.2 to clarify the definition for “flashpoint”, stating that it means the “lowest temperature of a flammable liquid at which its vapor forms an ignitable mixture with air” as determined by the closed-cup method.
This regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and therefore Executive Order 12866 does not apply. This regulation has also been evaluated under the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures and the regulation is not considered significant under those procedures and its economic impact is expected to be so minimal that a full economic evaluation is not warranted.
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls primarily relates to commercial users of the Seaway, the vast majority of whom are foreign vessel operators. Therefore, any resulting costs will be borne mostly by foreign vessels.
This regulation does not require an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321,
The Corporation has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria in Executive Order 13132, Dated August 4, 1999, and has determined that it will not have a substantial, direct effect on the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government. The rule will not limit the policymaking discretion of the States. Nothing in it would directly preempt any State law or regulation. Because the rule will have no significant effect on State or local governments, no consultations with those governments on this rule were necessary.
This regulation has been analyzed under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Office of Management and Budget review.
Hazardous materials transportation, Navigation (water), Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Vessels, Waterways.
Vessels, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 983(a) and 984(a)(4), as amended; 49 CFR 1.52, unless otherwise noted.
(b)
(c) A non-commercial vessel with a tonnage displacement of less than 317.5 tons cannot apply for preclearance status and must transit as a pleasure craft.
(b) Tolls, established by agreement between Canada and the United States and known as the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls, shall be paid by pleasure craft in Canadian or U.S. funds for the transit of each Canadian Seaway lock. At U.S. locks, the toll is paid in U.S. funds or the pre-established equivalent in Canadian funds(see § 402.8 of this chapter).
33 U.S.C. 983(a),984(a)(4), and 988, as amended; 49 CFR 1.52.
This regulation prescribes the charges to be assessed for the full or partial transit of the St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal, Quebec, and Lake Erie.
This tariff may be cited as the St. Lawrence Seaway Tariff of Tolls (Schedule of Tolls in Canada).
In this tariff,
(a)
(1) Cement, loose or in sacks;
(2) Coke and petroleum coke, loose or in sacks;
(3) Domestic cargo;
(4) Liquids carried in vessels' tanks;
(5) Ores and minerals (crude, screened, sized or concentrated, but not otherwise processed) loose or in sacks, including alumina, bauxite, coal, gravel, phosphate rock, sand, stone and sulphur;
(6) Pig iron and scrap metals;
(7) Lumber, pulpwood, poles and logs, loose or bundled;
(8) Raw sugar, flour, loose or in sacks;
(9) Wood pulp, loose or in bales; and
(10) Material for recycling, scrap material, refuse and waste.
(b)
(1) Empty containers and the tare weight of loaded containers;
(2) Ships' fuel, ballast or stores;
(3) The personal effects of crew or passengers; or
(4) In transit cargo that is carried both upbound and downbound in the course of the same voyage.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1) Processed food products that are donated by, or the purchase of which has been financed on concessional terms by, the federal government of the United States or Canada for the purposes of nutrition, economic development, emergency, or disaster relief programs; and
(2) Food cargo that is:
(i) Owned or financed by a non-profit organization or cooperative;
(ii) Intended for use in humanitarian or development assistance overseas; and
(iii) Stamped or otherwise shown to have been declared as such to that is certified by the customs service of the United States or Canada.
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
(n)
(a) Every vessel entering, passing through or leaving the Seaway shall pay a toll that is the sum of each applicable charge in § 402.8. Each charge is calculated based upon the description set out in column 1 of § 402.8 and the rate set out in column 2 or 3.
(b) The toll is assessed against the vessel, its cargo and its passengers for a complete or partial transit of the Seaway and covers a single trip in one direction.
(c) The toll is due from the representative of the vessel within 45 days after the day on which the vessel enters the first lock of a transit of the Seaway.
For the purposes of calculating applicable tolls:
(a) A cord of pulpwood is taken to weigh 1,450 kilograms (3,196.70 pounds); and
(b) The cargo tonnage used rounded to the nearest 1,000 kilograms (2,204.62 pounds).
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) of this section, a vessel that reports for its final transit of the Seaway from a place set out in column 1 of § 402.9 within a period after the clearance date established by the Manager and the Corporation set out in column 2 of § 402.9 shall pay operational surcharges in the amount set out in column 3 of § 402.9, prorated on a per-lock basis.
(b) If surcharges are postponed for operational or climatic reasons, a vessel that reports for its final transit of the Seaway from a place set out in column 1 of § 402.10 within a period after the clearance date established by the Manager and the Corporation set out in column 2 of § 402.10 shall pay operational surcharges in the amount set out in column 3 of § 402.10, prorated on a per-lock basis.
(c) A vessel that is authorized to transit the Seaway after the period of 96 hours after the clearance date established by the Manager and the Corporation shall pay, in addition to the operational surcharge, an amount equal to the incremental expenses incurred by the Manager to keep the Seaway open for the transit of the vessel.
In Canada, this Tariff and the tolls set forth herein come into force from the date on which this Tariff is filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of request for proposals and request for input.
As a collaborative, interagency effort, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Earth Science Enterprise (ESE) of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are soliciting proposals for the Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program. Proposals are hereby requested from eligible institutions as identified herein for competitive consideration of awards. By this notice, CSREES additionally solicits stakeholder input from any interested party regarding this request for proposals (RFP) for use in the development of any future RFPs for this Program.
A “Letter of Intent” is requested and is due close of business (COB) on April 11, 2001 (5:00 p.m. EST). Proposals must be received by COB May 9, 2001 (5:00 p.m. EST). Proposals received after this date will not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this RFP are requested within six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Applicants may e-mail the “Letter of Intent” to Dr. J. Preston Jones at jpjones@reeusda.gov or send the letter by mail to Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program; Mail Stop 2220; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2220; or fax the Letter to Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program at (202) 401-1602.
The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 1307, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2245.
Written user comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: RFP-OEP@reeusda.gov. In your comments, please include the name of the program and the fiscal year of the RFP to which you are responding.
Dr. J. Preston Jones, Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Program (IFAFS); Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 3436, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DC; telephone: (202) 401-1990; fax: (202) 401-1602; e-mail: jpjones@reeusda.gov; or Dr. Raymond Knighton, Initiative For Future Agriculture and Food Systems; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 3186, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DC; telephone: (202) 401-6417; fax: (202) 401-1706; e-mail: rknighton@reeusda.gov; or Dr. Rodney McKellip, ESE Applications Lead Center; John C. Stennis Space Center; Code MA00 Bldg. 1100; SCC, MS 29529-6000; telephone: (228) 688-2984; fax: (228) 688-7455; e-mail: rmckelli@ssc.nasa.gov; or Dr. Nathan Sovik, ESE Applications Lead Center; John C. Stennis Space Center; MA00 Bldg. 1100; SCC, MS 29529-6000; telephone: (228) 688-7355; fax: (228) 688-7455; e-mail: nsovik@ssc.nasa.gov.
CSREES is requesting comments regarding this solicitation from any interested party. These comments will be considered in the development of any future RFP for the program. Such comments will be forwarded to the Secretary of Agriculture or her designee for use in meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2)). This section requires the Secretary to solicit and consider input on a current RFP from persons who conduct or use agricultural research, education and extension for use in formulating future RFPs for competitive programs. Comments should be submitted as provided for in the Addresses and Dates portions of this Notice.
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.302, Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program, Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.
Section 401 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7621) established in the Treasury of the United States an Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) account and authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a research, extension, and education competitive grants program to address critical emerging U.S. agricultural issues related to (1) Future food production, (2) environmental quality and natural resource management, or (3) farm income. Grants are to be awarded in a number of areas including Precision Agriculture. The authority for NASA participation in this program is found in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 1958, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(5), and section 316 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-391 (7 U.S.C. 5935 note).
The purpose of this interagency program announcement is to solicit proposals to support development, validation and application of geospatial and precision technologies that are important to the productivity and sustainability of agriculture, and to the safety and quality of the nation's food supply. Priority will be given to projects that will provide for the application of geospatial and precision technologies to enhance the capacity to integrate site-specific and whole system efficiency and profitability. For the purpose of this announcement, geospatial technologies is defined as the suite of complimentary technologies that includes remote sensing, geographic information systems (GIS), and the Global Positioning System (GPS).
There is no commitment by USDA or NASA to fund any particular proposal or to make a specific number of awards. The participating agencies currently have a total of approximately $7.5 million available for this Program in fiscal year (FY) 2001. Subject to the availability of funds, the participating agencies anticipate that an additional $10 million in funding will be available each year for this program or a successor program in FY 2002, FY 2003 and FY 2004, for an anticipated total level of support of approximately $38 million over four years.
Applicants may request funding of up to $2 million over four years. Budgets should be commensurate with activities proposed with most requests expected to fall below the $2 million level. Awards will be made in the form of grants and cooperative agreements which will be determined at the time of the award. The exact amount of the award will depend on the advice of reviewers, agency priorities, and on the availability of funds. Each participating agency will obligate funds separately. However, a proposal may be funded by one or more of the participating agencies.
Proposals may be submitted by colleges or universities, or research foundations maintained by a college or university, non-profit organization or Federal research agencies. The source of USDA funds for the Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program is the IFAFS program. Under the IFAFS program, proposals may be submitted by colleges or universities or research foundations maintained by a college or university. This represents a change from the FY 2000 solicitation. Section 724 of Pub. L. No. 106-389, as amended by section 101(a)(3) of H.R. 566 which was enacted by section 1(a)(4) of Pub. L. No. 106-554, removed Federal research agencies, national laboratories, and private research organizations from eligibility for IFAFS awards.
Other types of institutions are not eligible as direct recipients of IFAFS funds, however they may be included as subcontracts on grants made to eligible institutions. Therefore, applications from academic institutions may be awarded by either USDA or NASA. Direct applications from a non-profit organization or Federal research agencies may be supported solely by NASA funds.
If a grant provides for applied research that is commodity specific and not of national scope, the recipient will be required to provide funds or in-kind support to match the amount of Federal funds provided.
In FY 2001, it is anticipated that most projects will be submitted as “New Proposals.” However, the USDA held a Precision Agriculture competition through the IFAFS program in FY 2000. Applicants to that program who were not grantees may choose to submit to the Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program as a resubmission. Therefore two types of applications may be submitted:
1.
2.
Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program funds may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of research spaces; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in such spaces; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of buildings or facilities.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit a Letter of Intent before submitting a full proposal. This letter should consist of three parts: (1) A descriptive title of the proposed project; (2) names and roles of project directors and other key personnel along with their institutions; and (3) a brief statement of approaches and objectives (500 words or less). This information will be used by CSREES and NASA staff in planning the review process. Because Letters of Intent will not be distributed for peer review, there will be no
The section below has been developed based on a Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and USDA, which establishes a partnership for the support of development, validation and application of geospatial and precision technologies for agriculture. Successful proposals will be funded by USDA and NASA.
Geospatial and precision technologies can be valuable tools if their applicability to agriculture and natural resource management can be demonstrated and then adopted. The use of these technologies range from defining simple field management zones to complex integration of multiple data sets with the goal of making production and harvesting more efficient and sustainable. Field-scale management using geospatial and precision technologies is needed to address spatial and temporal variability that limits the efficient use of inputs. Farmers, ranchers, and natural resource managers need decision support systems, remote sensing information, and sensors in their work places that quantify complex interactions between profitability and the natural resource base. To encourage development and adoption of operational solutions, multidisciplinary partnerships with industry, producers, and the research/education community are encouraged. Partnerships with other Federal agencies and partnerships addressing the needs of small and medium-sized farms are encouraged.
Proposals submitted will enhance the Nation's capacity to integrate site-specific and whole system efficiency and profitability while minimizing deleterious impacts on natural resources and the environment. Proposals are solicited to address site-specific resource management based on an improved understanding of how soils, water, nutrients, climate, landscapes, crops and other natural resources interact to influence productivity and environmental quality, such as: (a) Decision support systems that integrate spatial and temporal variability for management of soils, water, nutrients, crop yield and quality, pests, and natural resources; (b) sensing and modeling of natural resource properties, using both ground-based and remote technologies, and other geospatial and precision technology applications based on user needs; (c) assessment of user needs and development of on-farm science, economic and environmental cost-benefit analysis, and documentation of adoption of geospatial and precision technologies by land managers; and, (d) training of competent and skilled professionals to transfer geospatial and precision technology to the user community. Proposals that provide short-term, low-risk solutions to the above priority issues are encouraged.
Each proposal should have a clearly written management plan for the proposed applications being developed and evaluated. Proposals should also include a clear plan for evaluating the suitability (feasibility, efficacy, profitability, required infrastructure, and adoption strategies) of applications for the end user. Proposals should include a plan for the sustained use of the project's results (services, models, databases, support groups, training, etc.). Successful applicants may be invited to participate in an annual meeting with USDA and NASA scientists and other grantees to report on research activities and to discuss areas of mutual interest. Travel funds should be budgeted to accommodate that eventuality.
Both participating agencies have agreed to use the USDA guidelines for proposal format (see below) and application kit. Other material may be required at the time of funding to facilitate the implementation of the award. Proposals that are funded by NASA may be subject to additional submission and reporting requirements.
Program application materials are available at the CSREES website (www.reeusda.gov/AGPT). If you do not have access to the CSREES web page or have trouble downloading material, you may contact the Proposal Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/CSREES at (202) 401-5048. When calling the Proposal Services Unit, please indicate that you are requesting forms for the Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program. These materials may also be requested via Internet by sending a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and phone number to psb@reeusda.gov. State that you want a copy of the Program Description and application materials (orange book) for the Fiscal Year 2001 Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program.
The proposals should be prepared following the guidelines and the instructions below.
Each proposal must contain the following elements in the order indicated:
The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling reviewers to more easily evaluate the merits of each proposal in a systematic, consistent fashion:
(a) The proposal should be prepared on only one side of the page using standard size (8
(b) Each page of the proposal, including the Project Summary, budget pages, required forms, and any appendices, should be numbered sequentially.
(c) The proposal should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner. Do not bind. An original and 14 copies (15 total) must be submitted in one package, along with 10 copies of the “Project Summary” as a separate attachment.
(d) If applicable, proposals should include original illustrations (photographs, color prints, etc.) in all copies of the proposal to prevent loss of meaning through poor quality reproduction.
Each copy of each grant proposal must contain an “Application for Funding”, Form CSREES-661. One copy of the application, preferably the original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing principal investigator(s)/project director(s)(PI/PD) and the authorized organizational representative who possesses the necessary authority to commit the organization's time and other relevant resources to the project. Any proposed PI/PD or co-PI/PD whose signature does not appear on Form CSREES-661 will not be listed on any resulting grant award. Complete both signature blocks located at the bottom of the “Application for Funding” form.
Form CSREES-661 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant
(1) Title of Project (Block 6). The title of the project must be brief (80-character maximum), yet represent the major thrust of the effort being proposed. Project titles are read by a variety of nonscientific people; therefore, highly technical words or phraseology should be avoided where possible. In addition, introductory phrases such as “investigation of,” “research on,” “education for,” or “outreach that” should not be used.
(2) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 7). “Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies.”
(3) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for “new” or “resubmission.”
(4) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block 15). The designation of excessive numbers of co-PI/PDs creates problems during final review and award processing. Listing multiple co-PI/PDs, beyond those required for genuine collaboration, is therefore discouraged. Note that providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing of the proposal.
(5) Type of Performing Organization (Block 18). A check should be placed in the box beside the type of organization which actually will carry out the effort. For example, if the proposal is being submitted by an 1862 Land-Grant institution but the work will be performed in a department, laboratory, or other organizational unit of an agricultural experiment station, box “03” should be checked. If portions of the effort are to be performed in several departments, check the box that applies to the individual listed as PI/PD #1 in Block 15.a.
(6) Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). List the names or acronyms of all other public or private sponsors including other agencies within USDA and other programs funded by CSREES to whom your application has been or might be sent. In the event you decide to send your application to another organization or agency at a later date, you must inform the identified CSREES Program Director as soon as practicable. Submitting your proposal to other potential sponsors will not prejudice its review by CSREES; however, duplicate support for the same project will not be provided. Complete the “Application for Funding,” Form CSREES-661, in its entirety.
(7) One copy of the “Application for Funding” form must contain the signatures (in ink) of the PI/PDs and authorized organizational representative for the applicant organization.
For ease in locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed table of contents just after the proposal Cover Page. The Table of Contents should include page numbers for each component of the proposal. Pagination should begin immediately following the Project Summary (see next section).
The proposal must contain a Project Summary of 250 words or less on a separate page which should be placed immediately after the Table of Contents and should not be numbered. The names and institutions of all PI/PDs and co-PI/PDs should be listed on this form, in addition to the title of the project. The summary is not intended for the general reader; consequently, it may contain technical language comprehendible by persons in disciplines relating to the food and agricultural sciences. The project summary should be a self-contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on: overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish project goal(s); and relevance of the project to the goals of the Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program.
This requirement only applies to Resubmitted Proposals as described under Part I, E., Types of Proposals. Resubmitted proposals are proposals that had previously been submitted to the IFAFS Precision Agriculture Program but not funded. For these proposals, the PI/PDs must respond to the previous panel summary on no more than one page, titled Response to Previous Review, which is to be placed directly after the Project Summary. If desired, additional comments and responses to the previous panel summary may be included in the text of the Project Description, subject to the page limitation.
A description of the project must not exceed 20 pages inclusive of tables, diagrams and other visual material, but excluding citations. The project description should be numbered and single or double-spaced with text on one side of the page using a 12 point (10 cpi) type font size and one-inch margins. The following points must be addressed in this section.
Each project proposal's Project Description should contain the following:
All references cited should be complete, including titles and all co-authors, and should conform to an accepted journal format.
Appendices to the Project Description are allowed if they are directly germane to the proposed project and are limited to a total of two of the following: reprints (papers that have been published in peer reviewed journals) and preprints (manuscripts in press for a peer reviewed journal; these must be accompanied by a letter of acceptance from the publishing journal).
All facilities and major items of equipment that are available for use or assignment to the proposed research project during the requested period of support should be described. In addition, items of nonexpendable equipment necessary to conduct and successfully complete the proposed project and for which support is requested under this program should be listed in the budget narrative with the amount and justification for each item.
If it will be necessary to enter into formal consulting or collaborative arrangements with others, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified. In addition, evidence should be provided that the collaborators involved have agreed to render these services. If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services, a statement of work to be performed, and a resume or curriculum vita for each consultant. For purposes of proposal development, informal day-to-day contacts between key project personnel and outside experts are not considered to be collaborative arrangements and thus do not need to be detailed.
All anticipated subcontractual arrangements also should be explained and justified in this section. A proposed statement of work and a budget for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third party must be provided. Agreements between departments or other units of your own institution and minor arrangements with entities outside of your institution (e.g., requests for outside laboratory analyses) are excluded from this requirement.
If you expect to enter into subcontractual arrangements, please note that the provisions contained in 7 CFR part 3019, USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grant and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and the general provisions contained in 7 CFR part 3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to subrecipients. In addition, required clauses from Sections 40—48 (“Procurement Standards”) and Appendix A (“Contract Provisions”) of 7 CFR part 3019 should be included in final contractual documents, and it is necessary for the subawardee to make a certification relating to debarment/suspension.
All senior personnel who are expected to be involved in the effort should be clearly identified. For each person the following should be included:
a. The roles and responsibilities of each PI/PD should be described;
b. An estimate of time commitment for each PI/PD; and
c. Vitae of each PI/PD, senior associate and other professional personnel. This section should include vitae of all key persons who are expected to work on the project, whether or not funding is sought for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages in length, excluding publication lists. A chronological list of all publications in refereed journals during the past four (4) years, including those in press, must be provided for each project member for which a curriculum vitae is provided. Also list those non-refereed technical publications which have relevance to the proposed project. All authors should be listed in the same order as they appear on each paper cited, along with the title and complete reference as these usually appear in journals.
A Conflict-of-Interest List must be provided for all individuals involved in the project (identified as key personnel). Each list should be on a separate page and include alphabetically the full names of the individuals in the following categories: (a) All collaborators on projects within the past four years, including current and planned collaborations; (b) all co-authors on publications within the past four years, including pending publications and submissions; (c) all persons in your field with whom you have had a consulting or financial arrangement within the past four years who stand to gain by seeing the project funded; and (d) all thesis or postdoctoral advisees/advisors within the past four years (some may wish to call these life-time conflicts). This form is necessary to assist program staff in excluding from proposal review those individuals who have conflicts-of-interest with the personnel in the grant proposal.
Prepare the budget, Form CSREES-55, in accordance with instructions provided. Budgets of up to a total of $2 million over four years may be requested. Budgets should be commensurate with activities proposed with most requests expected to fall below the $2 million level. A budget form is required for each year of requested support. In addition, a cumulative budget is required detailing the requested total support for the overall project period. A copy of the form, which must be used for this purpose, along with instructions for completion is included in the Application Kit and may be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or service for which support is requested is allowable under the authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, and these program guidelines, and can be justified as necessary for the successful conduct of the proposed project. Applicants must also include a Budget Narrative to justify their budgets (see paragraph 13 below.)
The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal budget(s):
A budget narrative should be included which discusses how the budget specifically supports the proposed project activities. Except for indirect costs for which support is requested, the budget narrative should explain how each budget item (such as salaries and wages for professional and technical staff, student workers, travel, equipment, etc.) is essential to achieving project objectives. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed on the budget form, provided that the item or service for which support is sought is allowable under the enabling legislation and the applicable Federal cost principles.
(a) If an applicant concludes that matching funds are not required as specified in Part I, D., a justification should be included in the Budget Narrative. CSREES and NASA will consider this justification when ascertaining final matching requirements. CSREES and NASA retain the right to make final determinations regarding matching requirements.
For those grants requiring matching funds as specified in Part I, D., proposals should include written verification of commitments of matching support (including both cash and in-kind contributions) from third parties. Written verification means:
(i) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (A) the name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (B) the name of the applicant organization; (C) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (D) the dollar amount of the cash donation; and (E) a statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution during the grant period; and
(ii) For any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (A) the name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (B) the name of the applicant organization; (C) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (D) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the third party in-kind contribution; and (E) a statement that the donor will make the contribution during the grant period.
(b) The sources and amount of all matching support from outside the applicant institution should be summarized on a separate page and placed in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal immediately following the summary of matching support.
(c) The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions, A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Tribal Governments,
All proposals must contain Form CSREES-663 listing other current public or private support (including in-house support) to which key personnel identified in the proposal have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for person(s) involved is included in the budget. Analogous information must be provided for any pending proposals that are being considered by, or that will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, including other USDA and NASA Programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of identical or similar proposals to the possible sponsors will not prejudice proposal review or evaluation by the CSREES and NASA for this purpose. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. Note that the project being proposed should be included in the pending section of the form.
A number of situations encountered in the conduct of projects require special assurances, supporting documentation, etc., before funding can be approved for the project. In addition to any other situation that may exist with regard to a particular project, it is expected that some applications submitted in response to these guidelines will involve the following:
Note that by signing Form CSREES-661 the applicant is providing certifications required by 7 CFR part 3017, as amended, regarding Debarment and Suspension and Drug Free Workplace, and 7 CFR part 3018, regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are included in the application package for informational purposes only. These forms should not be submitted with the proposal since by signing form CSREES-661 your organization is providing the required certifications. If the project will involve a subcontractor or consultant, the subcontractor/consultant should submit a form AD-1048 to the grantee organization for retention in their records. This form should not be submitted to USDA.
As outlined in 7 CFR part 3407 (the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service regulations implementing NEPA) and 14 CFR part 1216 (the NASA regulations regarding compliance with NEPA), the environmental data for any proposed project is to be provided to CSREES and NASA so that the Federal agency may determine whether any further action is needed. In some cases, however, the preparation of environmental data may not be required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the requirements of NEPA.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is needed with respect to NEPA (e.g., preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS)), pertinent information regarding the possible environmental impacts of a proposed project is necessary; therefore, Form CSREES-1234, “NEPA Exclusions Form,” must be included in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the opinion that the project falls within a categorical exclusion and the reasons therefore. If it is the applicant's opinion that the proposed project falls within the categorical exclusions, the specific exclusion must be identified. Form CSREES-1234 and supporting documentation should be included as the last page of this proposal.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions, CSREES may determine that an EA or EIS is necessary for an activity, if substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may cause such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
A “Letter of Intent” must be received by COB April 11, 2001 (5:00 p.m. EST). Proposals must be received by COB on May 9, 2001 (5:00 p.m. EST). Proposals received after this date will not be considered for funding.
For full proposals, an original and 14 copies must be submitted. Also submit 10 copies of the proposal's Project Summary. All copies of the proposals and the Project Summaries must be submitted in one package.
Applicants should e-mail the “Letter of Intent” to Dr. J. Preston Jones at jpjones@reeusda.gov or send the letter by mail to Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program; Mail Stop 2220; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2220; or fax the letter at (202) 401-1602.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the USDA. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is:
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address:
The receipt of proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses, where designated, on the Form CSREES-661. If the applicant's e-mail address is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of the proposal by letter.
Once the proposal has been assigned an identification number, please cite that number on all future correspondence. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission deadline, please contact the Program Director.
All proposals, will be reviewed together by a panel in the pertinent program area. Prior to technical examination, a preliminary review will be made for responsiveness to the program area. Proposals that do not fall within the guidelines of this Program will be eliminated from Program competition and will be returned to the applicant.
Individual written comments and in-depth discussions will be provided by a peer review panel prior to recommending applications for funding. Peer review panel members will be selected based upon their training and experience in relevant scientific, extension, or education fields taking into account the following factors: (a) The level of formal scientific, technical education, and extension experience of the individual, as well as the extent to which an individual is engaged in relevant research, education or extension activities; (b) the need to include as peer reviewers experts from various areas of specialization within relevant scientific, education, and extension fields; (c) the need to include as reviewers other experts (producers, range or resource managers/operators, consumers, etc.) who can assess relevance of the proposals to targeted audiences and to program needs; (d) the need to include as peer reviewers experts from a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit organizations), and geographic locations; (e) the need to maintain a balanced composition of peer review groups with regard to minority and female representation and an equitable age distribution; and (f) the need to include members that can judge the effective usefulness to producers and the general public of each proposal.
Priority will be given to projects that integrate agricultural research, education and extension and projects that have included the appropriate team to achieve the goals of the project, notably teams that are multi-state, multi-institutional or multi-disciplinary.
The following evaluation factors apply to all proposals.
All proposals will be judged as to their relevance to critical emerging agricultural issues related to future food production; environmental quality, and natural resource management; or farm income. Further factors include:
(a) Documentation that the research, extension and education activities are directed towards current or likely future problems or problems identified in this document;
(b) Linkage of research, extension and education functions.
(c) Involvement of stakeholders and/or communities of interest.
All proposals will be judged on their scientific, extension, or education merit including:
(a) Novelty, innovation, uniqueness, and originality;
(b) Conceptual adequacy of the research, extension and education components;
(c) Clarity and delineation of objectives;
(d) Adequacy of the description of the undertaking and suitability and feasibility of methodology;
(e) Demonstration of feasibility;
(f) Probability of success of the project;
All proposals will be judged on their quality including:
(a) Selection of most appropriate and qualified individuals to address the problem;
(b) Training and demonstrated awareness of previous and alternative approaches to the problem identified in the proposal, and performance record or potential for future accomplishments;
(c) Time allocated for systematic attainment of objectives;
(d) Institutional experience and competence in subject area;
(e) Adequacy of available or obtainable support personnel, facilities, and instrumentation;
(f) Adequacy of plans for reporting, assessing and monitoring of results of the project over its duration.
(g) The planned administration of the project and its maintenance, partnerships, collaborative efforts, evaluation and monitoring efforts, and the planned dissemination of information over the duration of the project.
The Application of Geospatial and Precision Technologies Program will be administered and managed as an interagency program involving both participating agencies throughout the entire process from the development of the program announcement to the review and selection, and monitoring of awards. The interagency program managers will coordinate program administration activities such as review of periodic reporting of project evaluations and annual investigator team meetings.
USDA and NASA will fund awards separately. The amount of each award will be determined jointly by USDA and NASA and their representatives after the panel review process has been completed. Other material may be
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official shall make awards to those responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most meritorious in the announced program area by procedures set forth in this request for proposals. The date specified as the effective date of the award shall be no later than September 30, of the Federal fiscal year in which the project is approved for support and funds are appropriated for such purpose, unless otherwise permitted by law. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated on the award effective date, but as soon thereafter as practicable so that project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All funds awarded under this request for proposals shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are awarded in accordance with the approved application and budget, the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the applicable participating agency assistance regulations.
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of an award if such information has not been provided previously under this or another program for which the sponsoring agency is responsible. Copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling the requirements contained in this section will be provided by the awarding agency as part of the pre-award process.
The award document shall include at a minimum the following:
1. Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to whom the funding agency has awarded an award under this program;
2. Title of Project;
3. Name(s) and address(es) of principal investigator(s) chosen to direct and control approved activities;
4. Award identification number assigned by the funding agency;
5. Project period, specifying the amount of time the funding agency intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for funds;
6. Total award amount approved by the funding agency during the project period;
7. Legal authority(ies) under which the award is made;
8. Approved budget plan for categorizing project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the award; and
9. Other information or provisions deemed necessary by the funding agency to carry out its respective awarding activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular award.
The notice of award, in the form of a letter, will be prepared and will provide pertinent instructions or information to the awardee that is not included in the award document.
The two mechanisms by which grants may be awarded are as follows:
Unless otherwise stipulated in the terms and conditions of the award, the following provisions apply:
1. Delegation of Fiscal Responsibility: The awardee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of funds.
2. Changes in Project Plans: a. The permissible changes by the awardee, principal investigator(s), or other key project personnel in the approved research project award shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the awardee and/or the principal investigator(s) are uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the CSREES Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) or NASA Procurement Officer for a final determination.
b. Changes in approved goals, or objectives, shall be requested by the awardee and approved in writing by the CSREES ADO or NASA Procurement Officer prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
c. Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the awardee and approved in writing by the awarding official prior to effecting such changes.
d. Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the awardee and approved in writing by the CSREES ADO or NASA Procurement Officer prior to effecting such transfers.
e. Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended by the awarding agency without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the CSREES ADO or NASA
f. Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the awardee and approved in writing by the CSREES ADO or NASA Procurement Officer prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal costs principles, Agency regulations, or in the award document.
Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to proposals considered for review and to projects awarded under this program. For CSREES awards, the applicable regulations are those cited in Part V. E. of the IFAFS RFP published in the
When a proposal results in an award, it becomes a part of the record of the Agency's transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the CSREES or NASA Administrator determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked as such and sent in a separate statement, two copies of which should accompany the proposal. The original copy of a proposal that does not result in an award will be retained by the Agency for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Proposals that do not receive an award will be released to others only with the consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. If such a request is made, the applicant will be consulted prior to release of the proposal. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final selection action thereon.
Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to contact a program official and discuss their plans. Inquiries regarding the announcement can be directed to any one of the agency representatives identified at the beginning of this RFP.