Agricultural Marketing Service
Agricultural Research Service
Forest Service
Rural Housing Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Census Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Air Force Department
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Care Financing Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement Office
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Customs 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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Vidalia Onion Committee (Committee) for the 2001 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.10 to $0.12 per 50-pound bag of Vidalia onions handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order, which regulates the handling of Vidalia onions grown in Georgia. Authorization to assess Vidalia onion handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the program. The fiscal period began on January 1 and ends December 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
March 29, 2001.
William Pimental, Marketing Specialist, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 2276, Winter Haven, FL 33883-2276; telephone: (863) 299-4770, Fax: (863) 299-5169; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2525-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
This final rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 955, (7 CFR part 955), regulating the handling of Vidalia onions grown in Georgia, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Vidalia onion handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as issued herein will be applicable to all assessable Vidalia onions beginning on January 1, 2001, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2001 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.10 to $0.12 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of Vidalia onions.
The Vidalia onion marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of the Department, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are producers and producer/handlers of Vidalia onions. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 1999-2000 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and the Department approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to the Secretary.
The Committee met on November 16, 2000, and discussed 2001 expenditures of $411,102 and an increased assessment rate of $0.12 per 50-pound bag or equivalent of onions. The Committee held a telephone meeting on November 27, 2000, and recommended this budget and assessment rate change in a vote of 5 in favor and 3 opposed. The three members opposed objected to increasing the assessment rate following a season with reduced returns.
The recommended assessment rate of $0.12 is $0.02 higher than the rate previously in effect. Last year, budgeted expenditures were $421,600 and the assessment rate was $0.10. The Committee projected 4.2 million assessable 50-pound bags of Vidalia onions for the 2000 fiscal period. The actual quantity of assessable onions was closer to 3,908,000 50-pound bags. Because of this shortfall, the Committee had to use its authorized reserve funds to cover approved expenses. The Committee believes that fewer acres of Vidalia onions will be planted in 2001 because of lower grower returns and high yield losses last season. The quantity of assessable Vidalia Onions for the 2001 fiscal period is projected to
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2001 fiscal period include $135,227 for administrative costs, $37,850 for compliance activities, $188,025 for promotional activities, and $50,000 for research projects. Budgeted expenses for these items in fiscal year 2000 were $135,127, $31,800, $175,000, and $47,000, respectively.
The assessment rate recommended by the Committee was derived by dividing anticipated expenses by expected shipments of Vidalia onions. Vidalia onion shipments for the year are estimated at 3.6 million 50-pound bags and should provide $432,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income and funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Income in excess of expenses will be added to the Committee's reserve fund. Funds in the reserve (currently around $77,000) will be kept within the maximum permitted by the order (about three fiscal period s expenses; § 955.44).
The Committee vote was 5 votes in support of the increase and 3 votes opposed. Those casting negative votes stated they were opposed because of the relatively poor grower returns received in fiscal year 2000 and the need for fiscal conservatism. The majority of the Committee members pointed out the need for funds to cover the estimated expenses for 2001, to build up its operating reserve, and to pay any loans that might be needed to cover expenses until assessment monies are received in the spring of 2001. Also, the positive voters pointed out that without the increase, there would be limited funds for promotion and research which was the reason for instituting the marketing order in the first place. Therefore, the Committee recommended the increase in the assessment rate.
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2001 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 133 producers of Vidalia onions in the production area and approximately 102 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $500,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts of less than $5,000,000.
Based on the Georgia Agricultural Statistical Service and Committee data, the average annual f.o.b. price for fresh Vidalia onions during the 2000 season was $13.00 per 50-pound bag for all shipments, and total shipments for the 2000 season were around 3.9 million bags of Vidalia onions. Many Vidalia onion handlers ship other vegetable products, which are not included in the Committee data but would contribute further to handler receipts.
Using the available data, about 97 percent of Vidalia onion handlers could be considered small businesses under the SBA definition. The majority of Vidalia onion producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
This final rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2001 and subsequent fiscal periods from $0.10 to $0.12 per 50-pound bag of Vidalia onions. The Committee recommended 2001 expenditures of $411,102 and an assessment rate of $0.12 per 50-pound bag or equivalent. The assessment rate of $0.12 is $0.02 higher than the 2000 rate. The quantity of assessable Vidalia onions for the 2001 fiscal period is estimated at 3.6 million 50-pound bags. Thus, the $0.12 rate should provide $432,000 in assessment income. Income derived from handler assessments, along with interest income, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses and any excess funds will be placed in the reserve fund.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for 2001 fiscal period include $135,227 for administrative costs, $37,850 for compliance activities, $188,025 for promotional activities, and $50,000 for research projects. Budgeted expenses for these items in fiscal year 2000 were $135,127, $31,800, $175,000, and $47,000, respectively.
The Committee projected 4.2 million assessable 50-pound bags of Vidalia onions for the 2000 fiscal period. The actual quantity of assessable Vidalia onions was closer to 3.9 million 50-pound bags. Because of this shortfall, the Committee had to use about $20,000 from its authorized reserve fund to cover approved expenses. The quantity of assessable Vidalia onions for the 2001 fiscal period is projected to be 3.6 million 50-pound bags, which is less than in previous seasons. To cover necessary expenses and to bring the reserve fund back to an acceptable level (about $50,000), the Committee voted to recommend an increase in its assessment rate.
The Committee reviewed and recommended 2001 expenditures of $411,102, which included increases in expenditures for compliance, promotion, and research. Prior to arriving at this budget, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Budget Subcommittee, the Research Subcommittee, and the Advertising and Promotion Subcommittee. Alternative expenditure levels and assessment rates were discussed by these groups and the full Committee, based upon the relative value of various promotion and research projects to the Vidalia onion industry. With assessable onions in 2001 estimated to total 3.6 million 50-pound bags, the assessment rate of $0.10 would be too low to cover estimated expenses and would have left no funds to replenish the reserve fund. The Committee then considered a $0.15 cent assessment rate, but it was not supported. While the majority of the
The assessment rate of $0.12 per 50-pound bag of assessable Vidalia onions was then determined by dividing the total recommended budget by the quantity of assessable Vidalia onions, estimated at 3.6 million 50-pound bags for the 2001 fiscal period. This will generate approximately $22,500 above the anticipated expenses, which the Committee determined to be acceptable.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the grower price for the 2001 fiscal period could range between $10.00 and $15.00 per 50-pound bag of Vidalia onions. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2001 fiscal period as a percentage of total grower revenue could range between .08 and 1.2 percent.
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the marketing order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Vidalia onion production area and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the November 16, 2000, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Vidalia onion handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
As noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Onions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after January 1, 2001, an assessment rate of $0.12 per 50-pound bag or equivalent is established for Vidalia onions.
Farm Credit Administration.
Final rule.
In this final rule, we amend regulations to allow Farm Credit System (System) service corporations to sell stock to non-System entities, provide adequate disclosures to investors in service corporations, and allow System institutions to issue unlimited amounts of certain classes of equities.
The purpose of our amendments is to provide System institutions additional opportunities to fulfill their borrowers' needs through service corporations and more efficient issuance of equities related to earnings distributions and transfers of capital.
This regulation will become effective 30 days after publication in the
Dale Aultman, Policy Analyst, Office of Policy and Analysis, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4498, TDD (703) 883-4444, or Howard Rubin, Senior Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TDD (703) 883-4444.
The objectives of the final rule are to:
• Increase the flexibility and usefulness of service corporations;
• Provide adequate disclosures to investors in service corporations organized to exercise the authorities granted by title VIII of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act); and
• Provide flexibility for the efficient distribution of a System institution's earnings and timely transfers of capital to a System association.
On August 18, 1998, we published a notice in the
On December 23, 1999, we published proposed amendments to our service corporation and capital bylaw regulations. (
We also asked for comment on § 611.1137. That regulation allows service corporations to be organized to act as agricultural mortgage marketing facilities by selling loans in the secondary market. It requires that one or more System institutions hold at least 80 percent of the voting stock of their title VIII service corporations at all times. We asked if the 80-percent requirement provides adequate flexibility and usefulness of title VIII service corporations.
The only commenter to our proposal and request for comments for §§ 611.1135 and 611.1137 was the Farm Credit Council (Council), which represents Farm Credit System institutions. The Council supported our proposal to allow the issuance of unlimited amounts of non-voting stock. However, the Council requested that we change our proposed requirement that System institutions hold at least 80 percent of voting stock. The Council suggested that we require System institutions hold at least 51 percent of voting stock to improve opportunities for System institutions to join with non-System entities in service corporation ventures. The Council noted that if FCA had concerns with System institutions losing control, we could require that of the 49 percent of voting stock potentially held by non-System persons, no one person could hold more than 25 percent of total voting stock. Our final rule provides that System institutions own 80 percent or more of a service corporation's voting stock. We continue to believe this percentage requirement helps System institutions in controlling their service corporation yet provides flexibility to make service corporations more useful to Farm Credit System institutions and borrowers.
The Council also requested that we allow a service corporation to generate up to 30 percent of its annual earnings from activities not specifically authorized by the Act. However, section 4.25 of the Act allows service corporations only to perform the functions or services that the System institution organizing the service corporation is authorized to perform.
On December 23, 1999, we also proposed that the service corporations described in §§ 611.1135 and 611.1137 must provide adequate disclosure when issuing stock to persons other than System institutions. (
Section 615.5220(a)(3) of our regulations requires that System institutions' bylaws specify the number of shares that will be issued for each class of equities.
Our December 23, 1999, proposal contained an amendment to § 615.5220(a)(3) to allow System institutions to adopt bylaws that provide for issuance of these equities in unlimited amounts. (
• Non-voting stock that an association issues to its funding bank in exchange for the bank transferring capital pursuant to § 615.5171; and
• Equities that institutions provide to borrowers for the sole purpose of distributing an institution's earnings.
The only commenter to this proposal was the Council. The Council requested that we provide a definition for “earnings.” We decided not to include a definition for earnings because to do so may be unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome. We believe the term “earnings” is sufficiently understood by financial institutions, and therefore the final rule can be applied without difficulty.
Currently, § 615.5250(c)(2) regarding disclosure statements for issuance of stock contains a typographical reference error. The final rule corrects the reference to § 615.5250(c)(1) rather than § 615.5250(d)(1).
Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Government securities, Investments, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 611 and 615 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended to read as follows:
Secs. 1.3, 1.13, 2.0, 2.10, 3.0, 3.21, 4.12, 4.15, 4.20, 4.21, 5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0-7.13, 8.5(e) of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2021, 2071, 2091, 2121, 2142, 2183, 2203, 2208, 2209, 2243, 2244, 2252, 2279a-2279f-1, 2279aa-5(e)); secs. 411 and 412 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1638; secs. 409 and 414 of Pub. L. 100-399, 102 Stat. 989, 1003, and 1004.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) The certified resolution of the board of each organizing bank or association authorizing the incorporation;
(2) A request signed by the president(s) of the organizing bank(s) or association(s) to us to issue a charter, supported by a detailed statement demonstrating the need and the justification for the proposed entity; and
(3) The proposed articles of incorporation addressing, at a minimum, the following:
(i) The name of your corporation;
(ii) The city and state where the principal offices of your corporation are to be located;
(iii) The general purposes for the formation of your corporation;
(iv) The general powers of your corporation;
(v) The procedures for a Farm Credit bank or association or persons that are not Farm Credit institutions to become a stockholder;
(vi) The procedures to adopt and amend your corporation's bylaws;
(vii) The title, par value, voting and other rights, and authorized amount of each class of stock that your corporation will issue and the procedures to retire each class;
(viii) The notice and quorum requirement for a meeting of shareholders, and the vote required for shareholder action on various matters;
(ix) The procedures and shareholder voting requirements for the merger, voluntary liquidation, or dissolution of your corporation or the distribution of corporate assets;
(x) The standards and procedures for the application and distribution of your corporation's earnings; and
(xi) The length of time your corporation will exist.
(4) The proposed bylaws, which must include the provisions required by § 615.5220(b) of this chapter;
(5) A statement of the proposed amounts and sources of capitalization and operating funds;
(6) Any agreements between the organizing banks and associations relating to the organization or the operation of the corporation; and
(7) Any other supporting documentation that we may request.
(d)
(e)
(1) The board of directors of the corporation may request that we amend the articles of incorporation by sending us a certified resolution of the board of directors of the service corporation that states the:
(i) Section(s) to be amended;
(ii) Reason(s) for the amendment;
(iii) Language of the articles of incorporation provision, as amended; and
(iv) Requisite shareholder approval has been obtained. The request will be subject to our approval as stated in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this section.
(2) We may at any time make any changes in the articles of incorporation of your service corporation that are necessary and appropriate for the accomplishment of the purposes of the Act.
(f)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
Secs. 1.5, 1.7, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.12, 3.1, 3.7, 3.11, 3.25, 4.3, 4.3A, 4.9, 4.14B, 4.25, 5.9, 5.17, 6.20, 6.26, 8.0, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.10, 8.12 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2013, 2015, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2093, 2122, 2128, 2132, 2146, 2154, 2154a, 2160, 2202b, 2211, 2243, 2252, 2278b, 2278b-6, 2279aa, 2279aa-3, 2279aa-4, 2279aa-6, 2279aa-7, 2279aa-8, 2279aa-10, 2279aa-12); sec. 301(a) of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1608.
(a) * * *
(3) The number of shares and par value of equities authorized to be issued for each class of equities. However, the bylaws need not state a number or value limit for these equities:
(i) Equities that are required to be purchased as a condition of obtaining a loan, lease, or related service.
(ii) Non-voting stock resulting from the conversion of voting stock due to repayment of a loan.
(iii) Non-voting equities that are issued to an association's funding bank in conjunction with any agreement for a transfer of capital between the association and the bank.
(iv) Equities resulting from the distribution of earnings.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE (Socata) Model TBM 700 airplanes equipped with Option No. OPT 70-35-001 (gaseous oxygen system). This AD requires you to incorporate a modification that relocates the oil breather vent location. This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for France. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent oil from entering the gaseous oxygen system service compartment. Such oil contamination could result in a fire or explosion.
This AD becomes effective on May 11, 2001.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of May 11, 2001.
You may get the service information referenced in this AD from SOCATA Groupe AEROSPATIALE, Customer Support, Aerodrome Tarbes-Ossun-Lourdes, BP 930—F65009 Tarbes Cedex, France; telephone: (33) (0)5.62.41.73.00; facsimile: (33) (0)5.62.41.76.54; or the Product Support Manager, SOCATA—Groupe AEROSPATIALE, North Perry Airport, 7501 Pembroke Road, Pembroke Pines, Florida 33023; telephone: (954) 8941160; facsimile: (954) 964-4191. You may examine this information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-CE-70-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4146; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a)
(1) equipped with Option No. OPT 70-35-001 (gaseous oxygen system); and
(2) certificated in any category.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent level of safety; and
(2) The Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Small Airplane Directorate.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific actions you propose to address it.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
The subject of this AD is addressed in French AD 2000-439(A), dated November 15, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to certain Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna) Model 172 airplanes. This AD requires you to inspect the main landing gear pivot assemblies for cracks, replace any cracked main landing gear pivot assemblies, and install new bushings on the pivot assembly shaft. This AD is the result of many service difficulty reports of cracked main landing gear pivot assemblies on the affected airplanes. The actions specified by this AD are intended to detect, correct, and prevent future cracks on the original design landing gear pivots. Cracked main landing gear pivots could fail resulting in gear-up landings or loss of braking.
This AD becomes effective on May 14, 2001.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations as of May 14, 2001.
You may get the service information referenced in this AD from the Cessna Aircraft Company, Product Support, P.O. Box 7706, Wichita, Kansas 67277; telephone: (316) 517-5800; facsimile: (316) 942-9006. You may read this information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-CE-4-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW, suite 700, Washington, DC.
Steven Litke, Aerospace Engineer, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316) 946-4127; facsimile: (316) 946-4407.
The FAA has received many service difficulty reports of failures of pivot assemblies on Cessna Model 172RG airplanes. Failure of the main landing gear pivots has resulted in gear-up landings or loss of braking. The end of the pivot experiences overload stress because of improper bushing clearance. This stress can produce fatigue cracks that spread until the pivot fitting fails, preventing the landing gear from extending. In other cases, brake fluid leaks through the fatigue crack resulting in loss of braking action.
Original design landing gear pivots (with the original design bushings) could crack, fail, and result in gear-up landings or loss of braking.
Cessna has issued Service Bulletin SEB90-1, Revision 3, dated March 15, 1999. The service bulletin contains procedures for:
We are not changing the AD based on these comments.
We are not changing the AD based on these comments.
We are not changing the AD based on these comments.
We are not changing the AD based on these comments.
We are not changing the final rule as a result of these comments.
We estimate that it would take about 5 workhours for each airplane, to do both bushing replacements, at an average labor rate of $60 an hour. Parts cost about $200 for each airplane. Based on the figures presented above, we estimate the total cost impact of the bushing replacement on U.S. operators is $500 for each airplane.
If a crack is found during the pivot assembly inspection, the pivot assembly must be replaced. We estimate that it would take about 3 workhours to do each pivot assembly replacement, at an average labor rate of $60 an hour. Parts cost about $2,783 for each pivot assembly. Based on the figures presented above, we estimate the total cost impact of the pivot assembly replacement on U.S. operators is $2,963 for each pivot assembly.
We have no way of knowing how many airplanes will require replacement pivot assemblies. The total cost for each airplane for this AD depends on whether a crack is found during the inspection of the pivot assembly. We estimate the total cost impact of this AD for each airplane to U.S. operators is:
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by Reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent level of safety; and
(2) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, approves your alternative. Send your request through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in paragraph (a) of this AD, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if you have not eliminated the unsafe condition, specific actions you propose to address it.
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Griffiss Airpark, Rome, NY. Development of Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) for the Airpark has made this action necessary. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain aircraft executing an instrument approach to the Griffiss Airpark.
0901 UTC April 9, 2001.
Mr. Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA-520, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434-4809, telephone: (718) 553-4521.
On February 2, 2001 a document proposing to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above Ground Level (AGL), was published in the
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas designations for airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000 and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be amended in the order.
The amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) provides controlled Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for aircraft conducting IFR operations at the Griffiss Airpark, Rome, NY.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius of Griffiss Airpark, Rome, NY.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Waynesboro, VA. This action is necessitated by the development of a Helicopter Point in Space Approach to the Augusta Medical Center. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet to 1200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain aircraft executing the Point in Space approach to the Augusta Medical Center Heliport.
0901 UTC March 30, 2001.
Mr. Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA-520, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434-4809, telephone: (718) 553-4521.
On January 12, 2001 a document proposing to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet to 1200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) for the Helicopter Point in Space approach to the Augusta Medical Center, Waynesboro, VA, was published in the
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83.
Class E airspace areas designations for airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000 and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be amended in the order.
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) provides controlled Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for aircraft conducting IFR operations at the Augusta Medical Center Heliport, Waynesboro, VA.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation is certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius of Augusta Medical Center Heliport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace at Harrisonburg, VA. This action is necessitated by the development of a Helicopter Point in Space Approach to the Rockingham Memorial Hospital Heliport, Harrisonburg, VA. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet to 1200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is needed to contain aircraft executing the Point in Space approach to the Rockingham Memorial Hospital Heliport.
0901 UTC April 9, 2001.
Mr. Francis Jordan, Airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA-520, Air Traffic Division, Eastern Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York 11434-4809, telephone: (718) 553-4521.
On February 2, 2001 a document proposing to amend Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet to 1200 feet Above Ground Level (AGL) for the Helicopter Point in Space approach to the Rockingham Hospital Heliport, Harrisonburg, VA, was published in the
The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North American Datum 83. Class E airspace areas designations for airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9H, dated September 1, 2000 and effective September 16, 2000, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be amended in the order.
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) provides controlled Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for aircraft conducting IFR operations at the Rockingham Memorial Hospital Heliport, Harrisonburg, VA.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation it is certified that this rule will not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; EO 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6 mile radius of Rockingham Memorial Hospital Heliport.
Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document adopts as a final rule, with some changes, a proposed amendment to the Customs Regulations intended to discourage the illegal sale of imported food. This amendment provides for the assessment of liquidated damages equal to the domestic value of the merchandise in the case of merchandise that is not admissible under the provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and that is not treated or otherwise disposed of in accordance with that Act. The document also adopts, without change, proposed amendments to various provisions of the Customs Regulations pertaining to customs bonds to provide, as a general rule when a different amount is not prescribed by law or regulation, for liquidated damages of three times the appraised value of the merchandise in the case of merchandise that is prohibited from entry. Finally, the document adopts a proposed editorial correction within one of the sections of the Customs Regulations pertaining to customs bonds. The substantive changes reflected in this final rule document will enhance the effectiveness of the affected regulatory provisions by increasing and clarifying
April 27, 2001.
Jeremy Baskin, Penalties Branch (202-927-2344).
Section 801 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 381), and the regulations promulgated under that statute, provide the basic legal framework governing the importation of foodstuffs into the United States. Under 21 U.S.C. 381(a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to refuse admission of, among other things, any article that is adulterated or misbranded or that has been manufactured, processed or packed under insanitary conditions. The Secretary of the Treasury is required by section 381(a) to cause the destruction of any article refused admission unless the article is exported, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, within 90 days of the date of the refusal or within such additional time as may be permitted pursuant to those regulations.
Under 21 U.S.C. 381(b), pending decision as to the admission of an article being imported or offered for import, the Secretary of the Treasury may authorize delivery of that article to the owner or consignee upon the execution of a good and sufficient bond providing for the payment of liquidated damages in the event of default as may be required pursuant to regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury. In addition, section 381(b) allows the owner or consignee in certain circumstances to take action to bring an imported article into compliance for admission purposes, under such bonding and other requirements as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe by regulation.
Based upon the above statutory authority, imported foodstuffs are conditionally released under bond while determinations as to admissibility are made;
In an April 1998 report to the Chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, on the subject of food safety, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that federal efforts to ensure the safety of imported foods were inconsistent and unreliable. Among its specific conclusions, the GAO report indicated that a weakness existed in the customs bond structure in that liquidated damages arising from breach of obligations to redeliver merchandise for which admission was refused did not represent a deterrent to the importation of unsafe products. The GAO reported that liquidated damages of three times the entered value (the existing standard) may not discourage the illegal sale of imported food because the value of the food on the domestic retail market (“domestic value”) may be far greater than three times the entered value.
In response to this study, Customs on August 2, 1999, published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Customs also notes that a Presidential memorandum dated July 3, 1999, directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and Health and Human Services to undertake a comprehensive plan to better protect the American consumer from unsafe imported foods. One of the recommended actions involved increasing the amount of the bond posted for imported foods when necessary to deter premature and illegal entry into the United States. Although the preamble portion of the August 2, 1999, notice of proposed rulemaking did not specifically discuss this recommendation, the stated reason behind the proposed new paragraph (b) text of § 12.3 was entirely consistent with that recommendation.
The conditions of the basic importation and entry bond set forth in § 113.62 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 113.62), the conditions of the basic custodial bond set forth in § 113.63 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 113.63), the conditions of the international carrier bond set forth in § 113.64 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 113.64), the conditions of the commercial gauger and commercial laboratory bond as set forth in § 113.67 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 113.67), and the conditions of the foreign trade zone operator bond as set forth in § 113.73 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 113.73) prescribe, as a consequence of default, the assessment of liquidated damages equal to three times the appraised value of the merchandise involved in the default if that merchandise is “restricted merchandise or alcoholic beverages.” Similar language is also used in § 141.113(h) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 141.113(h)), which recites the liquidated damages that may be assessed for failure to comply with a demand for return of merchandise to Customs custody.
A question had arisen whether the “three times” standard for liquidated damages would be appropriate when the merchandise involved in the default is prohibited from entry. While it remained Customs position that the regulatory provisions referred to above permitted the assessment of three times the appraised value of the merchandise
Finally, the August 2, 1999, notice of proposed rulemaking included a proposed editorial correction to the first sentence of § 113.62(l)(1), (19 CFR 113.62(l)(1)), which sets forth the consequences of default. This correction involved the addition of a reference to condition “(k)” of § 113.62 in the exceptions to the general rules regarding the amount of liquidated damages that may be assessed (that is, the value of, or three times the value of, the merchandise involved in the default), because a different level of liquidated damages (that is, $100 per thousand board feet of the imported lumber) is prescribed for condition (k) in paragraph (l)(5) of that section.
The notice of proposed rulemaking invited the submission of public comments on the proposed amendments, and the public comment period closed on October 1, 1999. A total of 13 commenters responded to the solicitation of comments. A discussion of those comments follows.
One commenter suggested that proposed paragraph (b) of § 12.3 should be incorporated into the bond cancellation standards that were published in T. D. 94-38. The commenter also suggested that the conditional release language of the bond should be eliminated inasmuch as it does not comport with commercial reality.
Customs does not believe that the suggestions of this commenter should be adopted. Elimination of the conditional release period falls outside the scope of this rulemaking action. Additionally, the bond cancellation standards to which the commenter referred do not govern liquidated damages assessment. Liquidated damages amounts are included in bond terms and conditions which are prescribed in Part 113 of the Customs Regulations.
Numerous commenters indicated that assessment of liquidated damages in an amount equal to the domestic value of merchandise refused admission might actually serve to reduce the amount of liquidated damages assessed. One of these commenters indicated that Customs has historically calculated domestic value of merchandise to be two times the entered value plus the duty. As such, the proposed regulation will actually reduce liquidated damages amounts. Such an anomalous result would serve to undermine the purpose of the proposed regulation. Another commenter suggested that, to correct this problem, Customs should reword the regulation to provide for the assessment of liquidated damages of up to three times the value or the domestic value of the refused product, whichever is greater.
Customs agrees with the commenters that the proposed language might actually serve to reduce liquidated damages, clearly contrary to the intent of the GAO and the Presidential memorandum of July 3, 1999, as discussed above. Accordingly, in this final rule document a new paragraph (b) has been added to the revised § 12.3 text and proposed paragraph (b) has been modified and redesignated as paragraph (c) in order to provide for a bond, and thus the assessment of liquidated damages, either in an amount equal to the domestic value of the merchandise or in an amount equal to three times the (appraised) value of the merchandise.
One commenter was of the view that Customs has mistakenly considered merchandise that has been refused admission by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to be considered “prohibited or restricted merchandise” for purposes of liquidated damages assessment. The commenter would like to see the rule clarified to indicate that restricted or prohibited merchandise does not refer to merchandise refused admission by the FDA.
Customs disagrees with the commenter. By definition, merchandise that has been refused admission by the FDA is prohibited merchandise and should be treated as such.
Several commenters stated that proposed paragraph (b) of § 12.3 substantially increases liquidated damages assessments without providing sureties sufficient information to determine the amount of their increased exposure. As a consequence, all importers likely will be charged increased amounts for bonds. Numerous other commenters claimed that the proposed regulation was an undue burden on trade, and they also concluded that increased charges to importers will unnecessarily result because of the proposed change. These commenters stated that the majority of compliant importers will be forced to subsidize the costs incurred because of a very few recalcitrant importers. One of the commenters additionally noted that the GAO report adopted the position that bonds were inadequate as a result of anecdotal evidence that certain foods were resold at prices up to 15 times their entered value. The commenter argued that this anomalous situation should not be the basis for raised potential liquidated damages for all.
Customs acknowledges that the majority of importers of FDA-regulated merchandise comply with the laws governing the importation of food, drugs and cosmetics. In recognition of that fact and in response to the concerns raised by the commenters with regard to the incurring of risk and with regard to the potential economic impact of the regulation on compliant importers as proposed, the text of new paragraph (b) of § 12.3 as mentioned above gives the port director a choice as regards the bond amount to be prescribed (that is, an amount based on either the domestic value standard or the three-times-the-value standard), with the choice to be made according to the circumstances of the individual case. The bond amount thus would be importer-specific rather than being standard for all importers of FDA-regulated products. Sureties would then be in a better position to evaluate their risk and Customs would be better able to adjust the bond amount for those importers whose track records would require a higher bond.
Some commenters suggested that liquidated damages at the proposed domestic value amount are deterrents designed to punish violators, not to recompense the government for loss. They stated that section 1592 penalties are noted as being the appropriate vehicle to punish an importer who would attempt the importation of refused merchandise.
Customs disagrees with the commenters that assessment and collection of the liquidated damages claim amount of domestic value is punitive. When articles that have been refused admission by the FDA are not
Numerous commenters objected to the use of “domestic value” as a method of determining an adequate bond amount. They claimed that this term is imprecise. They were of the view that the three-times-entered-value liquidated damages amount is clear and that reference to domestic value only confuses the issue.
Customs notes that the term “domestic value” is currently defined in, and has been successfully administered under, the Customs Regulations. Customs also believes that any objection to the domestic value standard will be mitigated by the fact that the regulatory texts adopted in this final rule document will not require all importers to post bonds based on a higher domestic value standard. Rather, as indicated above, it is anticipated that a higher bonding level will only be required of those importers who have a history of failing to redeliver or export, destroy or otherwise dispose of inadmissible imported food, drugs and cosmetics.
Numerous commenters claimed that the raising of liquidated damages amounts does not serve to stop unsafe products from entering the commerce. These commenters suggested that release of the products be withheld or that immediate delivery privileges be withdrawn.
The assertion of these commenters regarding the effectiveness of raising liquidated damages amounts appears to be at variance with the conclusions reached by the GAO as discussed above. Other remedies such as those suggested by these commenters fall outside the scope of this document.
Accordingly, based on the comments received and the analysis of those comments as set forth above, and after further review of this matter, Customs believes that the proposed regulatory amendments should be adopted as a final rule with certain changes as discussed above and as set forth below. Finally a number of additional minor, editorial-type changes have been made to the regulatory texts set forth in this final rule document. These changes principally involve the replacement of legalistic wording with simple or more direct phraseology, consistent with prevailing plain English drafting principles and without any substantive change.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Labeling, Marking, Prohibited merchandise, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Restricted merchandise, Seizure and forfeiture, Trade agreements.
Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Bonds, Customs duties and inspection, Entry procedures, Imports, Prohibited merchandise, Release of merchandise.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), 1624.
Section 12.3 also issued under 7 U.S.C. 135h, 21 U.S.C. 381;
(a)
(b)
(1) Equal to the domestic value (see § 162.43(a) of this chapter) of the merchandise at the time of release as if the merchandise were admissible and otherwise in compliance; or
(2) Equal to three times the value of the merchandise as provided in § 113.62(l)(1) of this chapter.
(c)
19 U.S.C. 66, 1623, 1624.
19 U.S.C. 66, 1448, 1484, 1624.
Section 141.113 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1499, 1623.
Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
Interim regulation.
This document amends the Customs Regulations to provide a new procedure for requesting refunds of export harbor maintenance fees collected by Customs since 1987. The United States Supreme Court held these fees to be unconstitutional in 1998. Customs has received numerous requests for refunds from exporters who paid these export fees. The new procedure will simplify the refund process by relieving exporters from documentary requirements in most cases. This amendment is being made on an interim basis in order to expedite the process for exporters entitled to refunds of fees held unconstitutional and no longer required under the Customs Regulations.
The interim regulation is effective on March 28, 2001. Written comments must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Written comments may be submitted to and inspected at the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20229.
Deborah Thompson, Accounts Receivable Branch, Accounting Services Division, (317) 298-1200 (ext. 4003).
The Harbor Maintenance Fee (HMF) was created by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-622; codified at 26 U.S.C. 4461
The HMF has been assessed on port use associated with imports, exports, foreign trade zone admissions, passengers, and movements of cargo between domestic ports. Currently, the fee is assessed based on 0.125 percent of the value of commercial cargo loaded or unloaded at certain identified ports or, in the case of passengers, on the value of the actual charge paid for the transportation. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court held the fee unconstitutional as applied to exports (
On August 28, 1998, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ordered an immediate refund of undisputed export fee payments to exporters who had filed complaints with the court seeking recovery of these payments (
Subsequently, on February 28, 2000, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, noting that the Customs Regulations do not impose a time limit on requests for refunds of the HMF (see current 19 CFR 24.24(e)(4)), held that
The administrative procedure for requesting refunds of export fee (and other HMF) payments is provided for under § 24.24(e)(4) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 24.24(e)(4)). Under the regulation, exporters are required to file with Customs a request for a refund on a Harbor Maintenance Fee Amended Quarterly Summary Report (Customs Form (CF) 350), accompanied by copies of any relevant Harbor Maintenance Fee Quarterly Summary Reports (CF 349) representing proof of payment of the export fee. Prior to May of 1991, when the Customs Regulations were amended to require submission of the CF 349 with payment of the fee, the regulations required submission of an Export Vessel Movement Summary Sheet (EVM Summary Sheet) or, where Automated Summary Monthly Shipper's Export Declarations were filed, a letter (SED letter) containing the exporter's identity, its employer identification number (EIN), the applicable Census Bureau reporting symbol, and the quarter for which the payment was being made. Many exporters, not having copies of these payment forms, have filed requests for documentation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Most of these FOIA requests have not yet been processed by Customs, as the volume of requests has had the effect of straining resources.
To proceed with the issuance of export fee refunds, and to simplify the process and improve its effectiveness, this document amends the Customs Regulations to provide a new procedure for exporters requesting a refund of export fees.
The procedure set forth in the amended regulation is designed to allow a refund request without submission of documentary proof of payment in most cases. Because Customs possesses copies of original payment forms (CF 349s, EVM Summary Sheets, or SED letters) from July 1, 1990, through the date collection of the export fee ceased in 1998, submission of supporting documentation will not be required to obtain refunds of export fee payments made on or after July 1, 1990. However, Customs does not possess these documents for export fee payments made prior to that date. Accordingly, for refund requests relating to export fee payments made prior to July 1, 1990, the exporter must submit proof of payment with the letter of request, that is, relevant copies of EVM Summary Sheets or SED letters provided for under the then current regulations.
In making this amendment to the regulations, Customs recommends that exporters who have filed FOIA requests for copies of payment forms withdraw those requests. In most cases, payment forms sought through a FOIA request seeking documents pertaining to payments made on or after July 1, 1990, are not necessary to obtain a refund. In addition, because Customs does not possess payment forms relating to export fees paid prior to July 1, 1990, a FOIA request relative to payments made during this period would be fruitless. If the FOIA requests are withdrawn, Customs will be able to more effectively expend its time and resources on the refunding of export fees owed rather than on the processing of numerous FOIA requests. For the same reasons, Customs recommends that exporters seeking a refund of export harbor maintenance fees who have not filed FOIA requests refrain from doing so.
On December 15, 2000, Customs published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the
1. The exporter requests a refund by filing a letter with Customs requesting a refund of export fee payments collected from that exporter (or collected from a freight forwarder or other agent who paid the fee on the exporter's behalf) by Customs. For payments made prior to July 1, 1990, the letter must identify specific payments claimed and be accompanied by supporting documentation for each payment (a copy of the then required EVM Summary Sheet or its alternative document, an SED letter). For payments made on or after July 1, 1990, the letter must specify the quarters for which a refund is sought and include the following information: the exporter's name, address, and EIN; if payments of the fee were made by a freight forwarder or other agent on the exporter's behalf, the name and EIN of the freight forwarder or other agent; and the name, telephone number, and facsimile number of a contact person to answer questions. Supporting documentation need not be submitted for payments made during this period.
2. If the NPRM of December 15, 2000, is adopted as a final rule, the request for export fee refunds must be received by Customs by the effective date of that final rule document, 30 days after the date of its publication in the
3. Upon receipt of a timely filed letter of request for a refund, Customs, for payments made prior to July 1, 1990, will evaluate the documentation submitted and issue a refund if warranted. If the request lacks documentation or the documentation is insufficient, the request will be rejected, in which case the exporter will be given an additional 120 days to submit documentation/additional documentation for Customs consideration and final decision. (For purposes of filing a protest under 19 U.S.C. 1514 (within 90 days of a covered Customs decision), Customs initial decision will be final for exporters not filing documentation during the 120-day period.)
4. For payments made on or after July 1, 1990, Customs will perform a search of its records to locate export fee payment information relative to the exporter filing the refund request (and any freight forwarder or other agent named by the exporter as having made payments on the exporter's behalf) and the quarters identified in the letter of request. Customs will then issue a report to the exporter or its agent containing the results of the search. The report is entitled the “Harbor Maintenance Tax Payment Report and Certification” (the Report/Certification).
5. If the exporter agrees with the payment information in the Report/Certification, the exporter must sign the Report/Certification and return it to Customs with a letter providing an address for receipt of the refund. The Report/Certification must be signed by an officer of the company duly authorized to bind the company, or an agent (such as a broker or freight forwarder) authorized to sign a document of this kind under a properly executed power of attorney or a letter signed by the exporter. Upon receipt of the signed Report/Certification, Customs will issue the refund. If the exporter disagrees with any payment listed on the Report/Certification, or with the omission from the list of a payment it believes was made, the exporter must submit supplementary documentation (a copy of a relevant CF 349, EVM Summary Sheet, or SED letter) as proof of payment. Customs will conduct a second review and notify the exporter (or its agent) of the results. Depending on the results of the review, Customs will either confirm the disputed payment and issue a revised Report/Certification or notify the exporter that the disputed payment cannot be confirmed. In the latter instance, the Report/Certification will not be revised. To obtain the refund, the exporter must sign and return the (initial or revised) Report/Certification to Customs for its issuance of the refund.
6. The exporter's signature on the Report/Certification (or revised Report/Certification) signifies the exporter's concurrence with Customs determination of the full amount owed and constitutes the exporter's agreement that payment by Customs of the determined amount is in full accord and satisfaction of export fee claims against the Government. By its certification, the exporter will also release, waive, and abandon all claims against the Government, its officers, agents, and assigns for costs, attorney fees, expenses, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages arising out of all HMF export payments other than any payments Customs has already processed under the court-ordered procedure (for which release, etc., were already agreed to).
7. Upon receipt of a signed Report/Certification, the Government releases, waives, and abandons all claims other than fraud that it may have against the exporter or its officers, agents, or employees arising out of all HMF export payments other than those already processed under the court-ordered procedure (for which release, etc., were already agreed to).
8. As litigation concerning payment of interest on refunds continues, the exporter's claim to interest is not released, waived, or abandoned. However, as of the date of publication of this document, interest is not applicable to these refunds.
Customs emphasizes that the procedure for refunds set forth in § 24.24(e)(4)(ii) of the amended regulation applies only to payments of export fees that were held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The procedure for refund requests for any other harbor maintenance fees remains unchanged and is provided for in § 24.24(e)(4)(i) of the amended regulation.
Before adopting the interim regulation as a final rule, consideration will be given to any written comments timely submitted to Customs including comments on the clarity of the interim regulation and how it may be made easier to understand. Comments submitted will be available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), § 1.4 of the Treasury Department Regulations (31 CFR 1.4), and § 103.11(b) of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)) on regular business days between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC.
Pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), Customs has determined that notice and public procedures for this regulation are unnecessary. The regulatory change in this document relieves certain exporters filing for refunds of export harbor maintenance fees from the restriction of having to file documentation representing proof of payment before receiving a refund. For the same reason, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) and (3), Customs is dispensing with a delayed effective date. However, before adopting final regulations, consideration will be given to all written comments timely submitted.
This document does not meet the criteria for a ”significant regulatory action” as specified in E.O. 12866.
The collection of information contained in the interim regulation has previously been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB control number 1515-0158. Additional information requested in the interim regulation relates to usual and customary business information/records. This rule does not propose any substantive changes to the existing approved information collection.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this interim regulation, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The principal author of this document was Bill Conrad, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service. However, personnel from other offices contributed in its development.
Accounting, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Fees, Financial and accounting procedures, Imports, Taxes, User fees.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58a-58c, 66, 1202 (General Note 22, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1505, 1624; 26 U.S.C. 4461, 4462; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(e)
(4)
(ii)
(A) For export fee payments made prior to July 1, 1990, the exporter (the name that appears on the SED or equivalent documentation authorized under 15 CFR 30.39(b)) or its agent must submit a letter of request for a refund to the U.S. Customs Service, HMT Refunds, 6026 Lakeside Blvd., Indianapolis, IN, 26278, specifying the grounds for the refund and identifying the specific payments made. The letter must be accompanied by proof of payment then required under the regulations relative to each payment claimed, a copy of the Export Vessel Movement Summary Sheet or, where an Automated Summary Monthly Shipper's Export Declaration was filed, a letter containing the exporter's identification, its employer identification number (EIN), the Census Bureau reporting symbol, and the quarter for which the payment was made. Upon receiving a letter of request for a refund, Customs will evaluate the supporting documentation submitted and issue the refund to the exporter or its agent if warranted. Interest is not applicable to these refunds. If the request lacks documentation or the documentation submitted is insufficient, the exporter's refund request will be denied, in which case the exporter will have an additional 120 days to submit documentation or additional documentation. If the documentation submitted is insufficient, Customs will deny the request.
(B) For export fee payments made on or after July 1, 1990, the exporter or its agent must submit a letter of request for a refund (to the address set forth in paragraph (e)(4)(ii)(A) of this section) specifying the grounds for the refund, identifying the quarters for which a refund is sought, and containing the following additional information: the exporter's name, address, and employer identification number (EIN); the name and EIN of any freight forwarder or other agent that made export fee payments on the exporter's behalf; and a name, telephone number, and facsimile number of a contact person. If a refund request is filed by a freight forwarder or other agent on the exporter's behalf, the request must include a properly executed power of attorney and/or a letter signed by the exporter authorizing the representation. Refund requests for payments made on or after July 1, 1990, need not be accompanied by supporting documentation. Upon receipt of the letter of request, Customs will search its records for export fee payments made by or on behalf of the requesting exporter during the quarters identified in the letter of request. Customs will then mail to the exporter or its agent a “Harbor Maintenance Fee Payment Report and Certification” (Report/Certification) containing the results of the search and a statement of the amount of refunds owed to the exporter, if any. If the exporter agrees with the information in the Report/Certification, the exporter must sign the Report/Certification and submit it to Customs with a letter containing an address for mailing the refund. The Report/Certification must be signed by an officer of the company duly authorized to bind the company, or an agent (such as a broker or freight forwarder) authorized to sign the document under a properly executed power of attorney or a letter signed by an authorized officer of the company. Upon receipt of the signed Report/Certification, Customs will issue the refund. If the exporter disagrees with the information in the Report/Certification, the exporter must submit a letter explaining its claim along with proof of payment, either a copy of a Harbor Maintenance Fee Quarterly Summary Report, Customs Form 349, for the quarter(s) covering the refund requested or, if applicable, a copy of an Export Vessel Movement Summary Sheet or, where an Automated Summary Monthly Shipper's Export Declaration was filed, a letter containing the exporter's identification, its employer identification number (EIN), the Census Bureau reporting symbol, and the quarter for which the payment was made. Upon receiving the letter and documentation, Customs will conduct a second review and will either confirm the exporter's claim and mail a revised Report/Certification to the exporter or its agent, or notify the exporter or its agent that confirmation cannot be made. In the latter instance, the Report/Certification will not be revised. Upon receipt of a properly signed Report/Certification (initial or revised), Customs will issue the refund. Interest is not applicable to these refunds. The signed Report/Certification received by Customs constitutes the exporter's agreement that Customs payment of the refund amount determined to be owed in the Report/Certification is in full accord and satisfaction of all export fee refund claims. The signed Report/Certification also represents the exporter's release, waiver, and abandonment of all claims against the Government, its officers, agents, and assigns for costs, attorney fees, expenses, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages. Upon receipt of the signed Report/Certification, Customs releases, waives, and abandons all claims other than fraud against the exporter, its officers, agents, or employees arising out of all export fee payments.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Direct final rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending its bottled water quality standard regulations by establishing allowable levels for three residual disinfectants (chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide) and three types of disinfection byproducts (DBP’s) (bromate, chlorite, and haloacetic acids (HAA5)). FDA also is revising the existing allowable level for the DBP total trihalomethanes (TTHM). Finally, FDA is revising, for the three residual disinfectants and four types of DBP’s only, the monitoring requirement for source water found in the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for bottled water. As a consequence of FDA’s amending the quality standard for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s, bottled water manufacturers are required to monitor their finished bottled water products for these disinfectants and DBP’s at least once each year under the CGMP regulations for bottled water. Bottled water manufacturers also are required to monitor for these contaminants at least once each year in their source water, unless the bottlers meet the criteria for source water monitoring exemptions under the CGMP regulations. This direct final rule will ensure that the minimum quality of bottled water, as affected by the previously mentioned disinfectants and DBP’s, remains comparable with the quality of public drinking water that meets the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) standards. FDA is issuing a direct final rule for this action because the agency expects that there will be no significant adverse comment on this rule. Elsewhere in this issue of the
This rule is effective January 1, 2002. Submit written comments by June 11, 2001. If FDA receives no significant adverse comments during the specified comment period, the agency will publish a document in the
Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Lauren Posnick, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-306), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-358-3568.
On December 16, 1998, EPA published the Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage I DBPR) (63 FR 69390) to address potential public health effects from the presence of disinfectants and DBP’s in drinking water. This rulemaking finalized a proposed rule that EPA published in the
Disinfectants are chemicals, such as chlorine and ozone, that are added to drinking water to control microbial contamination. Both bottlers and public water systems may use disinfectants. Public water systems typically add disinfectants to drinking water at levels sufficient to maintain a disinfectant residual throughout the distribution system (i.e., the system of pipes that takes water from water treatment plants to customers). DBP’s are chemicals that result from the unintentional interaction of the disinfectants with inorganic or organic compounds present in the water supply. Examples of DBP’s include chloroform (a byproduct of treatment with chlorine) and bromate (a byproduct of ozonation). Both disinfectants and DBP’s can have adverse health effects (59 FR 38668 at 38679-38710).
National primary drinking water regulations (NPDWR’s) are issued by EPA to protect the public health from the adverse effects of contaminants in drinking water. NPDWR’s specify maximum contaminant levels (MCL’s) or treatment techniques for drinking water contaminants. In addition, at the same time that it issues NPDWR’s, EPA publishes maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG’s), which are not regulatory requirements but rather are nonenforceable health goals that are based solely on considerations of protecting the public from adverse health effects of drinking water contamination. In its proposed rule on disinfectants and DBP’s (59 FR 38668), EPA also introduced the concept of maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDL’s) and maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLG’s). MRDL’s and MRDLG’s are comparable to MCL’s and MCLG’s, in that they set contaminant levels and health goals, respectively. EPA used the terms MRDL and MRDLG for disinfectants, rather than using the terms MCL and MCLG, to reflect the fact that disinfectants have beneficial properties (63 FR 69390 at 69398; 59 FR 38668 at 38672, 38679).
In the Stage I DBPR (63 FR 69390), EPA issued NPDWR’s consisting of MCL’s for the DBP’s bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM. EPA also published MRDL’s for the chlorine-based disinfectants chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide. Finally, EPA published MCLG’s and MRDLG’s for these contaminants, as well as approved methods of testing for these contaminants.
Under section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 349), not later than 180 days before the effective date of an NPDWR issued by EPA for a contaminant under section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300g-l),
FDA has determined that the subjects of this rulemaking are suitable for a direct final rule. The actions taken should be noncontroversial and the agency does not anticipate receiving any significant adverse comment.
FDA is adopting EPA’s MCL’s for bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM and EPA’s MRDL’s for chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide as allowable levels for these contaminants in the quality standard regulation for bottled water. FDA also is adopting, for these contaminants in bottled water, the analytical methods that EPA approved for monitoring these contaminants in public drinking water. Finally, FDA is adding an exemption to source water testing, under the newly added § 129.35(a)(4)(iii), for the three residual disinfectants and four types of DBP’s. Bottled water manufacturers are required to monitor for contaminants at least once each year in their source water unless the bottlers meet the criteria for source water monitoring exemptions under the CGMP regulations. Under the newly added § 129.35(a)(4)(iii), FDA will not require bottled water manufacturers to test under § 129.35(a)(3)(i) their source water for the residual disinfectants and DBP’s listed in § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(H), if their source water is not from a public water system and has not been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone. However, bottled water manufacturers whose nonpublic source drinking water has been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone must test, consistent with 129.35(a)(3)(i), their source water for the residual disinfectants and the DBP’s listed in § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(H) that are likely to result from such treatment. Under § 129.35(a)(3)(i), bottled water manufacturers who use a public water system are required to test their source water for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s at a minimum frequency of once each year, unless they meet the requirements in § 129.35(a)(4)(i).
As a consequence of FDA’s amending the quality standard for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s in part 165 (21 CFR part 165), bottled water manufacturers are required to monitor their finished water bottled products for these disinfectants and DBP’s at least once each year under the CGMP regulations for bottled water in part 129 (21 CFR part 129).
If FDA does not receive significant adverse comment on or before June 11, 2001, the agency will publish a notice in the
A significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or why it would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a significant adverse comment is sufficient to terminate a direct final rulemaking, FDA will consider whether the comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. Comments that are frivolous, insubstantial, or outside the scope of the rule will not be considered adverse under this procedure. A comment recommending a change to the rule that is in addition to the rule will not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless the comment states why this rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to part of the rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, FDA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment. If timely significant adverse comments are received, the agency will publish a notice of significant adverse comment in the
The companion proposed rule, which is in essence identical to the direct final rule, provides a procedural framework within which the rule may be finalized in the event the direct final rule is withdrawn because of significant adverse comment. The comment period for the direct final rule runs concurrently with that of the companion proposed rule. Any comments received under the companion proposed rule will be treated as comments on the direct final rule. Likewise, significant adverse comments submitted to the direct final rule will be considered as comments to the companion proposed rule and the agency will consider the comments in developing a final rule. FDA will not provide additional opportunity for comment on the companion proposed rule. A full description of FDA's policy on direct final rule procedures may be found in a guidance document published in the
The SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires EPA to publish an NPDWR that specifies either an MCL or a treatment technique requirement for contaminants that may “have an adverse effect on the health of persons,” are “known to occur or [have] a substantial likelihood [of occurring] in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern,” and for which “regulation * * * presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems ” (SDWA Section 1412(b)(1)(A)). The SDWA (Section 300g-1(a)(3)) also requires that EPA promulgate MCLG’s at the time that it promulgates NPDWR’s. MCLG’s are nonenforceable health goals that are based solely on considerations of protecting the public from the adverse health effects of contaminants, and not on other considerations, such as potential costs of regulating contaminants and potential technical difficulties of achieving the health goals (59 FR 38668 at 38671). EPA sets MCL’s, the enforceable contaminant levels, as close as feasible to the nonenforceable MCLG’s.
In its proposed rule on disinfectants and DBP’s (59 FR 38668), EPA also introduced the concept of MRDL’s and MRDLG’s. MRDL’s and MRDLG’s are comparable to MCL’s and MCLG’s, in that they set contaminant levels and health goals. EPA used the terms MRDL and MRDLG for disinfectants, rather than using the terms MCL and MCLG, to reflect the fact that disinfectants have beneficial properties and are intentionally added to drinking water to kill disease-causing organisms (63 FR 69390 at 69398; 59 FR 38668 at 38672, 38679).
In the Stage I DBPR (63 FR 69390 at 69396), EPA established an MCL of 0.060 milligram per liter (mg/L) for the total of the five haloacetic acids that make up HAA5 (i.e., mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acid, and mono- and dibromoacetic acid). EPA also reduced the existing MCL for TTHM from 0.10 mg/L to 0.080 mg/L (63 FR 69390 at 69396). EPA also established MCL’s for two inorganic DBP’s: 0.010 mg/L for
Under section 401 of the act (21 U.S.C. 341), the agency may issue a regulation establishing a standard of quality for a food under its common or usual name, when in the judgment of the Secretary of Health and Human Services such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. On November 26, 1973 (38 FR 32558), FDA established a quality standard for bottled water that is set forth in § 165.110 (21 CFR 165.110).
Producers of bottled water are responsible for assuring, through appropriate manufacturing techniques and sufficient quality control procedures, that all bottled water products introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce comply with the quality standard (§ 165.110(b)). Bottled water that is of a quality that is below the prescribed standard is required by § 165.110(c) to be labeled with a statement of substandard quality. Moreover, any bottled water containing a substance at a level that causes the food to be adulterated under section 402(a)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(1)) is subject to regulatory action, even if the bottled water bears a label statement of substandard quality.
FDA has traditionally fulfilled its obligation under section 410 of the act to respond to EPA’s issuance of NPDWR’s by amending the quality standard regulations for bottled water introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce to maintain compatibility with EPA’s drinking water regulations. In general, FDA believes that, with few exceptions, EPA standards for contaminants in drinking water are appropriate as allowable levels for contaminants in the quality standard for bottled water when bottled water may be expected to contain the same contaminants.
FDA generally has not duplicated the efforts of EPA in judging the adequacy of MCL’s or treatment techniques in NPDWR’s for contaminants when determining their applicability to bottled water in order to protect the public health. FDA believes that, in general, it would be redundant for FDA to reevaluate the drinking water standards prescribed by EPA. Further, because bottled water is increasingly used in some households as a replacement for tap water, consumption patterns considered by EPA for tap water can be used as an estimate for the maximum expected consumption of bottled water by some individuals. Therefore, FDA’s view is that generally in cases where bottled water is subject to the same contaminants as tap water, FDA should establish standard of quality levels in bottled water at the same levels that EPA establishes as MCL’s for such contaminants in tap water.
In its proposed rule on disinfectants and DBP’s (59 FR 38668), EPA introduced the term MRDL. As explained in section III of this document, EPA used this term when it first proposed enforceable disinfectant levels (MRDL’s) to reflect the fact that disinfectants have beneficial properties. However, disinfectants may have adverse health effects (59 FR 38668 at 38679 to 38694), and they may be expected to be in some source waters used for bottled water. Therefore, FDA is establishing a standard of quality for these disinfectants for bottled water in response to EPA’s issuance of NPDWR’s for these disinfectants in drinking water.
The quality standard for bottled water, as set forth in § 165.110(b)(4)(i)(A), prescribes that bottled water shall not contain TTHM in excess of 0.10 mg/L. It does not, however, prescribe allowable levels for bromate, chlorite, HAA5, chloramine, chlorine, or chlorine dioxide in bottled water.
FDA has evaluated the MRDL’s for chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide, and the MCL’s for bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM that EPA has established for drinking water. Further, FDA has concluded that EPA’s MRDL’s and MCL’s for these contaminants, as standard of quality levels for bottled water, are adequate for the protection of the public health. Certain waters used for bottled drinking water may be expected to contain these contaminants; thus, adopting allowable levels for these contaminants will ensure that the quality of bottled water is comparable to the quality of public drinking water that meets EPA standards.
Therefore, FDA is establishing in a new paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(H) in § 165.110, allowable levels for the following disinfectants and DBP’s: chloramine at 4.0 mg/L (as Cl
In the Stage 1 DBPR that established MCL’s for bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM and MRDL’s for chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide, EPA stipulated that analyses for determining compliance with the MCL’s and MRDL’s shall be performed by approved analytical methods (63 FR 69390 at 69466). EPA has approved one method for bromate monitoring, two methods for monthly chlorite monitoring, three methods for HAA5 monitoring, three methods for TTHM monitoring, six methods for chloramine monitoring, seven methods for chlorine monitoring, and two methods for chlorine dioxide monitoring. Therefore, in a new paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(I) in § 165.110, FDA is incorporating by reference the 24 analytical methods cited by the EPA (63 FR 69390 at 69417) for determining the levels of these contaminants in bottled water.
FDA has established CGMP regulations for bottled water in part 129. Under § 129.35(a)(3)(i), source water must be analyzed by the plant as often as necessary, but at least annually for chemical contaminants. Further, to ensure that a plant’s production complies with applicable standards, § 129.80(g)(2) requires analysis by the plant, at least annually, of a representative sample from a batch or segment of a continuous production run for each type of bottled drinking water produced during a day’s production. The CGMP regulation in § 129.80(a) also requires sampling and analysis, as often as necessary, of product water taken after processing but before bottling, to assure uniformity and effectiveness of the processes performed by the plant.
Disinfectants and DBP’s are special types of contaminants in that they result from the deliberate addition of disinfectants to water to control microbial contamination. Because public water systems add disinfectants to water, FDA expects that source water from public water systems will contain disinfectants and DBP’s. Therefore, FDA is requiring bottlers who obtain their source water from public water systems to test that water, as specified in § 129.35(a)(3)(i), for the disinfectants
However, all bottlers, whether or not they obtain their source water from public or nonpublic drinking water sources and whether or not they treat their water with chlorine, chloramine, chlorine dioxide, or ozone, are required to test for the residual disinfectants chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide and the DBP’s bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM in their finished bottled water products under § 129.80(g)(2) in the CGMP regulations for bottled water. FDA believes that the potential for the presence of disinfectants and DBP’s in the finished bottled water product exists. For example, some manufacturers may treat their water with a disinfectant during processing. Further, contamination of the bottled water product with disinfectants may occur during the manufacturing process, for example, if poor manufacturing practices are followed, such as inadequate rinsing of equipment that has undergone sanitizing operations. Section 129.80(d) in the CGMP regulations for bottled water allows for the use of disinfectants (ozone and chlorine-based disinfectants) for sanitizing operations.
Bottled water must comply with the sampling and testing requirements for disinfectants and DBP’s under § 129.80(g)(2). In addition, bottled water must comply with the allowable levels for the disinfectants and DBP’s in the quality standard for bottled water (§ 165.110 (b)) unless the label bears a statement of substandard quality under § 165.110(c). As stated in § 165.110(d), bottled water is deemed to be adulterated if it contains a substance at a level considered injurious to health under section 402(a)(1) of the act.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(a) and 25.30(j) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the economic implications of this direct final rule as required by Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health, public safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule as significant if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, adversely affecting a sector of the economy in a material way, adversely affecting competition, or adversely affecting jobs. A regulation is also considered a significant regulatory action if it raises novel legal or policy issues. FDA has determined that this direct final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
In the
In the following analysis, FDA finds that issuing standard of quality regulations and monitoring requirements for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s under FDA bottled water CGMP regulations has the highest net benefits. FDA’s testing requirements are less costly than the testing requirements under our assumptions of how EPA NPDWR’s would apply to bottled water, with the same health benefits, and the health benefits of testing for these contaminants outweigh the cost.
If FDA does not establish a regulation for quality standards for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s, bottled water producers would be subject to NPDWR testing and monitoring requirements for these contaminants. Therefore, we consider this possibility the baseline for the purposes of this analysis. Also, we assume that the regulatory options we consider will have no organoleptic effect on the final bottled water product, and thus no impact on sales due to product quality, so the cost of the regulation will be limited to the direct cost of testing, record keeping, and possible disinfection technology investment.
Bottled water producers market their products based on meeting government safety testing requirements. However, any change in sales resulting from successful marketing either transfers revenue from one producer to another with no net loss to society, or causes increased sales of bottled water, which would mitigate the cost of this regulatory effort.
FDA considers three options for this analysis:
(1) FDA does not establish residual disinfectant and DBP quality standard regulations or make a finding that they are not necessary to protect the public health because these contaminants are not used in water used for bottled drinking water. Bottled water producers would be subject to the requirements set forth in the NPDWR’s for these contaminants.
(2) FDA establishes residual disinfectant and DBP quality standard regulations. For these contaminants, bottled water producers would be subject to allowable levels in 21 CFR § 165.110 and CGMP monitoring
(3) Bottled water producers are not subject to either FDA quality standard regulations or EPA NPDWR’s for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s.
Regarding option 3, because it is not the case that these contaminants are contained in water used in public drinking water systems, but not in water used for bottled water, section 410(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not permit this option. The act specifies two alternatives: “promulgate a standard of quality regulation under this subsection,” or find that “such a regulation is not necessary to protect the public health because the contaminant is contained in water in public water systems * * * but not in water used for bottled drinking water.”
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost-benefit analysis guidelines recommend discussing statutory requirements that affect the selection of regulatory approaches. These guidelines also recommend analyzing the opportunity cost of legal constraints that may prevent the selection of the regulatory action that best satisfies the philosophy and principles of Executive Order 12866. Our analysis finds that option 3 does not have the highest net benefits, therefore, even if option 3 were permissible, the statute does not preclude the option with the highest net benefits.
a.
We assume the following testing frequency and requirements under option 1. This option considers the cost if bottled water facilities were subject to EPA NPDWR’s by interpreting how such requirements may apply to bottled water facilities. EPA bases testing frequencies for public water systems on the size of the population served by the treatment plant. Since bottled water plants do not fall into the size and type categories established in the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR regulations, for the purposes of this analysis, we assume that all bottled water facilities would be regulated as if they were a small ground water treatment system. This is the smallest category identified in the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR analysis.
EPA regulations also provide two testing process exemptions. If a public water system does not use ozone for oxidation or disinfection, then EPA does not require a bromate test; and if a public water system does not use chlorine dioxide for oxidation or disinfection, then EPA requires neither a chlorine dioxide nor a chlorite test. All plants have to test for HAA5, TTHM, chlorine, and chloramine regardless of disinfection method. For this analysis, the bottled water industry would be subject to the following monitoring:
i. TTHM and HAA5: One test per plant per year, decreasing to one test per 3 years in the event of 1 or 2 years of very low levels of both TTHM and HAA5.
ii. Chlorite: A three-sample set per month only for plants using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. Reduced to a three-sample set per quarter if low levels of chlorites found in routine monitoring in a 1-year period.
iii. Bromate: One test per month only for plants using ozone for oxidation or disinfection. Reduced to one test per quarter if average water bromide is low, based on 1-year average of monthly samples.
iv. Chlorine and Chloramine: One test per plant per month. Monitoring may not be reduced.
v. Chlorine Dioxide: One test per day, at the distribution system entrance, only for plants using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. Monitoring may not be reduced.
Because few bottled water facilities use chlorine dioxide for disinfection, we assume that they all will qualify for the chlorite testing exemption. For the HAA5 and TTHM frequency requirements, we assume that one-third of the plants will qualify for the frequency reductions after 1 year, one-third will qualify for the reductions after 2 years, and one-third will continue to have to test once yearly. Finally, we assume that no bottled water facility will qualify for the bromate testing exemption, but that half of the plants will qualify for lower frequency testing under option 1.
For option 2, under 21 CFR § 129.35(a)(3), bottled water producers are required to test their source water for contaminants at least once per year unless exempted from such testing under § 129.35(a)(4). For example, bottled water facilities that use a public water source already subject to EPA regulations may substitute public water system testing results for source water testing. We assume that no facilities that use a public water source will need to test their source water for residual disinfectants and DBP’s. Bottled water manufacturers that do not use a public water system as the source of their water and whose source water has not been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone do not have to test their source water for these disinfectants and the DBP’s likely to result from such treatment. Manufacturers that do not use a public water system as the source of their water but whose source water has been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone must test their source water for the residual disinfectants and the DBP’s likely to result from such treatment. For example, some source water may be disinfected if it is transported across large distances prior to entering the bottled water plant. We assume in this analysis (explained below) that 75 percent of bottled water producers use nonpublic sources. Of these, we assume that one-third of bottled water producers using nonpublic water will need to test their source water. All bottled water producers are required to test their final bottled water product for contaminants at least once per year under § 129.80(g)(2).
Table 1 of this document contains the required annual testing frequencies for source and final product water for the four types of DBP’s and three disinfectants under options 1 and 2. For this table, we split option 2 into 2a and 2b, referring to whether or not the facility uses a public water source. This table is for “year 1” testing; under our assumptions no firm has yet qualified for less frequent testing requirements under option 1. We assume that facilities will perform separate tests for free chlorine and combined chlorine (which detects chloramine) and that all facilities use ozone for oxidation or disinfection. Under option 2a, all facilities must perform at least one final product test annually, and 25 percent (one-third of the 75 percent of the facilities using a nonpublic water source) of facilities must perform an annual source water test, for an average of 1.25 tests per facility.
The cost estimates in table 2 of this document include labor, and are the same testing costs EPA used for the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR impact analysis (Ref. 1). FDA also collected other testing cost estimates (Ref. 2); the EPA testing costs generally are in the high end of the range of the estimates we collected. FDA considers EPA’s cost estimates reliable for this analysis. FDA believes it likely that a bottled water plant would be able to test for these substances at a cost close to this range. However, we do not define “likely” in any statistical sense. We examine the sensitivity of our final results to sample testing cost estimates.
Table 3 of this document presents annual testing costs. Both option 2a and 2b cost estimates are considerably lower than option 1 (year 1) estimates for a typical bottled water plant, due to the less frequent required testing for bromate, chlorine, and chloramine.
Table 4 of this document applies these totals and assumptions to the structure of the bottled water industry. We also recombine options 2a and 2b in table 4. Approximately 1,550 plants produce bottled water (63 FR 25764, May 11, 1998). According to another database search conducted for this analysis, the industry contains only 914 plants that would be subject to these rules, but the current count may not include bottled water services to business. Because of this uncertainty, we estimate totals for both 914 and 1,550 plants. This affects neither the relative ranking of options nor the sensitivity analysis.
About 25 percent of bottled water products sold are produced by facilities that use public source water. Based on this, FDA assumes that 25 percent of bottled water plants use public source water, and that 75 percent use nonpublic sources (mostly ground water.) For ease of computation, table 4 of this document also assumes an equal distribution of the once per 3-year cost across later years, so one-third of the TTHM and HAA5 cost is incurred in any one year for plants meeting the less frequent testing requirements under option 1.
Assuming a 7 percent discount rate and no relative testing cost increases, the present (year 2001) value costs of the testing regimes are $18,787,984 (914 plants) to $31,861,461 (1,550 plants) under option 1 and $9,070,634 (914 plants) to $15,382,366 (1,550 plants) under option 2.
FDA ran a rough sensitivity analysis to determine how the range of testing costs, exemptions, and frequency assumptions affected the relative cost of options 1 and 2. This is a break-even analysis, which identifies how much the costs or assumptions would have to change in order to alter our conclusions.
(1) Testing costs; the major components of the higher option 1 cost are bromate, chlorine, and chloramine testing requirements. Even if bromate testing cost dropped to zero, option 1 cost would still be higher than option 2. If chorine and chloramine testing costs dropped to zero, and the cost of testing a water sample for bromate dropped from $100 to $52 (or if only 52 percent of bottled water plants have to test for bromate), the cost of options 1 and 2 would be roughly the same. This is in the range of the lowest bromate testing cost estimates collected by FDA (Ref. 2). TTHM and HAA5 testing costs do not have a significant impact on the relative cost of the options.
(2) Frequency and requirement exemptions; even if all bottled water plants qualified for less frequent bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 testing, option 1 costs would still be higher than option 2 costs.
(3) Discount rate; since option 2 costs, under the original assumptions, were lower for every year, the option ranking is not affected by the choice of the discount rate.
FDA concludes that under the most likely assumptions and in a wide range around those assumptions, testing costs under option 1 exceed those under option 2.
b.
c.
In this case, FDA assumes that both option 1 and option 2 adequately protect the health of the public. FDA cannot discriminate between options 1 and 2 in terms of their ability to guarantee the absence of residual disinfectants and DBP’s in bottled water. Option 3 is the lowest cost, but in the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR analysis, EPA concluded that testing for these substances in water destined for human consumption has net positive benefits (63 FR 69390, December 16, 1998). Water used by bottled water producers, from both public and nonpublic sources, may need some manner of disinfection, so we believe the economic argument from the Stage 1 DBPR analysis applies equally well to bottled water. We do not estimate the number of illnesses avoided under these different testing options.
Option 2 has lower testing costs and may have lower record-keeping costs than option 1, and protects the health of the public at least as well as option 1. Option 2 also has higher net benefits than option 3, since the Stage 1 DBPR conclusion that testing for these substances has net positive benefits applies equally well to bottled water. Therefore, option 2, where FDA issues standard of quality regulations for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s under part 165 and where the monitoring requirements in part 129 apply, has the highest net benefits.
Under Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), for any proposed rule for which the agency is required by section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act or any other law to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency is required to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. The agency has published, in the companion proposed rule published elsewhere in this
FDA has examined the economic implications of this direct final rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). If a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities. FDA finds that this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule would have an impact on small entities, but that impact would not be large. In addition, option 2 in the
FDA also believes that the flexibility allowed in source testing requirements under option 2 in the impact analysis is the maximum amount of flexibility possible in this regulation. FDA is not establishing exemptions for final product testing since there is a need to test for these disinfectant residuals and DBP’s: bottled water producers use these disinfectants, residual disinfectants and DBP’s may be present in both public and nonpublic source water, and disinfectants may be used for equipment or other sanitation in any bottled water plant under CGMP regulations.
According to the latest database search across the bottled water industry mentioned above, approximately 72 percent of firms qualify as small by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. Assuming the same exemptions and frequency requirements, the yearly average cost per plant for both small and large entities is between $585 (public source) and $731 (nonpublic source) for firms under the FDA requirements in option 2 in the impact analysis, and between $1,397 (year 3) and $1,980 (year 1) for the NPDWR requirements in option 1. We assume that almost all small entities in the bottled water industry are single plant firms. Although FDA does consider the option 2 higher cost of $731 per plant per year a significant impact for small firms, this number represents 0.13 percent of the $580,000 annual revenue of the median small bottled water firm.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4), requiring cost-benefit and other analyses, in section 1531 (a) defines a significant rule as “a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” FDA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
FDA tentatively concludes that this final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
FDA has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, the agency has concluded that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.
Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this direct final rule on or before June 11, 2001. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen in the office above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
The agency intends to make the direct final rule effective January 1, 2002. The agency will publish a confirmation notice for the direct final rule in the
1. U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Final Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products Regulations, Washington, DC, app. E, pp. E-4 and E-5, EPA 815-B-98-002, PB 99-111304, 1998.
2. Memorandum from Dominic Mancini to the record, March 13, 2001.
Beverages, Bottled water, Food packaging, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Beverages, Bottled water, Food grades and standards, Incorporation by reference.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 129 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 342, 348, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 264.
2. Section 129.35 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(4)(iii) as paragraph (a)(4)(iv) and by adding new paragraph (a)(4)(iii) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Firms that do not use a public water system as the source of their water and whose source water has not been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone do not have to test their source water for the residual disinfectants and DBP’s listed in § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(H) of this chapter. Firms that do not use a public water system as the source of their water but whose source water has been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone must test their source water for the residual disinfectants and the DBP’s listed in § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(H) that are likely to result from such treatment.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 165 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 343-l, 348, 349, 371, 379e.
2. Section 165.110 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(4)(iii)(H), and (b)(4)(iii)(I); and in the table in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) by removing the entry for “Organics: Total Trihalomethanes” to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(H) The allowable levels for residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts are as follows:
(I) Analysis to determine compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(H) of this section shall be conducted in accordance with an applicable method listed in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(I)(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Correcting amendments.
This document contains corrections to the final rule that was published in the
March 26, 2001.
Mr. Jack Bush (HQ USAF/ILEB), 1260 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1260, (703) 604-0553.
The final rule that is the subject of these corrections integrated environmental analysis and aligned environmental document approval levels with the Air Force decision-making process. It also expanded Air Force environmental participants and responsibilities of the Environmental Planning Function (EPF) and the proponent of an action.
As published, the final rule contains minor errors that need to be corrected.
Environmental protection, Environmental impact statements.
10 U.S.C. 8013.
(a) * * * If using Best Management Practices (BMPs), identify the specific BMPs being used and include those BMPs in the mitigation plan. * * *
Coast Guard, DOT.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a moving and fixed safety zone around all vessels carrying Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) as cargo in the waters of the Caribbean Sea in Guayanilla Bay, Puerto Rico. This precaution is required because of the size, draft and highly volatile cargo of LNG vessels. These regulations are necessary for the protection of life and property on the navigable waters of the United States.
This rule is effective April 27, 2001.
Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket are part of docket [COTP San Juan 00-095] and are available for inspection or copying at Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Juan, Rodriguez and Del Valle Building, San Martin Street, Carr. #2, Km. 4.9, Guaynabo, Puerto Rico, 00968, between the hours of 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal Holidays.
Lieutenant Commander Robert Lefevers at Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Juan, Puerto Rico, (787) 706-2444.
On October 24, 2000, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled: Safety Zone Regulations; Guayanilla Bay, Guayanilla, Puerto Rico, in the
These regulations are needed to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters from hazards associated with LNG carriers. The safety zones are needed because of the significant dangers LNG vessels present with their highly volatile cargoes, their size, and draft. We anticipate periodic arrivals and departures of LNG carriers at the Eco-Electricia waterfront facility in Guayanilla Bay.
This rule establishes a moving safety zone in a 100 yard radius surrounding a vessel carrying LNG product while transiting north of Latitude 17°56.0′N on approach to or departure from the Eco-Electrica waterfront facility in Guayanilla Bay, Puerto Rico. This moving safety zone remains in effect until the LNG vessel is alongside the Eco-Electrica waterfront facility in
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Juan will notify the maritime community of periods when the safety zone is in effect via a marine broadcast Notice to Mariners.
No comments were received on the proposed rule.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary due to the relatively infrequent arrivals of LNG carriers and the limited commercial traffic in Guayanilla Bay.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “Small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to transit a portion of Guayanilla Bay while a LNG vessel transits and docks at the Eco-Electrica facility.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because of the relatively infrequent LNG vessel arrivals into Guayanilla Bay and the short transit time into the Bay. Vessel traffic will not be impeded while a LNG carrier is moored to the dock at the Eco-Electrica facility because vessel traffic can safely pass around the safety zone. We will also issue marine information broadcasts to the public in advance of LNG vessel arrivals and departures in Guayanilla Bay.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact LCDR Robert Lefevers at (787) 706-2444 for assistance in understanding this rulemaking. We also have a point of contact for commenting on actions by employees of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small businesses. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
This rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this rule and has determined that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)g, of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, that this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements, Safety measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a) The following area is established as a safety zone during the specified conditions:
(1) A 100 yard radius surrounding a vessel carrying Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) while transiting north of Latitude 17°56.0′N in the waters of the Caribbean Sea, on approach to or departure from the Eco-Electrica waterfront facility in Guayanilla Bay, Puerto Rico. The safety
(2) The waters within 150 feet of a LNG vessel when the vessel is alongside the Eco-Electrica waterfront facility in Guayanilla Bay, at position 17°58.55′N, 066°45.3′W. This safety zone remains in effect while the LNG vessel is docked with product aboard or is transferring liquefied natural gas.
(b) In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this part, anchoring, mooring or transiting in these zones is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port.
(c) The Coast Guard Marine Safety Office San Juan will notify the maritime community of periods during which the safety zones will be in effect by providing advance notice of scheduled arrivals and departures of LNG vessels via a marine broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
This regulation is effective March 28, 2001. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP-301107, must be received by EPA, on or before May 29, 2001.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit IX. of the
By mail: Susanne Cerrelli, c/o Product Manager (PM) 90, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8077; and e-mail address: cerrelli.susanne@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
In the
The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
New section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.... ” Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) requires that the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings.
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
In examining aggregate exposure, FFDCA section 408 directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses).
1.
2.
No mechanism of toxicity in mammals has been identified for
Soil microorganisms, such as
FFDCA section 408 provides that EPA shall apply an additional ten-fold margin of exposure (safety) for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the data base, unless EPA determines that a different margin of exposure (safety) will be safe for infants and children. Margins of exposure (safety) are often referred to as uncertainty (safety) factors. In this instance, the Agency believes there is reliable data to support the conclusion that this microbial agent is practically non-toxic to mammals, including infants and children, and, thus, there are no threshold effects; therefore, EPA has not used a margin of exposure (safety) approach to assess the safety of
Within the available scientific literature, there are no reports to suggest or indicate that
The Agency proposes to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation; therefore the Agency has concluded that an analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes for
There are no CODEX values for
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301107 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before May 29, 2001.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes an exemption from the tolerance requirement under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
An exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of the microbial pesticide
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document forbears from the requirement that U.S. non-dominant interexchange carriers file tariffs for most international services pursuant to the requirements of the Communications Act. The Commission initiated this proceeding to determine whether to extend the complete detariffing regime that it adopted for domestic, interexchange services to the international services of non-dominant commercial mobile radio services and interexchange carriers, including U.S. carriers classified as dominant due to foreign affiliations. The Commission believes that the rules and policies contained in the Order will foster competition in the U.S. international services market and benefit U.S. consumers.
Effective April 27, 2001. Public and agency comments on the request for emergency approval of the information
All comments regarding the requests for approval of the information collection, both regular and emergency, should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
Kathryn O'Brien, Policy and Facilities Branch, Telecommunications Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1460.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 01-93, adopted on March 16, 2001, and released on March 20, 2001. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Office of Media Relations, Reference Operations Division (Room CY-A257), of the Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554. The document is also available for download over the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/International/Orders/2001/. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
1. In 1996, the Commission adopted policies and rules regarding the detariffing of domestic interexchange services (Domestic Detariffing Order) (61 FR 59340, November 22, 1996). In the Domestic Detariffing Order, the Commission concluded that complete detariffing with limited exceptions for permissive detariffing, satisfies the criteria set forth in section 10(a) of the Communications Act. The Commission made no determination as to whether detariffing international, interexchange services satisfied the requirements of section 10, as competitive conditions in the international marketplace may vary from those in the domestic interexchange marketplace.
2. On October 12, 2000, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (65 FR 66215, November 3, 2000) to determine whether competitive conditions in the international interexchange marketplace support detariffing non-dominant carriers' provision of international services in accordance with the criteria in section 10 of the Communications Act of 1996. Since adopting the Domestic Detariffing Order, there have been dramatic changes in the market for international interexchange services resulting in increased competition. Thus, the Commission commenced this proceeding to examine whether to continue to require U.S. non-dominant interexchange carriers to file tariffs for international services pursuant to the requirements of section 203 of the Act. In addition, pursuant to the Communications Act of 1996, the Commission is required to review all regulations that apply to operations or activities of any provider of telecommunications service and to repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer necessary in the public interest. In the Order, the Commission adopts a policy of complete detariffing for most of the services of non-dominant interexchange and commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) carriers.
3. In the Order the Commission concluded that the Communications Act requires the FCC to forbear from applying section 213 of the Act, and to adopt a policy of complete detariffing for international interexchange services and CMRS provided by non-dominant carriers, with limited exceptions for permissive detariffing.
4. In the Order, the Commission clarified its use of the term “interexchange services” to cover those telecommunications services provided between telephone exchanges, not including exchange access services.
5. The Commission reaffirmed its conclusion that the competitive state of the international interexchange marketplace no longer requires non-dominant carriers to file tariffs to ensure that charges, practices, classification or regulations are just and reasonable. In the Order, the Commission describes its efforts that have led to the competition in the marketplace for international interexchange services, which have resulted in significant benefits to consumers. The Commission concluded that pursuant to section 11 of the Act, the requirement that non-dominant carriers file tariffs pursuant to section 203 of the Act is unnecessary because of meaningful economic competition in the international interexchange marketplace. The Order concluded that the Commission's international rules, policies, and enforcement authority, in conjunction with market forces and a more educated consumer, will generally ensure that the rates, practices, and classifications of non-dominant interexchange carriers for international interexchange services will be just and reasonable and not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory. Thus, tariffs for international interexchange services provided by non-dominant carriers are no longer necessary to ensure that charges, practices, classifications or regulations are just and reasonable and are not unjustly or unreasonably discriminatory as required by section 10(a). In addition, pursuant to section 11, the Commission concluded that the requirement for non-dominant carriers to file tariffs pursuant to section 203 of the Act is unnecessary because of meaningful economic competition in the interexchange marketplace. The Commission believes that its policy of complete detariffing for non-dominant interexchange carriers will improve market efficiency by permitting carriers to respond to the dynamics of the marketplace and will further the goals of sections 201 and 202 of the Act.
6. The Order concluded that complete detariffing will enhance competition and protect consumers against rates, terms and conditions that violate the Communications Act because complete detariffing will permit carriers to have the flexibility necessary to respond to dynamic price and service changes in the marketplace and will best protect consumers from the rates, terms and conditions that violate sections 201 and 202 of the Act.
7. The Order also concluded that tariffing requirements not only impair market efficiency but also permit carriers to harm consumers through the application of the “filed-rate” doctrine. In this proceeding, the Commission has sought to prevent, through the use of its forbearance authority granted in section 10, the invocation of the “filed-rate” doctrine and its subsequent potential harm to consumers.
8. The Order concluded that a policy of complete detariffing will produce pro-consumer benefits by forcing carriers to be more responsive to customer demands and to offer a greater variety of innovative price and service packages. The Commission acknowledged that permissive or voluntary detariffing would impede vigorous competition in the market for interexchange services by removing the incentives for competitive price discounting, reducing or eliminating carriers' ability to make rapid, efficient responses to changes in demand and
9. The Commission concluded that complete detariffing will enhance competition and will be in the public interest. However, the Commission did find that there were limited exceptions for permissive detariffing that would be in the public interest. The Order will allow, on a permissive basis, non-dominant interexchange carriers to file tariffs for dial-around 1+ services and local exchange carrier (LEC) implemented new customer services for a period of forty-five days or until there is a written contract between the carrier and customer, whichever is earlier, is in the public interest. The Commission found that permissive detariffing is appropriate for the provision of international inbound collect calls at this time. The Commission adopted a policy of permissive detariffing for the non-dominant provision of “on-demand” Mobile Satellite Services where a customer has not entered into a pre-existing ISP service contract for a particular provider. The Order amended § 63.11 of the Commission's rules to reflect the provisions for permissive detariffing.
10. The Order required the public disclosure and maintenance of information about international interexchange services. This information will promote carrier compliance with the requirements of the Act and permit consumers to have the information necessary to make efficient choices regarding their service plans. Carriers must ensure that information is available to the public in at least one location during the regular business hours, and those carriers that have Internet websites must post this information on-line in a timely an easily accessible manner with regular updates. The Order adopts the requirement that carriers update their internet websites within twenty-four hours and update public information sites within five days of the effective date of a change in the rates, terms, or conditions of a detariffed service. Carriers must inform the public that this information is available when responding to consumer inquiries or complaints and specify the manner in which consumers may obtain the information. Carriers must indicate on the title or first page of their cancelled tariffs, the address of their website and of the pubic information site. Proprietary information that a carrier would not disclose in a public tariff need not be disclosed on-line or elsewhere.
11. The Order required non-dominant carriers to maintain price and service information regarding all of their international interexchange offers and be able to submit this information within ten business days to the Commission upon request. Such price and service information will include the information disclosed to the public, in addition to supporting information regarding the rates, terms, and conditions of the carriers' international interexchange offerings. Carriers should continue to keep the supporting information regarding services that is currently required under part 61 of the Commission's rules for carriers submitting tariffs. Non-dominant interexchange carriers are required to retain the information for a period of at least two years and six months following the data that a carrier ceases to provide services on such rates, terms and conditions. This requirement will assist the Commission in monitoring compliance with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules and will help address potential violations that may require enforcement action.
12. The Commission concluded that it is in the public interest to extend the policy of complete detariffing to all U.S. non-dominant carriers, including those regulated as dominant under § 63.10 of the Commission's rules for a specific route because of an affiliation with a foreign carrier possessing market power.
13. The Commission also concluded that it is in the public interest to adopt a policy of complete detariffing for international interexchange services provided by CMRS providers for affiliate and unaffiliated routes. The Commission limited the application of the maintenance of information requirement to services provided by a CMRS carrier on those affiliated routes where the affiliated foreign carrier has market power and collects settlement payments from U.S. carriers. In addition, it is unnecessary to extend to CMRS providers the public disclosure requirements because such requirements are currently not applicable to the provision of domestic cervices by CMRS providers.
14. The Order amended § 43.51 of the Commission's rules to clarify that the rule applies solely to U.S. carrier contracts for international common carrier service involving: (1) A foreign carrier that has market power in its foreign market, or (2) a U.S. carrier that has been classified as dominant on any route for any service included in the contract except for U.S. carriers classified as dominant due only to a foreign carrier affiliation. The Commission maintained its authority under section 211 to require the filing of copies of contracts when it is necessary for implementation and review of compliance with our rules and policies.
15. Finally, the Order adopted a transition period of nine-months from the effective date of this order to allow non-dominant carriers to cancel their tariffs for international interexchange services and become compliant with the rules contained herein. The Commission will not allow the filing of new or revised contract tariffs or other long-term arrangements for international interexchange services during the transition period. The Commission delegated to the International Bureau the authority to address the other transition issues related to international detariffing that may arise when the rules become effective.
16.
17.
18. Accordingly,
19.
20.
Reporting and Recordkeeping requirements.
Communications common carriers.
Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
1. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the NPRM. The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The one comment received on the IRFA is discussed below.
2. There have been dramatic changes in the market for international interexchange services due to the increase in privatization and liberalization of foreign markets, the execution of the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement, the decrease in settlement rates, and the increase in competition in the U.S. international services market. These changes have resulted in a substantial increase in the level of competition in the international interexchange services marketplace. Therefore, we believe it is no longer necessary to require tariffs for international interexchange services under section 203 of the Act, except for carriers classified as dominant for particular services on particular routes for reasons other than a foreign carrier affiliation under § 63.10 of the rules. The Commission concludes that detariffing international interexchange services will serve to promote further the pro-competitive goals of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and foster increased competition. The Order requires complete or mandatory detariffing, with limited exceptions, for the international interexchange services provided by non-dominant carriers. The rules and policies contained in the Order apply to all carriers providing international common carrier service pursuant to section 214 of the Act
3. We believe that this Order will reduce carriers' filing costs. Although eliminating the filing of tariffs with the Commission, the Order does require that non-dominant interexchange carriers make information available to the public concerning current rates, terms, and conditions for all international interexchange services, in at least one location during regular business hours. Carriers that have Internet websites also must post this information on-line. The Order also requires that non-dominant international carriers, with the exception of most commercial mobile service providers, maintain price and service information regarding all of their international service offerings. This price and service information should include the information covered by the public disclosure requirement as well as supporting documents for the rates, terms and conditions of the offerings. The Order does not standardize the maintenance of information and public disclosure requirements so that carriers may maintain and disclose their rate information in a manner that is consistent with those business practices. These public disclosure and maintenance requirements are nominal because the information is currently
4. In addition, the Order reduces the filing of carrier-to-carrier contracts contained in § 43.51. The Order clarifies that § 43.51 applies solely to U.S. carrier contracts for international common carrier service involving: (1) A foreign carrier that has market power in its foreign market, or (2) a U.S. carrier that has been classified as dominant, for any service, on any route included in the contract, except for U.S. carriers classified as dominant due only to a foreign carrier affiliation. The Order eliminates the current requirement in § 43.51(a)(3) that carriers file contracts related to rights granted by foreign governments, and stipulates that the Commission may obtain contracts and seek remedies against improper activity through the section 208 complaint process initiated by either a competitor or the Commission. These modifications to the rules eliminate filing requirements on small entities and therefore, do not pose a significant economic impact on such entities.
5. The Commission has identified instances when tariffs will be permitted. The Commission's rules will permit carriers, including small entities, to file tariffs for their services with respect to international interexchange direct-dial services initiated by dialing a carrier's access code; and international interexchange services provided during the initial forty-five days of service or until there is a written contract between the carrier and the customer, but in no event shall the carrier provide service to its customer pursuant to tariff for more than forty-five days. The Order also adopts permissive detariffing for those “on-demand” mobile satellite services (MSS) services for which customers have not entered into pre-existing service contracts designating a particular provider. Finally, the Order also adopts permissive detariffing for international inbound collect calls. Carriers that permissively file tariffs under the Commission's rules will not be required to file information in addition to what is currently required. Therefore, these rules do not increase burdens on small entities, nor do they create a significant economic impact.
6. Therefore, we certify that none of the requirements of the Order will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
7. Only one commenter, Global Telecompetition Consultants, Inc. (GTC), addresses the issue of the RFA. GTC argues that the Commission did not perform the proper analysis in the RFA contained in the prior domestic detariffing proceeding. GTC raises this issue in this international detariffing proceeding because the international detariffing NPRM relies on the principles adopted in the domestic detariffing proceeding.
8. GTC's arguments focus on the “filed-rate” doctrine. GTC construes the Commission's statements, both in the domestic proceeding and in the international detariffing NPRM, that complete detariffing will eliminate the possible invocation of the “filed-rate” doctrine, as “doing away with” the filed rate doctrine. GTC argues that detariffing, whether domestic or international, is not equivalent to the abolition of the “filed-rate” doctrine, which is a judicially-created doctrine that the Commission cannot overturn. Thus, GTC claims that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its analysis of how complete detariffing would eliminate the “filed-rate” doctrine. Further, GTC claims that the Commission violated the RFA by engaging in a perfunctionary analysis of complete detariffing's effect on the “filed-rate” doctrine and how its elimination of the doctrine would affect small carriers. GTC does not, however, cite to any specific harms caused small carriers from either domestic or international detariffing.
9. We disagree with GTC's argument that, by ordering complete detariffing, the Commission has purported to “overturn” a judicial doctrine. Rather than “doing away with” the filed-rate doctrine, the Commission in the domestic and international proceedings has simply exercised its forbearance authority granted in section 10 of the Act. Congress expressly empowered the Commission to forbear in certain circumstances from the statutory provisions of the Act. The Commission's statutory authority in section 10 to forbear from applying section 203 of the Act and to prohibit the filing of tariffs has been upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Moreover, commenters concur that, in light of the D.C. Circuit's ruling, the Commission has the authority to require international carriers to cancel their tariffs. As the Commission explained in the domestic proceeding, the “filed-rate” doctrine has been applied to the rates, terms, and conditions of services specified in tariffs that are “duly filed” with the Commission in accordance with section 203 of the Act. Therefore, in the context of complete detariffing, if the Commission prohibits the filing of tariffs under section 10, there are no tariffs “duly filed” with the Commission and carriers have no opportunity to invoke the “filed-rate” doctrine. Because we reject GTC's interpretation of the Commission's action, we also dismiss GTC's argument that we have engaged in arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking in proposing to detariff international services.
10. We further note that, although there are similar policy rationales for detariffing domestic and international interexchange services, the Commission developed an independent record for detariffing international interexchange services in this proceeding. Thus, the Commission does not rely on the analysis contained in the domestic detariffing proceeding, but rather analyzes the full impact of the policies contained in this Order on all parties including small businesses. As noted above, the Commission incorporated an IRFA in the NPRM in this proceeding. The Commission tentatively concluded in the IRFA that its detariffing proposals were the least burdensome alternatives on small entities and that eliminating the tariff requirement would reduce administrative costs to all entities, including small entities. The Commission sought comment on those tentative conclusions. In this Order, we affirm the tentative conclusions in the NPRM and determine that complete detariffing will permit all carriers, including small carriers, to have the flexibility necessary to respond to dynamic price and service changes in the marketplace and will best protect consumers from the rates, terms and conditions that violate the Communications Act.
11. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including a copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including a copy of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification will also be published in the
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 20, 42, 43, 61, 63 and 64 as follows:
Secs. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) The rates, terms and conditions in any agreement between a U.S. carrier and a foreign carrier that govern the settlement of U.S. international traffic, including the method for allocating return traffic, if the U.S. international route is exempt from the international settlements policy under § 43.51(e)(3) of this Chapter.
47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless otherwise noted.
(c) Commercial mobile radio service providers shall not file tariffs for international and interstate service to their customers, interstate access service, or international and interstate operator service. Sections 1.771 through 1.773 and part 61 of this chapter are not applicable to international and interstate services provided by commercial mobile radio service providers. Commercial mobile radio service providers shall cancel tariffs for international and interstate service to their customers, interstate access service, and international and interstate operator service.
(d) Except as specified as in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2), nothing in this section shall be construed to modify the Commission's rules and policies on the provision of international service under part 63 of this chapter.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 63.21(c) of this chapter, a commercial mobile radio service provider is not required to comply with § 42.10 of this chapter.
(2) A commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) provider that is classified as dominant under § 63.10 of this chapter due to an affiliation with a foreign carrier is required to comply with § 42.11 of this chapter if the affiliated foreign carrier collects settlement payments from U.S. carriers for terminating U.S. international switched traffic at the foreign end of the route. Such a CMRS provider is not required to comply with § 42.11, however, if it provides service on the affiliated route solely through the resale of an unaffiliated facilities-based provider's international switched services.
(3) For purposes of paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section,
Sec. 4(i), 48 Stat. 1066, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i). Interprets or applies secs. 219 and 220, 48 Stat. 1077-78, 47 U.S.C. 219, 220.
(a) A nondominant interexchange carrier (IXC) shall make available to any member of the public, in at least one location, during regular business hours, information concerning its current rates, terms and conditions for all of its international and interstate, domestic, interexchange services. Such information shall be made available in an easy to understand format and in a timely manner. Following an inquiry or complaint from the public concerning rates, terms and conditions for such services, a carrier shall specify that such information is available and the manner in which the public may obtain the information.
(a) A nondominant IXC shall maintain, for submission to the Commission and to state regulatory commissions upon request, price and service information regarding all of the carrier's international and interstate, domestic, interexchange service offerings. A commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) provider shall maintain such price and service information only about its international common carrier service offerings and only for those routes on which the CMRS provider is classified as dominant under § 63.10 of this Chapter due to an affiliation with a foreign carrier that collects settlement payments from U.S. carriers for terminating U.S. international switched traffic at the foreign end of the route. Such a CMRS provider is not required to maintain its price and service information, however, on any such affiliated route if it provides service on that route solely through the resale of an unaffiliated facilities-based provider's international switched services. The price and service information maintained for purposes of this paragraph shall include documents supporting the rates, terms, and conditions of the carrier's international and interstate, domestic, interexchange offerings. The information maintained pursuant to this section shall be maintained in a manner that allows the carrier to produce such records within ten business days. For purposes of this paragraph,
47 U.S.C. 154; Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, secs. 402(b)(2)(B), (c), 110 Stat. 56 (1996) as amended unless otherwise noted. 47 U.S.C. 211, 219, 220 as amended.
(a) (1) Any communication common carrier described in paragraph (b) of this section must file with the Commission, within thirty (30) days of execution, a copy of each contract, agreement, concession, license, authorization, operating agreement or other arrangement to which it is a party and amendments thereto with respect to the following:
(i) The exchange of services; and,
(ii) The interchange or routing of traffic and matters concerning rates, accounting rates, division of tolls, or the basis of settlement of traffic balances, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) If the contract, agreement, concession, license, authorization, operating agreement or other arrangement and amendments thereto is
(b) The following communication common carriers must comply with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) A carrier that is engaged in domestic communications and has not been classified as non-dominant pursuant to § 61.3 of this Chapter,
(2) A carrier, other than a provider of commercial mobile radio services, that is engaged in foreign communications and enters into a contract, agreement, concession, license, authorization, operating agreement or other arrangement and amendments thereto with a foreign carrier that does not qualify for the presumption, set forth in Note 3 to this section, that it lacks market power on the foreign end of one or more of the international routes included in the contract, or
(3) A carrier that has been classified as dominant for any service on any of the international routes included in the contract, except for a carrier classified as dominant on a particular route due only to a foreign carrier affiliation under § 63.10 of this chapter.
(c) With respect to contracts coming within the scope of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section between subject telephone carriers and connecting carriers, except those contracts related to communications with foreign or overseas points, such documents shall not be filed with the Commission; but each subject telephone carrier shall maintain a copy of such contracts to which it is a party in appropriate files at a central location upon its premises, copies of which shall be readily accessible to Commission staff and members of the public upon reasonable request therefor; and upon request by the Commission, a subject telephone carrier shall promptly forward individual contracts to the Commission.
(d) Any U.S. carrier that interconnects an international private line to the U.S. public switched network, at its switch, including any switch in which the carrier obtains capacity either through lease or otherwise, shall file annually with the Chief of the International Bureau a certified statement containing the number and type (e.g., a 64-kbps circuit) of private lines interconnected in such a manner. The certified statement shall specify the number and type of interconnected private lines on a country specific basis. The identity of the customer need not be reported, and the Commission will treat the country of origin information as confidential. Carriers need not file their contracts for such interconnections, unless they are specifically requested to do so. These reports shall be filed on a consolidated basis on February 1 (covering international private lines interconnected during the preceding January 1 to December 31 period) of each year. International private lines to countries for which the Commission has authorized the provision of switched basic services over private lines at any time during a particular reporting period are exempt from this requirement.
(e) International settlements policy. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, if a carrier files an operating or other agreement with a foreign carrier pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section to begin providing switched voice, telex, telegraph, or packet-switched service between the United States and a foreign point and the terms and conditions of such agreement relating to the exchange of services, interchange or routing of traffic and matters concerning rates, accounting rates, division of tolls, the allocation of return traffic, or the basis of settlement of traffic balances, are not identical to the equivalent terms and conditions in the operating agreement of another carrier providing the same or similar service between the United States and the same foreign point, the carrier must also file with the International Bureau a modification request under § 64.1001 of this chapter. Unless a carrier is providing switched voice, telex, telegraph, or packet-switched service on a route that is exempt from the international settlements policy, the carrier shall not bargain for or agree to accept more than its proportionate share of return traffic.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, if a carrier files an amendment, pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, to an existing operating or other agreement with a foreign carrier to provide switched voice, telex, telegraph, or packet-switched service between the United States and a foreign point, and other carriers provide the same or similar service to the same foreign point, and the amendment relates to the exchange of services, interchange or routing of traffic and matters concerning rates, accounting rates, division of tolls, the allocation of return traffic, or the basis of settlement of traffic balances, the carrier must also file with the International Bureau a modification request under § 64.1001 of this Chapter.
(3) A carrier that enters into an operating or other agreement with a foreign carrier for the provision of a common carrier service on an international route is not subject to the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section if the route appears on the Commission's list of international routes that the Commission has exempted from the international settlements policy.
The Commission's list of international routes exempted from the international settlements policy is available from the International Bureau's World Wide Web site at
(f) Confidential treatment. (1) A carrier providing service on an international route that is exempt from the international settlements policy under paragraph (e)(3) of this section, but that is otherwise required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to file a contract covering service on that route with the Commission, may request confidential treatment under § 0.457 of this Chapter for the rates, terms and conditions that govern the settlement of U.S. international traffic.
(2) Carriers requesting confidential treatment under this paragraph must include the information specified in § 64.1001(c) of this Chapter. Such filings shall be made with the Commission, with a copy to the Chief, International Bureau. The transmittal letter accompanying the confidential filing shall clearly identify the filing as responsive to § 43.51(f).
For purposes of this section,
To the extent that a foreign government provides telecommunications services directly through
Carriers shall rely on the Commission's list of foreign carriers that do not qualify for the presumption that they lack market power in particular foreign points for purposes of determining which of their foreign carrier contracts are subject to the contract filing requirements set forth in this section. The Commission's list of foreign carriers that do not qualify for the presumption that they lack market power in particular foreign points is available from the International Bureau's World Wide Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/ib. The Commission will include on the list of foreign carriers that do not qualify for the presumption that they lack market power in particular foreign points any foreign carrier that has 50 percent or more market share in the international transport or local access markets of a foreign point. A party that seeks to remove such a carrier from the Commission's list bears the burden of submitting information to the Commission sufficient to demonstrate that the foreign carrier lacks 50 percent market share in the international transport and local access markets on the foreign end of the route or that it nevertheless lacks sufficient market power on the foreign end of the route to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market. A party that seeks to add a carrier to the Commission's list bears the burden of submitting information to the Commission sufficient to demonstrate that the foreign carrier has 50 percent or more market share in the international transport or local access markets on the foreign end of the route or that it nevertheless has sufficient market power to affect competition adversely in the U.S. market.
Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 201-205, and 403 unless otherwise noted.
(y)
(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, or by Commission order, carriers that are nondominant in the provision of international and interstate, domestic interexchange services shall not file tariffs for such services.
(b) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of international and domestic, interstate, interexchange services are permitted to file tariffs for dial-around 1+ services. For the purposes of this paragraph, dial-around 1+ calls are those calls made by accessing the interexchange carrier through the use of that carrier's carrier access code.
(c) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of international and domestic, interstate, interexchange services are permitted to file a tariff for such services applicable to those customers who contact the local exchange carrier to designate an interexchange carrier or to initiate a change with respect to their primary interexchange carrier. Such tariff will enable the interexchange carrier to provide service to the customer until the interexchange carrier and the customer consummate a written agreement, but in no event shall the interexchange carrier provide service to its customer pursuant to such tariff for more than 45 days.
(d) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of international inbound collect calls to the United States are permitted to file a tariff for such services.
(e) Carriers that are nondominant in the provision of “on-demand” Mobile Satellite Services are permitted to file a tariff for such services applicable to those customers that have not entered into pre-existing service contracts designating a specific provider for such services.
(a) Any carrier classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation under § 63.10 of this chapter shall file tariffs for those services pursuant to the notice and cost support requirements for tariff filings of dominant domestic carriers, as set forth in subpart E of this part.
(b) Other than the notice and cost support requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section, all tariff filing requirements applicable to all carriers classified as dominant for the provision of particular international communications services on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation pursuant to § 63.10 of this chapter are set forth in subpart C of this part.
Secs. 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201-205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.
(c) This section shall not apply to the rates, terms and conditions in an agreement between a U.S. carrier and a foreign carrier that govern the settlement of international traffic, including the method for allocating return traffic, if the international route is exempt from the international settlements policy under § 43.51(e)(3) of this chapter.
(b) * * *
(3) Authorized carriers filing tariffs pursuant to §§ 61.19 or 61.28 of this chapter that route U.S.-billed traffic via switched hubbing shall tariff their service on a “through” basis between the United States and the ultimate point of origination or termination;
(b) Carriers must file copies of operating agreements entered into with their foreign correspondents as specified in § 43.51 of this chapter and shall otherwise comply with the filing requirements contained in that section.
(c) Carriers regulated as dominant for the provision of a particular international communications service on a particular route for any reason other than a foreign carrier affiliation under § 63.10 shall file tariffs pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 203, and part 61 of this chapter. Except as specified in § 20.15(d) of this chapter with respect to commercial mobile radio service providers, carriers regulated as non-dominant, as defined in § 61.3 of this chapter, and providing detariffed international services pursuant to § 61.19 of this chapter must comply with all applicable public disclosure and maintenance of information requirements in §§ 42.10 and 42.11 of this chapter.
47 U.S.C. 154, 47 U.S.C. 225, 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1), 151, 154, 201, 202, 205, 218-220, 254, 302, 303, and 337 unless otherwise noted.
(b) If the international settlement arrangement in the operating agreement or amendment referred to in § 43.51(e)(1) or (e)(2) of this chapter differs from the arrangement in effect in the operating agreement of another carrier providing service to or from the same foreign point, the carrier must file a modification request under this section unless the international route is exempt from the international settlements policy under § 43.51(e)(3) of this chapter.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Commission grants, at the request of Amaturo Group of L.A., Ltd., licensee of Stations KLIT(FM), Avalon, California, KELT(FM), Riverside, California and KMLT, Thousand Oaks, California, the reallotment of Channel 224A from Avalon to Fountain Valley, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of the station's authorization accordingly, the reallotment of Channel 224A from Riverside to Adelanto, California, as that community's first local aural transmission service, and modification of that station's authorization accordingly, the substitution of Channel 224A for Channel 224B1 at Ridgecrest at a newly specified transmitter site, and modification of the authorization of Station KZIQ-FM, and a change in the reference coordinates of Station KMLT, Thousand Oaks, to avoid a short spacing to the proposed reallotment of Channel 224A to Fountain Valley, California. See 64 FR 68665 (December 8, 1999). Consistent with the minimum distance separation requirements of Section 73.207(b) and the principal community coverage requirements of Section 73.315(a) of the Commission's Rules, Channel 224A can be allotted to Fountain Valley, at petitioner's requested site 9.9 kilometers (6.1 miles) south of the community at coordinates 33-36-56 NL and 117-55-33 WL. Channel 224A can be allotted to Adelanto at petitioner's requested site 8.9 kilometers (5.5 miles) west of the community at coordinates 34-36-11 NL and 117-28-01 WL. The reference coordinates of Channel 224A, Thousand Oaks can be revised to 34-13-05 NL and 118-56-42 WL. The downgrade to Channel 224A at Ridgecrest can be accomplished at petitioner's requested site 1.5 kilometers west of the community at coordinates 35-37-27 NL and 117-41-10 WL. Additionally, concurrence of the Mexican government has been obtained for the allotments at Fountain Valley and Adelanto.
Effective April 23, 2001.
Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Report and Order, MM Docket No. 99-329, adopted February 28, 2001, and released March 9, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document grants three proposals that allot new channels to Huachuca City, Arizona; Rio Rico, Arizona; and Pine Level, Alabama, as described in the Supplementary Information, below. Filing windows for Channel 232A at Huachuca City, Arizona; Channel 300A at Rio Rico, Arizona; and Channel 248A at Pine Level, Alabama, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue of opening these allotments for auction will be addressed by the Commission in a subsequent order. With this action, these docketed proceeding are terminated.
Effective April 30, 2001.
Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's consolidated Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-208; MM Docket No. 00-209; MM Docket No. 00-211, adopted March 7, 2001, and released March 16, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257) 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
The Commission, at the request of Santa Cruz Broadcasting, allots Channel 232A to Huachuca City, Arizona, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 65 FR 67689, November 13, 2000. Channel 232A is allotted to Huachucha City with a site restriction 10.9 kilometers (6.8 miles) southwest at coordinates 31-32-30 NL and 110-23-20 WL. Additionally, as Huachuca City is located within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S.-Mexico border, concurrence to the allotment of Channel 232A to that community by the Mexican government has been requested, as a specially negotiated, restricted allotment, but has not been received. Therefore, if a construction permit is granted prior to receipt of formal concurrence in the allotment by the Mexican government, the authorization will include the following condition: “Operation with the facilities specified herein is subject to modification, suspension or termination without right to a hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.”
The Commission, at the request of Santa Cruz Broadcasting, allots Channel 300A to Rio Rico, Arizona, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 65 FR 67689, November 13, 2000. Channel 300A is allotted to Rio Rico without a site restriction at coordinates 31-24-00 NL and 110-57-30 WL. Additionally, as Rio Rico is located within 320 kilometers (199 miles) of the U.S.-Mexico border, concurrence to the allotment of Channel 300A to that community by the Mexican government has been requested, as a specially negotiated, restricted allotment, but has not been received. Therefore, if a construction permit is granted prior to receipt of formal concurrence in the allotment by the Mexican government, the authorization will include the following condition: “Operation with the facilities specified herein is subject to modification, suspension or termination without right to a hearing, if found by the Commission to be necessary in order to conform to the USA-Mexico FM Broadcast Agreement.”
The Commission, at the request of Susannah Lane Hodges, allots Channel 248A to Pine Level, Alabama, as the community's first local aural transmission service. See 65 FR 67690, November 13, 2000. Channel 248A is allotted to Pine Level without a site restriction at coordinates 32-04-04 NL and 86-03-35 WL.
Radio broadcasting.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to amend its bottled water quality standard by establishing allowable levels in its regulations for three residual disinfectants (chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide) and three types of disinfection byproducts (DBP’s) (bromate, chlorite, and haloacetic acids (HAA5)). FDA also is proposing to revise the existing allowable level for the DBP total trihalomethanes (TTHM). Finally, FDA is also proposing to revise, for the three residual disinfectants and four types of DBP’s only, the monitoring requirement for source water found in the current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations for bottled water. As a consequence of FDA’s amending the quality standard for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s, bottled water manufacturers would be required to monitor their finished bottled water products for these disinfectants and DBP’s at least once each year under the CGMP regulations for bottled water. Bottled water manufacturers also would be required to monitor for these contaminants at least once each year in their source water, unless the bottlers meet the criteria for the source water monitoring exemption under the proposed amendment to the CGMP regulations. This proposed rule will ensure that the minimum quality of bottled water, as affected by the above disinfectants and DBP’s, remains comparable with the quality of public drinking water that meets the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) standards. This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Submit written comments by June 11, 2001.
Submit written comments on the companion proposed rule to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Lauren Posnick, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-306), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-358-3568.
This proposed rule is a companion to the direct final rule published in the final rules section of this issue of the
On December 16, 1998 (63 FR 69390), EPA published the Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage I DBPR) to address potential public health effects from the presence of disinfectants and DBP’s in drinking water. This rulemaking finalized a proposed rule that EPA published in the
Disinfectants are chemicals, such as chlorine and ozone, that are added to drinking water to control microbial contamination. Both bottlers and public water systems may use disinfectants. Public water systems typically add disinfectants to drinking water at levels sufficient to maintain a disinfectant residual throughout the distribution system (i.e., the system of pipes that takes water from water treatment plants to customers). DBP’s are chemicals that result from the unintentional interaction of the disinfectants with inorganic or organic compounds present in the water supply. Examples of DBP’s include chloroform (a byproduct of treatment with chlorine) and bromate (a byproduct of ozonation). Both disinfectants and DBP’s can have adverse health effects (59 FR 38668 at 38679 through 38710).
National primary drinking water regulations (NPDWR’s) are promulgated by EPA to protect the public health from the adverse effects of contaminants in drinking water. NPDWR’s specify maximum contaminant levels (MCL’s) or treatment techniques for drinking water contaminants. In addition, at the same time that it promulgates NPDWR’s, EPA publishes maximum contaminant level goals (MCLG’s), which are not regulatory requirements but rather are nonenforceable health goals that are based solely on considerations of protecting the public from adverse health effects of drinking water contamination. In its proposed rule on disinfectants and DBP’s (59 FR 38668), EPA also introduced the concept of maximum residual disinfectant levels (MRDL’s) and maximum residual disinfectant level goals (MRDLG’s). MRDL’s and MRDLG’s are comparable
In the Stage I DBPR (63 FR 69390), EPA published NPDWR’s consisting of MCL’s for the DBP’s bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM. EPA also published MRDL’s for the chlorine-based disinfectants chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide. Finally, EPA published MCLG’s and MRDLG’s for these contaminants, as well as approved methods of testing for these contaminants.
Under section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 349), not later than 180 days before the effective date of an NPDWR promulgated by EPA for a contaminant under section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. 300g-l)
For additional information see the corresponding direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
If FDA receives any significant adverse comments regarding this rule, FDA will publish a document withdrawing the direct final rule and will proceed to respond to the comments under this companion proposed rule using usual notice and comment procedures.
A significant adverse comment is one that explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or why it would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment recommending a rule change that is in addition to the rule will not be considered a significant adverse comment, unless the comment states why this rule would be ineffective without the additional change. In addition, if a significant adverse comment applies to part of a rule and that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, FDA may adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of a significant adverse comment.
The SDWA, as amended in 1996, requires EPA to publish an NPDWR that specifies either an MCL or a treatment technique requirement for contaminants that may “have an adverse effect on the health of persons,” are “known to occur or [have] a substantial likelihood [of occurring] in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern,” and for which “regulation * * * presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems” (SDWA Section 1412(b)(1)(A)). The SDWA (Section 300g-1(a)(3)) also requires that EPA promulgate MCLG’s at the time that it promulgates NPDWR’s. MCLG’s are nonenforceable health goals that are based solely on considerations of protecting the public from the adverse health effects of contaminants, and not on other considerations, such as potential costs of regulating contaminants and potential technical difficulties of achieving the health goals (59 FR 38668 at 38671). EPA sets MCL’s, the enforceable contaminant levels, as close as feasible to the nonenforceable MCLG’s.
In its proposed rule on disinfectants and DBP’s (59 FR 38668), EPA also introduced the concept of MRDL’s and MRDLG’s. MRDL’s and MRDLG’s are comparable to MCL’s and MCLG’s, in that they set contaminant levels and health goals. EPA used the terms MRDL and MRDLG for disinfectants, rather than using the terms MCL and MCLG, to reflect the fact that disinfectants have beneficial properties and are intentionally added to drinking water to kill disease-causing organisms (63 FR 69390 at 69398; 59 FR 38668 at 38672, and 38679).
In the Stage I DBPR (63 FR 69390 at 69396), EPA established an MCL of 0.060 milligram per liter (mg/L) for the total of the five haloacetic acids that make up HAA5 (i.e., mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acid, and mono- and dibromoacetic acid). EPA also reduced the existing MCL for TTHM from 0.10 mg/L to 0.080 mg/L (63 FR 69390 at 69396). EPA also established MCL’s for two inorganic DBP’s: 0.010 mg/L for bromate and 1.0 mg/L for chlorite (63 FR 69390 at 69396). Finally, EPA established MRDL’s for three disinfectants: 4.0 mg/L (as Cl
Under section 401 of the act (21 U.S.C. 341), the agency may promulgate a regulation establishing a standard of quality for a food under its common or usual name, when in the judgment of the Secretary of Health and Human Services such action will promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers. On November 26, 1973 (38 FR 32558), FDA established a quality standard for bottled water that is set forth in § 165.110 (21 CFR 165.110).
Producers of bottled water are responsible for assuring, through appropriate manufacturing techniques and sufficient quality control procedures, that all bottled water products introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce comply with the quality standard (§ 165.110(b)). Bottled water that is of a quality that is below the prescribed standard is required by § 165.110(c) to be labeled with a statement of substandard quality. Moreover, any bottled water containing a substance at a level that causes the food to be adulterated under section 402(a)(1) of the act (21 U.S.C. 342(a)(1)) is subject to regulatory action, even if the bottled water bears a label statement of substandard quality.
FDA has traditionally fulfilled its obligation under section 410 of the act to respond to EPA’s issuance of NPDWR’s by amending the quality standard regulations for bottled water introduced or delivered for introduction
FDA generally has not duplicated the efforts of EPA in judging the adequacy of MCL’s or treatment techniques in NPDWR’s for contaminants when determining their applicability to bottled water in order to protect the public health. FDA believes that, in general, it would be redundant for FDA to reevaluate the drinking water standards prescribed by EPA. Further, because bottled water is increasingly used in some households as a replacement for tap water, consumption patterns considered by EPA for tap water can be used as an estimate for the maximum expected consumption of bottled water by some individuals. Therefore, FDA’s view is that generally in cases where bottled water is subject to the same contaminants as tap water, FDA should establish standard of quality levels in bottled water at the same levels that EPA establishes as MCL’s for such contaminants in tap water.
In its proposed rule on disinfectants and DBP’s (59 FR 38668), EPA introduced the term MRDL. As explained in section III of this document, EPA used this term when it first proposed enforceable disinfectant levels (MRDL's) to reflect the fact that disinfectants have beneficial properties. However, disinfectants may have adverse health effects (59 FR 38668 at 38679 through 38694) and they may be expected to be in some source waters used for bottled water. Therefore, FDA is proposing that disinfectants should be treated as contaminants when FDA establishes a standard of quality for bottled water in response to EPA’s issuance of NPDWR’s for drinking water.
The quality standard for bottled water, as set forth in § 165.110(b)(4)(i)(A), prescribes that bottled water shall not contain TTHM in excess of 0.10 mg/L. It does not, however, prescribe allowable levels for bromate, chlorite, HAA5, chloramine, chlorine, or chlorine dioxide in bottled water.
FDA has evaluated the MRDL’s for chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide and the MCL’s for bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM that EPA has established for drinking water. FDA has tenatively concluded that EPA’s MRDL’s and MCL’s for these contaminants, as standard of quality levels for bottled water, are adequate for the protection of the public health. Certain waters used for bottled drinking water may be expected to contain these contaminants; thus, FDA believes that adopting allowable levels for these contaminants will ensure that the quality of bottled water is comparable to the quality of public drinking water that meets EPA standards.
Therefore, FDA is proposing to establish in a new paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(H) in § 165.110, allowable levels for the following disinfectants and DBP’s: chloramine at 4.0 mg/L (as Cl
In the Stage 1 DBPR that established MCL’s for bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM and MRDL’s for chlorine, chloramine, and chlorine dioxide, EPA stipulated that analyses for determining compliance with the MCL’s and MRDL’s shall be performed by approved analytical methods (63 FR 69390 at 69466). EPA has approved one method for bromate monitoring, two methods for monthly chlorite monitoring, three methods for HAA5 monitoring, three methods for TTHM monitoring, six methods for chloramine monitoring, seven methods for chlorine monitoring, and two methods for chlorine dioxide monitoring. Therefore, in a new paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(I) in § 165.110, FDA is proposing to incorporate by reference the 24 analytical methods cited by EPA (63 FR 69390 at 69417) for determining the levels of these contaminants in bottled water.
FDA has established CGMP regulations for bottled water in part 129 (21 CFR part 129). Under § 129.35(a)(3)(i), source water must be analyzed by the plant as often as necessary, but at least annually for chemical contaminants. Further, to ensure that a plant’s production complies with applicable standards, § 129.80(g)(2) requires analysis by the plant, at least annually, of a representative sample from a batch or segment of a continuous production run for each type of bottled drinking water produced during a day’s production. The CGMP regulation in § 129.80(a) also requires sampling and analysis, as often as necessary, of product water taken after processing but before bottling, to assure uniformity and effectiveness of the processes performed by the plant.
Disinfectants and DBP’s are special types of contaminants in that they result from the deliberate addition of disinfectants to water to control microbial contamination. Since public water systems add disinfectants to water, FDA expects that source water from public water systems will contain disinfectants and DBP’s. Therefore, FDA is proposing to require bottlers who obtain their source water from public water systems to test that water, as specified in § 129.35(a)(3)(i), for the disinfectants chloramine, chlorine, and chlorine dioxide, and the DBP’s bromate, chlorite, HAA5, and TTHM, unless they meet the requirements contained in § 129.35(a)(4)(i). FDA believes that, in some cases, bottlers disinfect source water that is not from public water systems (e.g., prior to bulk transportation of that source water to the bottling plant). Such source water would contain residual disinfectants and also may contain DBP’s. Therefore, FDA is proposing to add a new paragraph (a)(4)(iii) in § 129.35, stating that firms that do not use a public water system as the source of their water and whose source water has not been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone do not have to test their source water for the residual disinfectants and DBP’s listed in § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(H). FDA is proposing that firms that do not use a public water system as the source of their water but whose source water has been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone must test their source water for the residual disinfectants and the DBP’s listed in § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(H) that are likely to result from such treatment. Treatment of water with ozone is expected to produce the disinfection byproducts (or components of the disinfection byproducts) bromate, HAA5, and TTHM. Treatment of water with chlorine or chloramine is expected to produce the disinfection byproducts (or components of the disinfection byproducts) HAA5 and TTHM.
However, if the proposed changes to the quality standard regulations are finalized as proposed, all bottlers, whether or not they obtain their source water from public or nonpublic drinking water sources and whether or not they treat their water with chlorine, chloramine, chlorine dioxide, or ozone, would be required to test for the residual disinfectants chloramine,
Further, bottled water would have to comply with the sampling and testing requirements for disinfectants and DBP’s under § 129.80(g)(2). In addition, bottled water would have to comply with the allowable levels for the disinfectants and DBP’s in the quality standard for bottled water (§165.110 (b)) unless the label bears a statement of substandard quality under § 165.110(c). As stated in § 165.110(d), bottled water is deemed to be adulterated if it contains a substance at a level considered injurious to health under section 402(a)(1) of the act.
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.32(a) and 25.30(j) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the economic implications of this companion proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866. Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 12866 classifies a rule as significant if it meets any one of a number of specified conditions, including: Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million, adversely affecting a sector of the economy in a material way, adversely affecting competition, or adversely affecting jobs. A regulation is also considered a significant regulatory action if it raises novel legal or policy issues. FDA has determined that this companion proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
In the
In the following analysis, FDA finds that issuing standard of quality regulations and monitoring requirements for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s under FDA bottled water CGMP regulations has the highest net benefits. FDA’s testing requirements are less costly than the testing requirements under our assumptions of how EPA NPDWR’s would apply to bottled water, with the same health benefits, and the health benefits of testing for these contaminants outweigh the cost.
If FDA does not establish a regulation for quality standards for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s, bottled water producers would be subject to NPDWR testing and monitoring requirements for these contaminants. Therefore, we consider this possibility the baseline for the purposes of this analysis. Also, we assume that the regulatory options we consider will have no organoleptic effect on the final bottled water product, and thus no impact on sales due to product quality, so the cost of the regulation will be limited to the direct cost of testing, recordkeeping, and possible disinfection technology investment.
Bottled water producers market their products based on meeting government safety testing requirements. However, any change in sales resulting from successful marketing either transfers revenue from one producer to another with no net loss to society, or causes increased sales of bottled water, which would mitigate the cost of this regulatory effort.
FDA considers three options for this analysis:
(1) FDA does not establish residual disinfectant and DBP quality standard regulations or make a finding that they are not necessary to protect the public health because these contaminants are not used in water used for bottled drinking water. Bottled water producers would be subject to the requirements set forth in the NPDWR’s for these contaminants.
(2) FDA establishes residual disinfectant and DBP quality standard regulations. For these contaminants, bottled water producers would be subject to allowable levels in § 165.110 and CGMP monitoring requirements in part 129, as modified in this companion proposed rule.
(3) Bottled water producers are not subject to either FDA quality standard regulations or EPA NPDWR’s for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s.
Regarding option 3, because it is not the case that these contaminants are contained in water used in public drinking water sytems but not in water used for bottled drinking water, section 410(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) does not permit this option. The act specifies two alternatives: “promulgate a standard of quality regulation under this subsection,” or find that “such a regulation is not necessary to protect the public health because the contaminant is contained in water in public water systems * * * but not in water used for bottled drinking water.”
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost-benefit analysis guidelines recommend discussing statutory requirements that affect the selection of regulatory approaches. These guidelines also recommend analyzing the opportunity cost of legal constraints that may prevent the selection of the regulatory action that best satisfies the philosophy and principles of Executive Order 12866. Our analysis finds that option 3 does not have the highest net benefits, therefore, even if option 3 were permissible, the statute does not preclude the option with the highest net benefits.
a.
We assume the following testing frequency and requirements under option 1. This option considers the cost if bottled water facilities were subject to NPDWR’s by interpreting how such requirements may apply to bottled water facilities. EPA bases testing frequencies for public water systems on the size of the population served by the treatment plant. Since bottled water plants do not fall into the size and type categories established in the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR regulations, for the purposes of this analysis, we assume that all bottled water facilities would be regulated as if they were a small ground water treatment system. This is the smallest category identified in the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR analysis.
EPA regulations also provide two testing process exemptions. If a public water system does not use ozone for oxidation or disinfection, then EPA does not require a bromate test; and if a public water system does not use chlorine dioxide for oxidation or disinfection, then EPA requires neither a chlorine dioxide nor a chlorite test. All plants have to test for HAA5, TTHM, chlorine, and chloramine regardless of disinfection method.
For this analysis, the bottled water industry would be subject to the following monitoring:
i. TTHM and HAA5: One test per plant per year, decreasing to one test per 3 years in the event of 1 or 2 years of very low levels of both TTHM and HAA5.
ii. Chlorite: A three-sample set per month only for plants using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. Reduced to a three-sample set per quarter if low levels of chlorites found in routine monitoring in a 1-year period.
iii. Bromate: One test per month only for plants using ozone for oxidation or disinfection. Reduced to one test per quarter if average water bromide is low, based on 1-year average of monthly samples.
iv. Chlorine and Chloramine: One test per plant per month. Monitoring may not be reduced.
v. Chlorine Dioxide: One test per day, at the distribution system entrance, only for plants using chlorine dioxide as a disinfectant. Monitoring may not be reduced.
Because few bottled water facilities use chlorine dioxide for disinfection, we assume that they all will qualify for the chlorite testing exemption. For the HAA5 and TTHM frequency requirements, we assume that one-third of the plants will qualify for the frequency reductions after 1 year, one-third will qualify for the reductions after 2 years, and one-third will continue to have to test once yearly. Finally, we assume that no bottled water facility will qualify for the bromate testing exemption, but that half of the plants will qualify for lower frequency testing under option 1.
For option 2, under 21 CFR § 129.35(a)(3), bottled water producers are required to test their source water for contaminants at least once per year unless exempted from such testing under § 129.35(a)(4). For example, bottled water facilities that use a public water source already subject to EPA regulations may substitute public water system testing results for source water testing. We assume that no facilities that use a public water source will need to test their source water for residual disinfectants and the DBP’s likely to result from such treatment. Bottled water manufacturers that do not use a public water system as the source of their water and whose source water has not been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone do not have to test their source water for these disinfectants and the DBP’s. Manufacturers that do not use a public water system as the source of their water but whose source water has been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone must test their source water for the residual disinfectants and the DBP’s likely to result from such treatment. For example, some source water may be disinfected if it is transported across large distances prior to entering the bottled water plant. We assume in this analysis (explained below) that 75 percent of bottled water producers use nonpublic sources. Of these, we assume that one-third of bottled water producers using nonpublic water will need to test their source water. All bottled water producers are required to test their final bottled water product for contaminants at least once per year under § 129.80(g)(2).
Table 1 of this document contains the required annual testing frequencies for source and final product water for the four types of DBP’s and three disinfectants under options 1 and 2. For this table, we split option 2 into 2a and 2b, referring to whether or not the facility uses a public water source. This table is for “year 1” testing; under our assumptions no firm has yet qualified for less frequent testing requirements under option 1. We assume that facilities will perform separate tests for free chlorine and combined chlorine (which detects chloramine) and that all facilities use ozone for oxidation or disinfection. Under option 2a, all facilities must perform at least one final product test annually, and 25 percent (one-third of the 75 percent of the facilities using a nonpublic water source) of facilities must perform an annual source water test, for an average of 1.25 tests per facility.
The cost estimates in table 2 of this document include labor, and are the same testing costs EPA used for the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR impact analysis (Ref. 1). FDA also collected other testing cost estimates (Ref. 2); the EPA testing costs generally are in the high end of the range of the estimates we collected. FDA considers EPA’s cost estimates reliable
Table 3 of this document presents annual testing costs. Both option 2a and 2b cost estimates are considerably lower than option 1 (year 1) estimates for a typical bottled water plant, due to the less frequent required testing for bromate, chlorine, and chloramine.
Table 4 of this document applies these totals and assumptions to the structure of the bottled water industry. We also recombine options 2a and 2b in this table. Approximately 1,550 plants produce bottled water (63 FR 25764, May 11, 1998). According to another database search conducted for this analysis, the industry contains only 914 plants that would be subject to these rules, but the current count may not include bottled water services to business. Because of this uncertainty, we estimate totals for both 914 and 1,550 plants. This affects neither the relative ranking of options nor the sensitivity analysis.
About 25 percent of bottled water products sold are produced by facilities that use public source water. Based on this, FDA assumes that 25 percent of bottled water plants use public source water, and that 75 percent use nonpublic sources (mostly ground water.) For ease of computation, table 4 of this document also assumes an equal distribution of the once per 3-year cost across later years, so one-third of the TTHM and HAA5 cost is incurred in any one year for plants meeting the less frequent testing requirements under option 1.
Assuming a 7 percent discount rate and no relative testing cost increases, the present (year 2001) value costs of the testing regimes are $18,787,984 (914 plants) to $31,861,461 (1,550 plants) under option 1 and $9,070,634 (914 plants) to $15,382,366 (1,550 plants) under option 2.
FDA ran a rough sensitivity analysis to determine how the range of testing costs, exemptions, and frequency assumptions affected the relative cost of options 1 and 2. This is a break-even analysis, which identifies how much the costs or assumptions would have to change in order to alter our conclusions.
(1) Testing costs; the major components of the higher option 1 cost are bromate, chlorine, and chloramine testing requirements. Even if bromate testing cost dropped to zero, option 1 cost would still be higher than option 2. If chorine and chloramine testing costs dropped to zero, and the cost of testing a water sample for bromate dropped from $100 to $52 (or if only 52 percent of bottled water plants have to test for bromate), the cost of options 1 and 2 would be roughly the same. This is in the range of the lowest bromate testing cost estimates collected by FDA (Ref. 2). TTHM and HAA5 testing costs do not have a significant impact on the relative cost of the options.
(2) Frequency and requirement exemptions; even if all bottled water plants qualified for less frequent bromate, TTHM, and HAA5 testing,
(3) Discount rate; since option 2 costs, under the original assumptions, were lower for every year, the option ranking is not affected by the choice of the discount rate.
FDA concludes that under the most likely assumptions and in a wide range around those assumptions, testing costs under option 1 exceed those under option 2.
b.
c.
In this case, FDA assumes that both option 1 and option 2 adequately protect the health of the public. FDA cannot discriminate between options 1 and 2 in terms of their ability to guarantee the absence of residual disinfectants and DBP’s in bottled water. Option 3 is the lowest cost, but in the 1998 Stage 1 DBPR analysis, EPA concluded that testing for these substances in water destined for human consumption has net positive benefits (63 FR 69390, December 16, 1998). Water used by bottled water producers, from both public and nonpublic sources, may need some manner of disinfection, so we believe the economic argument from the Stage 1 DBPR analysis applies equally well to bottled water. We do not estimate the number of illnesses avoided under these different testing options.
Option 2 has lower testing costs and may have lower recordkeeping costs than option 1, and protects the health of the public at least as well as option 1. Option 2 also has higher net benefits than option 3, since the Stage 1 DBPR conclusion that testing for these substances has net positive benefits applies equally well to bottled water. Therefore, option 2, where FDA issues standard of quality regulations for these residual disinfectants and DBP’s under part 165 and where the monitoring requirements in part 129 apply, has the highest net benefits.
FDA has examined the economic implications of this companion proposed rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). If a rule has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would lessen the economic effect of the rule on small entities. FDA finds that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule would have an impact on small entities, but that impact would not be large. In addition, option 2 in the impact analysis is more flexible and has a smaller testing frequency burden than the NPDWR requirements for drinking water under option 1, therefore lowering the impact of this rule on small businesses while still protecting the public health. FDA also believes that adopting residual disinfectant and DBP standards yields net positive benefits regardless of the size of the bottled water facility, so option 2 in the impact analysis is more appropriate than option 3 for small businesses.
FDA also believes that the flexibility allowed in source testing requirements under option 2 in the impact analysis is the maximum amount of flexibility possible in this proposed regulation. FDA is not proposing exemptions for final product testing since there is a need to test for these disinfectant residuals and DBP’s: Bottled water producers use these disinfectants, residual disinfectants and DBP’s may be present in both public and nonpublic source water, and disinfectants may be used for equipment or other sanitation in any bottled water plant under CGMP regulations.
According to the latest database search across the bottled water industry mentioned above, approximately 72 percent of firms qualify as small by Small Business Administration (SBA) standards. Assuming the same exemptions and frequency requirements, the yearly average cost per plant for both small and large entities is between $585 (public source) and $731 (nonpublic source) for firms under the FDA requirements in option 2 in the impact analysis, and between $1,397 (year 3) and $1,980 (year 1) for the NPDWR requirements in option 1. We assume that almost all small entities in the bottled water industry are single plant firms. Although FDA does consider the option 2 higher cost of $731 per plant per year a significant impact for small firms, this number represents 0.13 percent of the $580,000 annual revenue of the median small bottled water firm.
C.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4), requiring cost-benefit and other analyses, in section 1531 (a) defines a significant rule as “a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million (adjusted annually for inflation) in any 1 year.” FDA has determined that this proposed rule does not constitute a significant rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
FDA tentatively concludes that this proposed rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding this proposal on or before June 11, 2001. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
The agency intends to make any final rule based on this proposal effective January 1, 2002. The agency will publish a confirmation notice for a final rule in the
1. U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Final Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Products Regulations, Washington, DC, app. E, pp. E-4 and E-5, EPA 815-B-98-002. PB 99-111304, 1998.
2. Memorandum from Dominic Mancini to the record, March 13, 2001.
Beverages, Bottled water, Food packaging, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Beverages, Bottled water, Food grades and standards, Incorporation by reference.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 129 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 342, 348, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 264.
2. Section 129.35 is amended by redesignating paragraph (a)(4)(iii) as paragraph (a)(4)(iv) and by adding new paragraph (a)(4)(iii) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(4) * * *
(iii) Firms that do not use a public water system as the source of their water and whose source water has not been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone do not have to test their source water for the residual disinfectants and DBP’s listed in § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(H) of this chapter. Firms that do not use a public water system as the source of their water but whose source water has been treated with a chlorine-based disinfectant or ozone must test their source water for the residual disinfectants and the DBP’s listed in § 165.110(b)(4)(iii)(H) that are likely to result from such treatment.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 165 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 343-l, 348, 349, 371, 379e.
2. Section 165.110 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii); by adding paragraphs (b)(1)(iii), (b)(4)(iii)(H), and (b)(4)(iii)(I); and in the table in paragraph (b)(4)(i)(A) by removing the entry for “Organics: Total Trihalomethanes” to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(iii)
(4) * * *
(iii) * * *
(H) The allowable levels for residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts are as follows:
(I) Analysis to determine compliance with the requirements of paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(H) of this section shall be conducted in accordance with an applicable method listed in paragraphs (b)(4)(iii)(I)(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(iii) Method 551.1—“Determination of Chlorination Disinfection Byproducts, Chlorinated Solvents, and Halogenated Pesticides/Herbicides in Drinking Water by Liquid-Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography with Electron-Capture Detection,” Rev. 1.0. The revision is contained in the manual entitled “Methods for the Determination of Organic Compounds in Drinking Water-Supplement III,” U.S. EPA, August 1993, EPA/600/R-95/131, which is incorporated by reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. The availability of this incorporation by reference is given in paragraph (b)(4)(iii)(I) of this section.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
Proposed rule; public comment period and opportunity for public hearing on proposed amendment.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is announcing receipt of a proposed amendment to the Navajo abandoned mine land reclamation (AMLR) plan (hereinafter, the “Navajo plan”) under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The Navajo Nation proposes to remove existing rules pertaining to noncoal reclamation after certification and exclusion of certain noncoal sites in view of rules it proposes to add elsewhere in its plan. The Navajo Nation proposes to add rules that will authorize it to: Restore lands and water adversely affected by past mineral mining, providing they reflect certain objectives and priorities; protect, repair, replace, construct, or enhance utilities; construct public facilities in communities impacted by coal and other mineral mining and processing practices; and, following specific criteria for grant applications to meet, request funds for activities or construction of specific public facilities related to the coal or minerals industry on Navajo Nation lands impacted by coal or mineral development. The Navajo Nation also proposes to add new provisions that will: Exclude certain noncoal reclamation sites; apply provisions in its Plan for land acquisition and liens to its noncoal program; establish limited liability provisions; and require every successful bidder for an AML contract to be eligible, as confirmed by OSM's Applicant Violator System, to receive a mining permit at the time of contract award. The Navajo nation intends to revise its plan to be consistent with the corresponding Federal regulations and to authorize it to undertake projects under section 411(f) of the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Code.
We will accept written comments on this amendment until 4:00 p.m., Mountain Standard Time April 27, 2001. If requested, we will hold a public hearing on the amendment on April 23, 2001. We will accept requests to speak until 4:00 p.m., Mountain Standard Time April 12, 2001.
You should mail or hand deliver written comments and requests to speak at the hearing to Willis Gainer, Albuquerque Field Office Director, at the address listed below.
You may review copies of the Navajo plan, this amendment, a listing of any scheduled public hearings, and all written comments received in response to this document at the addresses listed below during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. You may receive one free copy of the amendment by contacting OSM's Albuquerque Field Office.
Willis Gainer, Albuquerque Field Office Director; telephone: 505-248-5096; e-mail address: wgainer@osmre.gov.
On May 16, 1988, the Secretary of the Interior approved the Navajo plan. You
By letters dated March 2 and March 8, 2001, the Navajo Nation sent us a proposed amendment to its plan (NA-004-FOR, administrative records numbers NA-255 and NA-256) under SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1201
Specifically, the Navajo Nation proposes the following changes in its Plan:
A.
B.
C.
1. Proposed subsection O.1 notes that subsection O applies to: Projects that restore lands and water adversely affected by past mineral mining; projects that protect, repair, replace, construct, or enhance utilities or facilities; and construction of public facilities in communities impacted by coal and other mineral mining and processing practices;
2. Proposed subsection O.2 establishes the three objectives and priorities that projects to restore lands and water adversely affected by past mineral mining must reflect;
3. Proposed subsection O.3 provides that enhancement of facilities or utilities (as provided under the second clause of proposed subsection O.1) may include upgrading needed to meet local, State, or Federal public health or safety requirements but it may not include any service area expansion not needed to address a specific abandoned mine land problem;
4. Proposed subsection O.4 authorizes the Navajo Nation to submit a grant application for funds to pay for activities for construction of specific public facilities related to the coal or minerals industry on Navajo Nation lands impacted by coal or mineral development if, notwithstanding the requirements of proposed subsection O.1, the Navajo Nation President (subject to applicable laws) determines they are needed;
5. Proposed subsection O.5 through O.5(h) establish the criteria that the Navajo Nation's grant applications requesting funds under proposed subsection O.4 and section 411(f) of the Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands Reclamation Code must meet;
6. Proposed subsection O.6 prohibits the Navajo Nation from spending AML program funds to reclaim sites and areas designated for remedial action under UMTRCA or listed for remedial action under CERCLA;
7. Proposed subsection O.7 applies the requirements of subsections II.H (Acquisition, Management and Disposition of Lands and Water) and II.J (Rights of Entry) of the Plan to the Navajo Nation's noncoal program using the word “noncoal” in lieu of the word “coal”;
8. Proposed subsection O.8 applies the requirements of subsection II.I (Reclamation on Private Land) to the Navajo Nation's noncoal program using the word “noncoal” in lieu of the word “coal”;
9. Proposed subsection O.9 describes those conditions under which the Navajo Nation will, and will not, be liable under Federal, State, or Tribal law for costs or damages as a result of action taken or omitted in the course of carrying out its Plan; and
10. Proposed subsection O.10 requires every successful bidder for a Navajo AML contract to be eligible at the time of contract award, under OSM's Applicant Violator System, to receive a permit or conditional permit to conduct surface coal mining operations.
Under the provisions of 30 CFR 732.17(h), we request your comments on whether the amendment satisfies the applicable program criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we approve the amendment, it will become part of the Navajo program.
Send your written comments to OSM at the address given above. Your written comments should be specific, pertain only to the issues proposed in this rulemaking, and include explanations in support of your recommendations. In the final rulemaking, we will not consider or include in the administrative record any comments received after the time indicated under
Please submit Internet comments as an ASCII, WordPerfect, or Word file avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption. Please also include “Attn: SPATS No. NA-004-FOR” and your name and return address in your Internet message, contact the Albuquerque Field Office at 505-248-5096.
We will make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during normal business hours. We will not consider anonymous comments. If individual respondents requested confidentiality, we will honor their request to the extent allowable by law. Individual respondents who wish to withhold their name or address from public review, except for the city or town, must state this prominently at the beginning of their comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials or organizations or businesses, available for public review in their entirety.
If you wish to speak at the public hearing, contact the person listed
To assist the transcriber and ensure an accurate record, we request, if possible,
If only one person requests an opportunity to speak, we may hold a public meeting rather than a public hearing. If you wish to meet with us to discuss the amendment, please request a meeting by contacting the person listed under
This rule does not have takings implications. This determination is based on the analysis performed for the counterpart Federal regulations.
This rule is exempted from review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review.
The Department of the Interior conducted the reviews required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 and determined that, to the extent allowable by law, this rule meets the applicable standards of subsections (a) and (b) of that section. However, these standards are not applicable to the actual language of Tribal AMLR plans and revisions thereof since each such plan is drafted and promulgated by a specific Tribe, not by OSM. Decisions on proposed Tribal AMLR plans and revisions thereof submitted by a Tribe are based on a determination of whether the submittal meets the requirements of Title IV of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1231-1243) and the applicable Federal regulations at 30 CFR parts 884 and 888.
This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because agency decisions on proposed Tribal AMLR plans and plan revisions are categorically excluded from compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332) by the Manual of the Department of the Interior (516 DM 6, appendix 8, paragraph 8.4B(29)).
This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507
The Department of the Interior determined 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
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(s), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices of consumers, individual industries, geographic regions, or Federal, State or local governmental agencies; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the fact that Navajo Nation submittal that is the subject of this rule is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an analysis was prepared and a determination made that the Federal regulation was not considered a major rule.
OSM determined and certifies under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1502
Abandoned mine reclamation programs, Indian lands, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to revise the operating regulation governing the U.S. 23 bridge at mile 0.9 over Cheboygan River in Cheboygan, Michigan. The proposed rule would revise the advance notice requirement for vessels during winter months. Currently, vessels provide 24-hour notice between December 15 and March 15. The proposed schedule would require vessels to provide 12-hour advance notice between December 15 and April 1 each year. This schedule would relieve the bridge owner from maintaining operators during periods of no vessel traffic each year, while still providing for bridge openings.
Comments must be received on or before May 29, 2001.
Comments may be mailed or delivered to: Commander (obr), Ninth Coast Guard District, 1240 East Ninth Street, Room 2019, Cleveland, OH, 44199-2060 between 6:30 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (216) 902-6084.
Mr. Scot M. Striffler, Project Manager, Ninth Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, at (216) 902-6084.
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views or arguments for or against this rule. Persons submitting comments should include names and addresses, identify the rulemaking [CGD09-01-008] and the specific section of this proposal to which each comment applies, and give the reason(s) for each comment. Please submit all comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Individuals may request a public hearing by writing to the address under
The owner of the U.S. 23 bridge, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), requested the Coast Guard approve a modified schedule for the winter operations of the bridge. MDOT requested vessels provide 12-hour advance notice between December 15 and April 15 each year. Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, determined that this schedule would not serve the reasonable needs of navigation, and specifically, would adversely affect a ferry service company with established routes between Cheboygan and other island communities. The ferry service resumes its scheduled transits as early as weather permits in the spring. The ferry service is also used as an occasional platform for transporting emergency medical personnel between the communities. For this reason, and from information gathered from bridge opening logs submitted by MDOT, the Coast Guard agreed to propose a 12-hour advance notice requirement for vessels between December 15 and April 1.
The current operating schedule for the U.S. 23 bridge is governed by 33 CFR. Under this proposed rule, only the dates and advance notice time would be revised during winter months. Since the focus of this proposed change would primarily affect the dates that the bridge should be attended in the spring, the following bridge opening data concerns openings for vessels between March 15 and April 15 for the past 3 years: In 1998, there were no openings between March 15 and April 1, and 17 openings between April 2 and April 15. All of these openings were for the ferry vessel mentioned in Background and Purpose. In 1999, there were no openings between March 15 and April 1, with 3 openings between April 2 and April 15. Two of the three openings were for the ferry vessel.
In 2000, there were no openings between March 15 and April 15. In the winter and spring of 2000, the ferry vessel was drydocked for maintenance and repairs, and scheduled to return to service around April 15. The current regulation requires the bridge to open as soon as possible at all times for commercial vessels and vessels used for public safety. There would be no revision to that requirement.
This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
This determination is based on the relatively minor adjustment to the operating schedule near the end of the winter navigation season, the only documented vessel that would require openings has been identified and accommodated, and the bridge would still open for vessels once the advance notice is provided.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The 12-hour advance notice requirement during winter months is a standard practice on the Great Lakes and still provides for bridge openings with advance notice from vessel operators. No identified entities would be unable to pass the bridge, as needed.
Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information requirement under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, and determined that this rule does not have federalism implications under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a state, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the federal government having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This proposed rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
This proposed rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.lC, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule changes a drawbridge regulation which has been found not to have a significant effect on the environment. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is not required.
Bridges.
For reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to revise Part 117 of Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. In § 117.627, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are revised to read as follows:
(a) From April 1 through May 15 and from September 16 through December 14, the draw shall open on signal.
(b) From May 16 through September 15—
(1) Between the hours of 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., seven days a week, the draw shall open on signal.
(2) Between the hours of 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., seven days a week, the draw need open only from three minutes before to three minutes after the quarter-hour and three-quarter hour.
(c) From December 15 through March 31, no bridgetender is required to be at the bridge and the draw need not open unless a request to open the draw is given at least 12-hours in advance of a vessel's intended time of passage through the draw.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This document proposes various revisions to the rules regarding the Emergency Alert System (EAS) and also seeks comment on requested revisions to the rules set forth in petitions for rulemaking filed by the National Weather Service (NWS) and the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE).
Comments are due June 11, 2001, and reply comments are due July 11, 2001.
Send comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. Comments may also be filed electronically using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.
Kathy Berthot, Enforcement Bureau, Technical and Public Safety Division, at (202) 418-7454.
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 01-88, in EB Docket No. 01-66, adopted on March 13, 2001, and released on March 20, 2001. The complete text of this NPRM is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, and may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B400, Washington, DC, (202) 857-3800. The complete text may also be downloaded from the Commission's internet site at http://www.fcc.gov.
1. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes revisions to part 11 of the rules regarding the EAS and also seeks comment on requested revisions to the part 11 rules set forth in petitions for rulemaking filed by the NWS and the SBE.
2. The Commission proposes to amend part 11 to: (1) Increase the relay window within which Required Monthly Tests of the EAS must be retransmitted from 15 minutes to 60 minutes; (2) reduce the required modulation level of EAS codes from 80% to 50% of full channel modulation limits; (3) delete references to the Emergency Action Notification network, which was eliminated in 1995 in accordance with a directive from President Clinton to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and (4) eliminate the requirement that international High Frequency broadcast stations purchase and install EAS equipment.
3. The Commission seeks comment on requests that we amend the list of state and local EAS event codes to add new event codes for emergency conditions not included in the current list; amend the list of location codes to add new location codes to cover marine areas; and adopt a naming convention for state and local event codes. A complete listing of the requested additions to the lists of EAS event codes and location codes can be found in Appendix A and Appendix B of the NPRM. As an alternative to amending the lists of State and local event codes and location codes, the Commission seeks comment on whether we should amend part 11 to provide that any modifications to existing authorized EAS equipment that are necessary to implement revisions in EAS codes are Class I permissive changes which do not require a new application for and grant of certification by the Commission. Under this alternative, additional State and local event and location codes could be developed directly by State and local officials, broadcasters and cable operators, equipment manufacturers and other interested parties. The use of these additional codes and the equipment needed to access them would be implemented on a permissive basis as determined by the specific needs and interests of the local area participants.
4. The Commission also seeks comment on requests that we add a protocol for text transmission of EAS messages; permit the carriage of audio of Presidential EAS messages from non-EAS sources; and permit equipment manufacturers to include an optional feature in EAS equipment that would afford EAS users the capability to select only certain received EAS messages for processing.
5. This is a summary of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) in the NPRM. The full text of the IRFA can be found in Appendix C of the NPRM.
6. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this IRFA of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
7. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes various revisions to the part 11 rules governing the EAS and seeks comment on requested revisions to the part 11 rules set forth in petitions for rulemaking filed by the NWS and the SBE. The requested revisions are intended to enhance the capabilities of EAS equipment, reduce burdens on EAS participants, and improve the overall performance of the EAS.
8. Legal Basis. Authority for the actions proposed in this NPRM may be found in Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 303(r), 624(g) and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 303(r), 554(g) and 606.
9. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. “Small governmental jurisdiction” generally means “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 such jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (91 percent) are small entities.
10. Television and radio stations. The proposed rules would apply to television broadcasting licensees and radio broadcasting licensees. The SBA defines a television broadcasting station that has $10.5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. Television broadcasting stations consist of establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting visual programs by television to the public, except cable and other pay television services. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other television stations. Also included are establishments primarily engaged in television broadcasting and which produce taped television program materials. There were 1,509 television stations operating in the nation in 1992. That number has remained fairly constant as indicated by the approximately 1,663 operating television broadcasting stations in the nation as of September 30, 2000. For 1992, the number of television stations that produced less than $10.0 million in revenue was 1,155 establishments.
11. The SBA defines a radio broadcasting station that has $5 million or less in annual receipts as a small business. A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other radio stations. Radio broadcasting stations, which primarily are engaged in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are similarly included. The 1992 Census indicates that 96 percent (5,861 of 6,127) radio station establishments produced less than $5 million in revenue in 1992. Official Commission records indicate that 11,334 individual radio stations were operating in 1992. As of September 30, 2000, Commission records indicate that 12,717 radio stations were operating.
12. Thus, the rules may affect approximately 1,663 full power television stations, approximately 1,280 of which are considered small businesses. The proposed rules may also affect 12,717 full power radio stations, approximately 12,208 of which are small businesses. These estimates may overstate the number of small entities because the revenue figures on which they are based do not include or aggregate revenues from non-television or non-radio affiliated companies. There are also 2,395 low power television (LPTV) stations. Given the nature of this service, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.
13. Cable systems. The proposed rules would also affect small cable systems. The SBA has developed a definition of small cable entities, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in revenue annually. This definition includes cable system operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services. According to Census Bureau data from 1992, there were 1,788 total cable and other pay television services and 1,423 had less than $11 million in revenue.
14. The Commission has developed its own definition of a “small cable system” for purposes of the EAS rules. Cable systems serving fewer than 10,000 subscribers per headend are considered small cable systems and are afforded varying degrees of relief from the EAS rules. Based on our most recent information, we estimate that there are 8,552 cable systems that serve fewer than 10,000 subscribers per headend. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 8,552 small cable systems that may be affected by the rules proposed herein.
15. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the United States. Therefore, we found that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data,
16. Multipoint Distribution Systems. The Commission has defined “small entity” for purposes of the auction of MDS frequencies as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross annual revenues that are not more than $40 million for the preceding three calendar years. This definition of small entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the SBA. The Commission completed its MDS auction in March 1996 for authorizations in 493 basic trading areas. Of 67 winning bidders, 61 qualified as small entities. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business MDS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees.
17. MDS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. As noted, the SBA has developed a definition of small entities for pay television services, which includes all such companies generating $11 million or less in annual receipts. This definition includes MDS and thus applies to MDS licensees that did not participate in the MDS auction. Information available to us indicates that there are approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that do not generate revenue in excess of $11 million annually. Therefore, we find that there are approximately 440 small MDS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules which may be affected by the rules proposed herein.
18. Instructional Television Fixed Service. The SBA definition of small entities for pay television services also appears to apply to ITFS. There are presently 2,032 ITFS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in the definition of a small business. However, we do not collect annual revenue data for ITFS licensees, and are not able to ascertain how many of the 100 non-educational licensees would be categorized as small under the SBA definition. Thus, we tentatively conclude that at least 1,932 ITFS are small businesses and may be affected by the proposed rules.
19. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements. There are no reporting or recordkeeping requirements proposed in the NPRM. The proposals set forth in the NPRM are, for the most part, intended to enhance the performance of the EAS during state and local emergencies. We emphasize that participation in state and local EAS activities remains voluntary and that we do not wish to impose additional costs or burdens on broadcast stations and cable systems that choose not to participate in state and local area EAS plans. The NPRM seeks comment on suggested additions and revisions to the EAS digital header codes used in the transmission of state and local EAS alerts. In addition, the NPRM proposes to increase the time period for retransmitting Required Monthly Tests of the EAS system and to reduce the modulation level for EAS codes. These proposals would lessen operational burdens on EAS participants. The NPRM also seeks comment on various suggestions by NWS and SBE to revise EAS operational and equipment requirements.
20. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
21. In setting forth the proposals contained in this NPRM, we have attempted to minimize the burdens on all entities. We seek comment on the impact of our proposals on small entities and on any possible alternatives that would minimize the impact on small entities.
22. Federal Rules that Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules. None.
23. This NPRM is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the Commission rules.
24. Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before June 11, 2001, and reply comments on or before July 11, 2001. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
25. Comments filed through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
26. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If commenters want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, they must file an original and nine copies. Also, if more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of all filings are available for public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554.
27. This NPRM does not propose a new or modified information collection.
28. Pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i) and (o), 303(r), 624(g) and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i) and (o), 303(r), 554(g) and 606, the NPRM in EB Docket No. 01-66 is adopted.
29. The FCC's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Radio, Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission requests comments on a petition for rule making filed by Bramah Broadcasting proposing the allotment of Channel 280A to Bordelonville, LA, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Channel 280A can be allotted to Butler in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements without the imposition of a site restriction, at coordinates 31-06-18 North Latitude and 91-54-26 West Longitude.
Comments must be filed on or before May 7, 2001, and reply comments on or before May 22, 2001.
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, as follows: Roosevelt Gremillion, Bramah Broadcasting, LLC, 8677 St. Joseph St., New Roads, LA 70760 (Petitioner).
Victoria M. McCauley, Mass Media Bureau, and (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-68; adopted March 7, 2001 and released March 16, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Louisiana, is amended by adding Bordelonville, Channel 280A.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition filed by Abingdon Broadcasters proposing the allotment of Channel 252A at Abingdon, Illinois, as that community's first local FM service. The coordinates for Channel 252A at Abingdon are 40-42-28 and 90-19-47. There is a site restriction 12.3 kilometers (7.7 miles) southeast of the community. To accommodate Channel 252A at Abingdon, we shall also propose the substitution of Channel 277A for vacant Channel 252A at Canton, Illinois. The coordinates for Channel 277A at Canton are 40-28-27 and 90-03-01. There is a site restriction 9.4 kilometers (5.8 miles) south of the community.
Comments must be filed on or before May 7, 2001, and reply comments on or before May 22, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: John F. Garziglia, Pepper & Corazzini, LLP, 1776 K Street, NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20006.
Kathleen Scheuerle, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-67, adopted March 7, 2001, and released March 16, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Information Center, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International Transcription Services, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800, facsimile (202) 857-3805.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Radio broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Illinois, is amended by adding Abingdon, Channel 252A, and by removing Channel 252A and adding Channel 277A at Canton.
Agricultural Research Service, Agriculture.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology (ACAB).
The fourth meeting of the ACAB has been scheduled for April 17-18, 2001. The topics to be discussed will include: (1) Continued discussion on the roles and activities of the USDA's public plant breeding program; (2) continued discussion on gene flow from transgenic crops to other plants and current and potential USDA roles in addressing the issues presented; and (3) developing a framework for discussion of biotechnology budget priorities. There will in addition be several updates on current biotechnology developments, including the Starlink® corn situation, and on ongoing USDA biotechnology-related activities. Background information regarding the work of the ACAB is available on the USDA web site at
The meeting will be held in the New Hampshire Room at the Wyndham City Center Hotel, 1143 New Hampshire Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20037, on April 17-18, 2001. The meeting is scheduled to run from 8:30 am until 5:30 pm on both April 17 and 18. The meeting will be open to the public, but space is limited. If you would like to attend the meetings, you must register by contacting Ms. Vanessa Simon at (202) 690-8647, by fax at (202) 720-3191 or by E-mail at
Michael Schechtman, Designated Federal Official, Office of the Deputy Secretary, USDA, 202B Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, 12th and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250; Telephone (202) 720-3817; Fax (202) 690-4265; E-mail
Forest Service, Agriculture.
Notice of meeting.
The Deschutes PIEC Advisory Committee will meet on April 11, 2001 at the Warm Springs Power Enterprises Conference Room located at 5180 Jackson Trail Road in Warm Springs, Oregon. A business meeting will begin at 9:30 am and finish at 4:00 pm. Agenda items will include a Review of Subcommittee Work and Finalize Goals and Actions, Monitoring Presentation and Q&A, Info Sharing and a Public Forum from 3:30 pm till 4:00 pm. All Deschutes Province Advisory Committee Meetings are open to the public.
Mollie Chaudet, Province Liaison, USDA, Bent-Ft. Rock Ranger District, 1230 N.E. 3rd., Bend, OR, 97701, Phone (541) 416-6872.
Rural Housing Service, USDA.
Proposed collection; comment request.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Housing Service's (RHS) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the Section 502 Rural Housing Demonstration Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by May 29, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Gloria L. Denson, Loan Specialist, Single Family Housing Direct Loan Division, RHS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 0783, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, Telephone 202-720-1474. (This is not a toll free number.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Tracy Gillin, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, at (202) 692-0041.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RHS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of RHS's estimates 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 or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Renita Bolden, Regulations and Paperwork Management Branch, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Stop 0742, Washington, DC 20250. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6086, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20230.
The Department of Commerce (DOC) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained by calling or writing Madeleine Clayton, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, (202) 482-3129, Department of Commerce, Room 6066, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10202, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20230.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of initiation of antidumping duty new shipper review.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a request
March 28, 2001.
Abdelali Elouaradia or Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1374 or (202) 482-2312, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references 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 references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).
On February 28, 2001, the Department received a timely request from Shanghai, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. This order has a February semiannual anniversary month. On March 14 and 16, 2001, Shanghai clarified in additional submissions that it had only one shipment during the period of review (POR) and that there have been no additional shipments of the subject merchandise to the United States, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(B).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), in its February 28, 2001 request for review, Shanghai certified that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI) and that it is not affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Shanghai further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC. Also, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Shanghai submitted documentation showing the date on which subject merchandise entered the United States, the volume of that shipment, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
Therefore, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the PRC. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(h)(i), we intend to issue the preliminary results of this review not later than 180 days from the date of publication of this notice. All provisions of 19 CFR 351.214 will apply to Shanghai throughout the duration of this new shipper review.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A), the POR for a new shipper review initiated in the month immediately following the semiannual anniversary month is the six-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for this new shipper is:
Concurrent with the publication of this initiation notice, and in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e), effective on the date of publication of this notice we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise from the relevant exporter or producer, and allow, at the option of the importer, the posting until the completion of this review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the subject merchandise exported by the company listed above.
Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure of business proprietary information under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of rescission of antidumping duty administrative review: porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from the People's Republic of China.
On January 31, 2001, the Department of Commerce published in the
March 28, 2001.
James Terpstra or Geoffrey Craig, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3965, or (202) 482-4161, respectively.
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 (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the
On December 20, 2000, we published in the
On January 31, 2001, the Department initiated an administrative review (66 FR 8378). On February 5, 2001, the Department sent a questionnaire to the counsel representing Clover and Lucky. On March 1, 2001, we received a letter on behalf of Clover and Lucky withdrawing their request for a review. On March 7, 2001, we received a letter from CGS also withdrawing its request for a review.
Section 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that the Secretary may permit a party that requests a review to withdraw the request within 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The Department of Commerce is now rescinding this review because the requesting parties have withdrawn their request for review within the 90 day time limit and no other interested parties have requested a review. This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of initiation of new shipper review.
The Department of Commerce has received a request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain forged stainless steel flanges (flanges) from India issued on February 9, 1994 (59 FR 5994). In accordance with our regulations, we are initiating a new shipper review covering Metal Forgings Private Limited/Metal Rings and Bearing Races Limited (Metal Forgings).
March 28, 2001.
Thomas Killiam or Michael Heaney, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5222 or (202) 482-4475, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).
The Department received a timely request, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations, for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India, which has a February anniversary date. (
Pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(b), Metal Forgings certified in its February 28, 2001 submission that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of the investigation (POI) (July 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992), and that it was not affiliated with any exporter or producer of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Metal Forgings submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise for export to the United States, the volume shipped, and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act and section 351.214(d) of the Department's regulations, we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on flanges from India. This review covers the period February 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001. We intend to issue the final results of the review no later than 180 days from the date of publication of this notice.
We will instruct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise from Metal Forgings, and allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the merchandise exported by Metal Forgings, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e).
Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).
This initiation and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and section 351.214 of the Department's regulations.
NAFTA Secretariat, United States Section, International Trade
Notice of decision of panel.
On March 20, 2001 the binational panel issued its decision in the review of the final antidumping duty determination made by the International Trade Administration, respecting Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Canada, NAFTA Secretariat File Number USA-CDA-98-1904-01. The majority remanded the determination to the Investigating Authority with the following instructions: (1) DOC is required to recalculate Stelco's costs of production, taking account of the year-end return of profits by Baycoat to Stelco. The Panel requires DOC to provide the Panel with the method by which DOC recalculates that cost of production in light of such return of profits. The Panel further requires that DOC explain their methodology in light of the statutory requirements and attendant legislation as interpreted by the Panel; (2) DOC is required to reevaluate the application of 19 U.S.C. 1677 (b)(f)(3) in light of the requirement that DOC adjust the transfer price in accordance with the recalculation set out under (1) immediately above; (3) In its Response Brief, DOC requests a remand to correct any errors on the imputed credit expense and payment date issues, in light of Stelco's complaint. The Panel grants DOC's request and so remands; and (4) DOC is required to provide the Panel with its response to the aforementioned remand instructions within sixty (60) days from the date of this remand. One Panelist concurred in part and dissented in part to the majority opinion. The dissenting Panelist rejects Stelco's challenge to DOC's construction of the applicable statutes and to its findings of facts. In all other respects, he concurred in the remand. Copies of the panel decision are available from the U.S. Section of the NAFTA Secretariat.
Caratina L. Alston, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Suite 2061, 14th and Constitution Avenue, Washington, D.C. 20230, (202) 482-5438.
Chapter 19 of the North American Free-Trade Agreement (“Agreement”) establishes a mechanism to replace domestic judicial review of final determinations in antidumping and countervailing duty cases involving imports from a NAFTA country with review by independent binational panels. When a Request for Panel Review is filed, a panel is established to act in place of national courts to review expeditiously the final determination to determine whether it conforms with the antidumping or countervailing duty law of the country that made the determination.
Under Article 1904 of the Agreement, which came into force on January 1, 1994, the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada and the Government of Mexico established
The panel remanded the final determination of the International Trade Administration with instructions listed above. The determination on remand is due on May 21, 2001.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
February 13, 2000.
The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has revised its policy regarding issuance of
Roland MacDonald, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1275.
In
All Import Administration staff are instructed that
The administering authority and the Commission shall maintain a record of any
(A) interested parties or other persons providing factual information in connection with a proceeding, and
(B) the person charged with making the determination, or any person charged with making a final recommendation to that person, in connection with that proceeding, if information relating to that proceeding was presented or discussed at such meeting.
The record of such an
This policy statement will also be made available on the Department's website at
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
Notice; correction.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published a document in the
Barbara Lambis, (301) 975-4447. General information on the ATP may be obtained from the following address: National Institute of Standards and Technology; Advanced Technology Program; 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 4701; Administration Building 101, Room A413; Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4701. Additionally, ATP information is available on the Internet at http://www.atp.nist.gov.
In the
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting correction.
On March 15, 2001, the Department of Energy published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Los Alamos (66 FR 15108). In that notice, the meeting location was the Holiday Inn, 1005 Paseo de Pueblo Sur, Taos, New Mexico. Today's notice is announcing that the meeting location will be the Sagebrush Inn, 1508 Paseo de Pueblo Sur, Taos, New Mexico.
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.
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments of 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 the resource agency.
k.
The project would have an annual generation of 6.3 GWh that would be sold to a local utility.
l. A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The application may be viewed on http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
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 Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20426. Comments, motions to intervene, and protests may be electronically filed 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
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. further, if an intervener 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.
The Project would have an annual generation of 13.9 GWh that would be sold to a local utility.
1. A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A Washington, D.C. 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The application may be viewed on
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. Deadline for filing motions to intervene, protests and comments: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, motions to intervene, and protests may be electronically filed 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
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person in the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervener 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.
The project would have an annual generation of 7.5 GWh that would be sold to a local utility.
1. A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The application may be viewed on http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
m.
n.
o.
p.
q.
r.
s.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before May 29, 2001.
Comments submitted by regular U.S. Postal Service mail should be sent to: Docket Coordinator, Superfund Docket Office, Mail Code 5201G, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number 102RQ-CR2 in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Comments may also be submitted electronically or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for these submission methods as provided in unit III of the
Lynn Beasley, (703) 603-9086. Facsimile number: (703) 603-9104. Electronic address: beasley.lynn@epa.gov. Comments should not be submitted to this contact person.
You may be affected by this notice if you are the person in charge of a facility that releases hazardous substances into the environment as specified in section 103(a) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. According to section 103(a) of CERCLA, if the facility you are in charge of releases an amount of hazardous substance that equals or exceeds its reportable quantity (RQ) and the release is not Federally permitted, you are required to notify the National Response Center (NRC) of the release immediately. However, according to section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA, if the release at the facility you are in charge of is “continuous,” and “stable in quantity and rate,” you may be exempted from the per-occurrence notification requirements of section 103(a) of CERCLA. To determine if the facility you are in charge of is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in the Continuing Release Reporting Regulations (CRRR) (40 CFR 302.8).
If you have any questions or need additional information about this notice or the information collection request (ICR) referenced, please contact Lynn Beasley, (703) 603-9086. Facsimile
The official record for this notice, including the public version, and the referenced ICR have been established under docket control number 102RQ-CR2 (including comments and data submitted electronically, as described below). A public version of this record, including printed, paper versions of any electronic comments, which does not include any information claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI), and the referenced ICR are available for inspection in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Docket Office, Crystal Gateway I, First Floor, 1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The Superfund Docket is open from 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the Superfund Docket is (703) 603-9232.
The referenced draft ICR and draft Paperwork Reduction Act Submission Form (OMB83-I) are available on the Internet at the following addresses:
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. Be sure to identify the docket control number 102RQ-CR2 on any correspondence.
1.
2.
3.
You may claim information that you submit in response to this notice as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must also be submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public docket by EPA without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult with Lynn Beasley, (703) 603-9086. Facsimile number: (703) 603-9104. Electronic address: beasley.lynn@epa.gov.
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(a) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of EPA, including whether the information will have practical utility.
2. Evaluate the accuracy of EPA's estimates of the burdens of the proposed collections of information.
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
4. Minimize the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated or electronic collection technologies or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
EPA invites you to provide your views on the various options EPA proposes, new approaches EPA hasn't considered, the potential impacts of the various options (including possible unintended consequences), and any data or information that you would like EPA to consider during the development of the final action. You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
• Explain your views as clearly as possible.
• Describe any assumptions that you used.
• Provide technical information and/or data to support your views.
• If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
• Offer alternative ways to improve the rule or collection activity.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
• At the beginning of your comments (e.g., as part of the “Subject” heading), be sure to properly identify the document on which you are commenting. You can do this by providing the docket control number assigned to this notice, along with the name, date, and
EPA is seeking comments on the following ICR:
The reporting of a hazardous substance release that is equal to or above the substance's RQ allows the Federal government to determine whether a Federal response action is required to control or mitigate any potential adverse effects to public health or welfare or the environment.
The continuous release of hazardous substance information collected under CERCLA section 103(f)(2) is also available to EPA program offices and other Federal agencies who use the information to evaluate the potential need for additional regulations, new permitting requirements for specific substances or sources, or improved emergency response planning. State and local government authorities and facilities subject to the CRRR use release information for purposes of local emergency response planning. Members of the public, who have access to release information through the Freedom of Information Act, may request release information for purposes of maintaining an awareness of what types of releases are occurring in different localities and what actions, if any, are being taken to protect public health and welfare and the environment.
Under the PRA, “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal Agency. For this collection, it includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this estimate, which is only briefly summarized in this notice. The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 92 hours per affected facility. The following is a summary of the estimates taken from the ICR:
In the renewal ICR, EPA will review the current burden and cost statement and adjust it accordingly. EPA does expect the burden and cost statement in the renewal ICR to be greater than the burden and cost statement in the current ICR. This increase may be due to an historical growth rate of about 7.5 percent per year in the number of reporting facilities; however, EPA continues to consider data that may reflect a greater growth rate than the 7.5 percent assumption in the background document. Specifically, EPA is considering data from the National Response Center's data base that shows a significant increase in reporting in fiscal year 2000 (10/01/99-09/30/00). A summary table is available from the docket for this Information Collection Request or on the internet at the following address:
EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; solicitation of nominees for membership and notice of open meeting.
The EPA is soliciting nominees to serve on the ELAB. Nominees are being sought to fill vacancies in the following categories: environmental engineering associations or firms, Indian nations, third party assessors, commercial laboratories, purchasers of environmental laboratory services, public interest groups and others associated with the environmental monitoring community. Terms of service will commence on July 29, 2001 and terminate on July 29, 2003. Application forms must be submitted to provide information on experience, abilities, stakeholder interest, organizational description, and references. A copy of the application form can be obtained on the Internet (see address below).
The Agency will convene an open teleconference meeting of ELAB on April 24, 2001, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. EST to solicit input from the public on issues related to the NELAC standards and the NELAC environmental laboratory accreditation program. The call in number for the meeting is 202-260-1015, access code 9195#. For those wishing to participate in person, the meeting will be open to the public at the EPA Office of Research and Development Laboratory in Las Vegas, NV. Directions can be obtained by calling 202-798-2232.
The agenda will include discussions of issues related to laboratory accreditation raised to the Board by the Public as well as a review of outstanding recommendations and activities from earlier Board meetings. Comments on the NELAC standards and laboratory accreditation program will be solicited. The Internet site address for the NELAC standards and the above mentioned ELAB nominee application is: http://ttnwww.rtpnc.epa.gov/html/nelac/nelac.htm#NL02.)
The public is encouraged to attend. Time will be allotted for public comment. Written comments are encouraged and should be directed to Stephen Billets; USEPA; PO Box 93478, Las Vegas, NV 89193. For additional information, please contact Dr. Billets at (702) 798-2232, fax (702) 798-2261, or E-mail: billets.stephen@epa.gov.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA Region 6 is soliciting proposals from State agencies and Tribes interested in applying for Federal assistance for Water Quality Cooperative Agreements under the Clean Water Act section 104(b)(3) in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Region 6 EPA will award an estimated $1 million to eligible applicants through assistance agreements ranging in size up to $200,000 for innovative projects/ demonstrations/studies that can be used as models relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution.
EPA will consider all proposals received on or before 5 pm Central Time April 27, 2001. Proposals received after the due date will not be considered for funding.
Proposals should be mailed to: Terry Mendiola (6WQ-AT), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Overnight Delivery may be sent to the same address.
Terry Mendiola by telephone at 214-665-7144 or by E-mail at mendiola.teresita@epa.gov.
EPA Region 6's Water Quality Protection Division is requesting proposals from State agencies and Tribes for unique and innovative projects that address the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) program with special emphasis on wet weather activities, i.e., storm water, sanitary sewer overflows, and concentrated animal feeding operations as well as projects that enhance the ability of the regulated community to deal with non-traditional pollution problems in priority watersheds. Innovative studies leading to the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) is another priority on which these funds could be focused.
Tribal governments should submit proposals which strengthen implementation of tribal environmental protection.
An organization whose proposal is selected for Federal assistance must complete an EPA Application for Assistance, including the Federal SF-424 form (Application for Federal Assistance, see 40 CFR 31.10).
EPA Region 6 has identified several project areas for priority consideration to the extent they are for research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys and studies related to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution:
Funding is authorized under the provisions of the Clean Water Act section 104(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1254(b)(3).
The regulation governing the award and administration of Water Quality Cooperative Agreements is 40 CFR part 31 (for States, Tribes, local governments, intertribal consortia, and interstate agencies).
Total funding available for award by Region 6 will depend on EPA's appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001; however, it is estimated that $1 million will be available for funding approved projects. A five percent match will be required for all approved projects and should be included in the total funding requested for each proposal submitted.
Proposals should be limited to three pages. Full application packages should not be submitted at this time. The following format should be used for all proposals:
EPA will consider proposals based on the following criteria:
• The relationship of the proposed project to the priorities identified in this notice.
• How well the project furthers the goal of the Clean Water Act to prevent, reduce, and eliminate water pollution.
• Innovation of project proposal.
• Cost effectiveness of the proposal.
• Agency's/Tribes' past performance.
• Compliance with directions for submittal contained in this notice.
For the purpose of this notice, eligible applicants for assistance agreements under section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act are State agencies and Tribal governments. This solicitation is limited to applicants within EPA Region 6.
Please send three copies of the proposal.
This is the estimated schedule of activities for review of proposals and notification of selections:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In accordance with section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of receipt of requests by registrants to voluntarily cancel certain pesticide registrations.
Unless a request is withdrawn by, September 24, 2001, unless indicated otherwise, orders will be issued canceling all of these registrations.
By mail: James A. Hollins, Office of Pesticide Programs (7502C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460. Office location for commercial courier delivery, telephone number and e-mail address: Rm. 224, Crystal Mall No. 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-5761; e-mail address: hollins.james@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to persons who produce or use pesticides, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the information in this notice, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
This notice announces receipt by the Agency of applications from registrants to cancel some 42 pesticide products registered under section 3 or 24(c) of FIFRA. These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number (or company number and 24(c) number) in the following Table 1:
Unless a request is withdrawn by the registrant within 180 days (30 days when requested by registrant) of publication of this notice, orders will be issued canceling all of these registrations. Users of these pesticides or anyone else desiring the retention of a registration should contact the applicable registrant during this comment period.
The following Table 2, includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1, in sequence by EPA company number:
Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be amended to delete one or more uses. The Act further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the
Registrants who choose to withdraw a request for cancellation must submit such withdrawal in writing to James A. Hollins, at the address given above, postmarked before September 24, 2001, unless indicated otherwise. This written withdrawal of the request for cancellation will apply only to the applicable 6(f)(1) request listed in this notice. If the product(s) have been subject to a previous cancellation action, the effective date of cancellation and all other provisions of any earlier cancellation action are controlling. The withdrawal request must also include a commitment to pay any reregistration fees due, and to fulfill any applicable unsatisfied data requirements.
The effective date of cancellation will be the date of the cancellation order. The orders effecting these requested cancellations will generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for 1-year after the date the cancellation request was received by the Agency. This policy is in accordance with the Agency's statement of policy as prescribed in
Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. Unless the provisions of an earlier order apply, existing stocks already in the hands of dealers or users can be distributed, sold or used legally until they are exhausted, provided that such further sale and use comply with the EPA-approved label and labeling of the affected product(s). Exceptions to these general rules will be made in specific cases when more stringent restrictions on sale, distribution, or use of the products or their ingredients have already been imposed, as in Special Review actions, or where the Agency has identified significant potential risk concerns associated with a particular chemical.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-1012, must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Dan Rosenblatt, Herbicide Branch, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1012 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioners. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (9F06056) from FMC Corporation, Agricultural Products Group, 1735 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.425 by establishing a tolerance for residues of clomazone, 2-(2-chloroprene)methyl-4,4- diethel-3-isoxazolidinone in or on the raw agricultural commodity sugarcane, cane at 0.05 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
1.
2.
3.
1.
i. A rat acute oral study with an LD
ii. A rabbit acute dermal LD
iii. A rat acute inhalation LC
iv. A primary eye irritation study in the rabbit which showed practically no irritation.
v. A primary dermal irritation study in the rabbit which showed minimal irritation.
vi. A primary dermal sensitization study in the guinea pig which showed no sensitization.
vii. Acute delayed neurotoxicity - clomazone, and its known metabolites, 3 are not structurally related to known neurotoxic substances.
2.
3.
A developmental toxicity study in rats given gavage doses of 100, 300 and 600 mg/kg/day and with maternal and fetal NOAELs of 100 mg/kg/day. The maternal NOAEL is based on decreased locomotion, genital staining and runny eyes and the developmental NOAEL is based on increased incidence of delayed ossification at 300 mg/kg/day. This study was negative for teratogenicity at all doses tested.
A developmental toxictiy study in rabbits given gavage doses of 30, 240 and 700 mg/kg/day with maternal and
In all cases, the reproductive and developmental NOAELs were equal to the parental NOAELs, thus indicating that clomazone does not pose any increased risk to infants or children.
4.
5.
A 24-month chronic feeding/oncogenicity study in the rat with a NOAEL of 100 ppm (4.3 mg/kg/day for males; 5.5 mg/kg/day for females) based on increased liver weights and increased liver cytomegaly at 500 ppm. There were no oncogenic effects observed under the conditions of the study. A 24-month chronic feeding/oncogenicity study in the mouse with a NOAEL of 100 ppm (15 mg/kg/day) based on an increase in the white blood cell count. There were no oncogenic effects observed under the conditions of the study.
Using the Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, it is proposed that clomazone be classified as Group E for carcinogenicity (no evidence of carcinogenicity) based on the results of carcinogenicity studies in two species. In 24-Month Feeding/ Oncogenicity studies in rats and mice at dosages up to 2,000 ppm, there was no evidence of caricnogenicity. The NOAEL in the 24-Month Feeding/oncogenicity study in the rat was 100 ppm (4.3 mg/kg/day for males and 5.5 mg/kg/day for females). The NOAEL in the 24-Month Feeding/Oncogenicity study in mice was 100 ppm (15 mg/kg/day). The studies were negative for carcinogenic effects at all dosage levels tested.
The Reference Dose (RfD) for clomazone has been established at 0.043 mg/kg/day. The RfD for clomazone is based on the 24-Month Feeding/Carcinogenicity Study in the Rat with a NOAEL of 4.3 mg/kg/day and an uncertainty factor of 100.
6.
7.
8.
1.
ii.
2.
Clomazone is an isoxazolidinone herbicide. No other registered chemical exists in this class of chemistry. Therefore, given clomazone s unique chemistry low acute toxicity, the absence of genotoxic, oncogenic, developmental or reproductive effects, and low exposure potential (see Sections A and C), the expression of cumulative human health effects with clomazone and other natural or synthetic pesticides is not anticipated.
1.
2.
Using the conservative exposure assumptions described above, FMC has concluded that the percent of the RfD that will be utilized by aggregate exposure to residues of clomazone in/on sugarcane for non-nursing infants (<1 year old), the population subgroup most sensitive, is 0.114 and the percent of the RfD that will be utilized by the children (1-6 years old) population subgroup is 0.086. The percent of the RfD utilized for infants and children for sugarcane plus all other current and pending (i.e., rice, tanier, cassava and arracacha) clomazone tolerances is 0.872 and 0.510 respectively.
Based on the above information, FMC has concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants, children or adults from dietary food consumption exposure to clomazone residues from either sugarcane sourced foods alone or sugarcane sourced foods plus all other clomazone treated human dietary food sources.
There are Codex residue limits for residues of clomazone in or on oilseed rape, potatoes, tobacco, soybeans, rice, cottonseed, sugarcane and peas.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-1004, must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Cynthia Giles-Parker, Registration Support Branch, Registration Division (7505W), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-7740; e-mail address: giles-parker.cynthia@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1004 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Comestic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioners. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (0F06127) from K-I Chemical U.S.A. Inc. (K-I Chemical), 11 Martine Avenue, 9th floor, White Plains, New York 10606, proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of calcium 3-oxido-5-oxo-4-propionylcyclohex-3-enecarboxylate (prohexadione calcium) in or on the raw agricultural commodities grass forage at 0.1, grass hay at 0.1, grass straw at 1.2 and grass seed screenings at 3.5 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
Prohexadione calcium has been tested in a total of 7 genetic toxicology assays consisting of
3.
The reproductive and developmental studies are summarized below. A developmental study was conducted via oral gavage in rats at dose levels of 0, 100, 300, and the 1,000 highest dose tested (HDT) mg/kg bw. The No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for developmental and maternal toxicity was 1,000 mg/kg bw, HDT. This was based on the fact that there were no signs of maternal toxicity, fetotoxicity or teratogenic effects.
A developmental study was conducted via oral gavage in rabbits at dose levels of 0, 40, 200, and 750 (HDT) mg/kg bw. The NOAEL for development toxicity was 40 mg/kg bw and the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 40 mg/kg bw based on the following findings. Toxicity in the form of maternal mortality with values 16/20 and 4/20 was excessive in the mid- and high-dose group, respectively. Fetal deaths also occurred. Dose levels believed to exceed MTD; NOAELs for maternal and developmental effects are not considered reliable and useful for risk characterization. No teratogenic effects were noted in this study.
i.
An additional teratology study in the same strain of rabbits was conducted at dose levels of 0, 30, 75, and 150 mg/kg bw. The NOAEL for development toxicity was 150 mg/kg bw and the NOAEL for maternal toxicity was 30 mg/kg bw based on the following findings. One low-, two mid-, and three high-dose animals died prior to day 29, however, at the high dose group one died of gavage error and another pneumonia, and the reason for the other deaths could not be determined. No teratogenic or fetoxtoxic effects were noted in this study.
ii.
iii.
a.
b.
The overall NOAEL of 100 mg/kg bw for maternal toxicity in rabbits is based on the last rabbit study, and is based on
Based on preliminary discussions with EPA concerning the rabbit teratology studies, EPA concluded that the definitive NOAEL for maternal toxicity considering all of the studies ranges from 30 to 100 mg/kg/bw. Agency scientists further stated that they needed to review the studies in detail to ultimately determine the definitive NOAEL for maternal toxicity. This uncertainty associated with maternal toxicity in the rabbit teratology studies does not impact risk considerations since the risk assessment is based on a lower NOAEL (20 mg/kg bw) in the chronic dog study.
4.
5.
Prohexadione calcium was administered to Beagle dogs at dietary concentrations of 0, 20, 200, and 1,000 mg/kg bw for 12 months. Slight changes were observed for hematological and clinical chemical parameters and dilated basophilic renal tubules (without histopathological concurrence) at dose levels greater than 200 mg/kg bw. The NOAEL was 20 mg/kg bw for the males and female dogs.
The 24-month Fisher 344 rat chronic/carcinogenic feeding study was conducted at dose levels of 0, 400, 2,000, 10,000, and 20,000 ppm with 80 male and 80 female animals per dose group. After 26, 52, and 78 weeks, 10 animals were sacrificed (satellite groups). The remaining animals were autopsied after 104 weeks of diet administration. The NOAEL for chronic toxicity was 2,000 ppm for males (93.9 mg/kg bw) and 2,000 ppm for females (114 mg/kg bw). The following effects were observed in the 10,000 and 20, 000 ppm groups:
i. Decreased body weights were observed in both male and female rats at the 20,000 ppm dose level;
ii. Clinical chemical effects (i.e., lower potassium, bilirubin, and glucose levels) were observed in male and female rats at the 20,000 ppm dose level, in the 10,000 ppm dose level, reduced glucose levels were only seen in the males, and increased albumin/globulin ratios, sodium, chloride and calcium levels were observed only in the females;
iii. Increased urine volumes and lower specific gravity were observed in the mid-high and high-dose groups for both male and female rats;
iv. Minor changes in organ weights were noted for animals of the high dose group only, which consisted of increased relative liver, adrenal and kidney weights, the latter also absolute in females only, at week 26; at the end of the study decreased liver weights and increased relative brain and testis weights were noted and these changes were considered to be associated with the decreased body weights;
v. Macroscopic findings revealed an increase of pituitary nodules in the high dose group for both male and female rats which was not confirmed histopathologically and submucosal ectopic tissue in the glandular stomach was found in both male and female rats in the highest dose levels that was confirmed by histopathology which showed an increase of squamous cell hyperplasia in males and of basal cell hyperplasia in the forestomach;
vi. A higher incidence of cellular hyperplasia was observed in the thyroid in the mid-high and high dose levels for male and female rats; and
vii. No increased incidence of neoplasms occurred at any dose levels tested in this study.
In the 24-month B6C3F1 mouse feeding study, conducted at dose levels of 0, 400, 2,000, 20,000, and 40,000 ppm with interim sacrifices at 52 and 78 weeks, prohexadione calcium was negative for oncogenicity. The NOAEL for chronic toxicity was 2,000 ppm for males (279 mg/kg bw) and 2,000 ppm for females (351 mg/kg bw). The following effects were observed in the 20,000 and 40,000 ppm groups:
i. Statistically significant decreases in body weights were observed in male mice at the 20,000 ppm dose level and in female mice at the 40,000 ppm dose level;
ii. A variety of changes in hematological parameters were noted in the respective investigations at weeks 52, 78, and 104, however, most of the changes were not dose related or consistent over time;
iii. Increased absolute and/or relative heart, brain, testes, liver, ovary, and kidney weights were observed in the mid-high and highest dose groups with a slight progression of severity to the highest dose group;
iv. A higher incidence of splenomegaly was observed only in the male mice of the highest dose group;
v. Histopathological examinations revealed an ectopic proliferation of the mucosal and glandular epithelium in the submucosal layer of the glandular stomach in male and female mice in the highest dose group tested, these changes were assessed to represent heteroplastic, ectopic proliferative changes accompanied by lumen dilatation and cytological degeneration;
vi. A higher incidence of hyperkeratosis of the forestomach was observed in both male and female mice and hyperplasia of the squamous epithelium of the forestomach of female male mice was observed in the highest dose group tested;
vii. Vacuolic changes in the exocrine pancreas of the high dose female were observed; and
viii. No increased incidence of neoplasms occurred at any dose levels tested in this study.
a.
b.
6.
7.
1.
Prohexadione calcium is currently registered for use on peanuts, apples and pears. Thus, dietary exposure to residues of prohexadione calcium in or on food will be limited to residues on peanuts, apples and pears. Apple pomace, peanut meal and hay are fed to animals; thus exposure of humans to residues in feed items might result if such residues carry through to meat, milk, poultry, or eggs. However, K-I Chemical has concluded that there is no reasonable expectation that measurable residues of prohexadione calcium will occur in meat, milk, poultry, or eggs from these registered uses but residues can be expected to be slightly above the limit of quantitation for kidney of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep. The Agency has established tolerances in or on the raw agricultural commodities peanuts at 1.0 ppm, peanut hay at 0.6 ppm, pome fruit at 3.0 ppm, kidney of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep, at 0.10 ppm and meat byproducts except kidney of cattle, goats, hogs, horses, and sheep at 0.05 ppm. The use of prohexadione calcium on grass grown for seed will require tolerances on grass forage, hay, straw and seed screenings, but will not require an increase in the tolerances for kidney or meat byproducts. Thus, K-I Chemical believes there will not be an increase in human dietary exposure to prohexadione calcium from this use.
The following table summarizes the mean dietary exposures and the percents of RfD occupied by these exposures.
ii.
2.
K-I Chemical is aware of only one other registered compound, trinexapac-ethyl 4- (cyclopropyl-a-hydroxymethylene)-3,5-dioxo-cyclohexanecarboxylic acid ethylester, that has a structure similar to prohexadione calcium. However, K-I Chemical has no information that would indicate that the two compounds have a common mechanism of toxicity. Furthermore, trinexapac is registered for use only on turf. Therefore, even if the compounds were considered similar there would be no cumulative dietary exposure issue because of the differences in use patterns. In summary, dietary exposure to prohexadione calcium should not result in cumulative toxicity with other known chemical compounds.
1.
2.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Dietary exposure of the most highly exposed subgroup in the population, non-nursing infants (< 1 year old) is 0.025758 mg/kg bw/day. This accounts for 12.9 percent of the RfD. There are no residential uses of prohexadione calcium and contamination of drinking water is extremely unlikely. In addition, there were no significant findings in relevant toxicity studies (i.e., subchronic and chronic toxicity, teratology and multi-generation reproductive studies) which would suggest that prohexadione calcium produces endocrine related effects. Therefore, based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data and the conservative exposure assessment, K-I Chemical concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the residues of prohexadione calcium, including all anticipated dietary exposure and all other non-occupational exposures.
A maximum residue level (MRL) has not been established for prohexadione calcium in peanuts, apples, pears or grass grown for seed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of a pesticide petition proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-1011, must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Leonard Cole, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5412; e-mail address: cole.leonard@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1011 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received a pesticide petition as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that this petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summary of the pesticide petition is printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summary of the petition was prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. EPA is publishing the petition summary verbatim without editing it in any way. The petition summary announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a pesticide petition (PP 0F6168) from McLaughlin Gormley King Company, 8810 Tenth Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55427 proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by establishing a tolerance for residues of esfenvalerate in or on the raw agricultural commodities unshelled peanut kernels, 0.20 parts per million (ppm); unshelled cocoa beans, 1.00 ppm; shelled almonds, 50 ppm; and shelled walnuts, 15 ppm. EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
3.
Esfenvalerate was administered by gavage to pregnant female rabbits in a pilot developmental study at doses of 0, 2, 3, 4, 4.5, 5, and 20 mg/kg/day and a main study at doses of 0, 3, 10, and 20 mg/kg/day. Maternal clinical signs (excessive grooming) were observed at 3 mg/kg/day and above. A maternal NOAEL of 2 mg/kg/day was established on the pilot study. The developmental NOAEL was
A 2-generation feeding study with esfenvalerate was conducted in the rat at dietary levels of 0, 75, 100, and 300 ppm. Skin lesions and minimal (non biologically significant) parental body weight effects occurred at 75 ppm. The NOAEL for reproductive toxicity was 75 ppm (4.2-7.5 mg/kg/day) based on decreased pup weights at 100 ppm.
4.
5.
One chronic study with esfenvalerate and three chronic studies with fenvalerate have been conducted in mice.
In an 18-month study, mice were fed 0, 35, 150, or 350 ppm esfenvalerate. Mice fed 350 ppm were sacrificed within the first 2 months of the study after excessive self-trauma related to skin stimulation and data collected were not used in the evaluation of the oncogenic potential of esfenvalerate. The NOAEL was 35 ppm (4.29 and 5.75 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively) based on lower body weight and body weight gain at 150 ppm. Esfenvalerate did not produce carcinogenicity.
In a 2-year feeding study, mice were administered 0, 10, 50, 250, or 1,250 ppm fenvalerate in the diet. The NOAEL was 10 ppm (1.5 mg/kg/day) based on granulomatous changes (related to fenvalerate only, not esfenvalerate) at 50 ppm (7.5 mg/kg/day). Fenvalerate did not produce carcinogenicity.
In an 18-month feeding study, mice were fed 0, 100, 300, 1,000, or 3,000 ppm fenvalerate in the diet. The NOAEL is 100 ppm (15.0 mg/kg/day) based on fenvalerate-related microgranulomatous changes at 300 ppm (45 mg/kg/day). No compound-related oncogenicity occurred.
Mice were fed 0, 10, 30, 100, or 300 ppm fenvalerate for 20 months. The NOAEL was 30 ppm (3.5 mg/kg/day) based on red blood cell effects and granulomatous changes at 100 ppm (15 mg/kg/day). Fenvalerate was not carcinogenic at any concentration.
In a 2-year study, rats were fed 1, 5, 25, or 250 ppm fenvalerate. A 1,000 ppm group was added in a supplemental study to establish an effect level. The NOAEL was 250 ppm (12.5 mg/kg/day). At 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day), hind limb weakness, lower body weight, and higher organ-to-body weight ratios were observed. Fenvalerate was not carcinogenic at any concentration. (A conclusion that fenvalerate is associated with the production of spindle cell sarcomas at 1,000 ppm was retracted by EPA).
EPA has classified esfenvalerate in Group E--evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans.
The NOAEL was 200 ppm (5 mg/kg/day). An effect level for dietary administration of esfenvalerate to dogs of 300 ppm had been established earlier in a 3-week pilot study used to select dose levels for the chronic dog study.
One chronic study with esfenvalerate and three chronic studies with fenvalerate have been conducted in mice.
In an 18-month study, mice were fed 0, 35, 150, or 350 ppm esfenvalerate. Mice fed 350 ppm were sacrificed within the first 2 months of the study after excessive self-trauma related to skin stimulation and data collected were not used in the evaluation of the oncogenic potential of esfenvalerate. The NOAEL was 35 ppm (4.29 and 5.75 mg/kg/day for males and females, respectively) based on lower body weight (bwt) and body weight gain at 150 ppm. Esfenvalerate did not produce carcinogenicity.
In a 2-year feeding study, mice were administered 0, 10, 50, 250, or 1,250 ppm fenvalerate in the diet. The NOAEL was 10 ppm (1.5 mg/kg/day) based on granulomatous changes (related to fenvalerate only, not esfenvalerate) at 50 ppm (7.5 mg/kg/day). Fenvalerate did not produce carcinogenicity.
In an 18-month feeding study, mice were fed 0, 100, 300, 1,000, or 3,000 ppm fenvalerate in the diet. The NOAEL is 100 ppm (15.0 mg/kg/day) based on fenvalerate-related microgranulomatous changes at 300 ppm (45 mg/kg/day). No compound-related oncogenicity occurred. Mice were fed 0, 10, 30, 100, or 300 ppm fenvalerate for 20 months. The NOAEL was 30 ppm (3.5 mg/kg/day) based on red blood cell effects and granulomatous changes at 100 ppm (15 mg/kg/day). Fenvalerate was not carcinogenic at any concentration.
In a 2-year study, rats were fed 1, 5, 25, or 250 ppm fenvalerate. A 1,000 ppm group was added in a supplemental study to establish an effect level. The NOAEL was 250 ppm (12.5 mg/kg/day). At 1,000 ppm (50 mg/kg/day), hind limb weakness, lower body weight, and higher organ-to-body weight ratios were observed. Fenvalerate was not carcinogenic at any concentration. (A conclusion that fenvalerate is associated with the production of spindle cell sarcomas at 1,000 ppm was retracted by EPA). EPA has classified esfenvalerate in Group E--evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans.
6.
7.
8.
1.
2.
Potential acute exposures from food commodities were estimated using a Tier 3 (Monte Carlo) analysis and appropriate processing factors for processed food and distribution analysis. This analysis used field trial data to estimate exposure and Federal and market survey information to derive the percent of crop treated. EPA considered these data reliable and used the upper end estimate of percent crop treated in order to not underestimate any significant subpopulation. Regional consumption information was taken into account. The MOEs for the most sensitive sub-population (children 1 to 6 years) were 202 and 103 at the 99
3.
A screening evaluation of leaching potential of a typical pyrethroid was conducted using EPA's pesticide root zone model (PRZM). Based on this screening assessment, the potential concentrations of a pyrethroid in ground water at depths of 1 and 2 meters are essentially zero (much less than 0.001 parts per billion (ppb)).
Surface water concentrations for pyrethroids were estimated using PRZM
Using these values, the contribution of water to the acute dietary risk estimate was estimated for the U.S. population to be 0.000019 mg/kg/day at the 99
4.
To assess risks from (nonfood) short-term and intermediate-term exposure, EPA has recently selected a toxicological endpoint of 2.0 mg/kg/day, the NOAEL from the rat and rabbit developmental studies. For dermal penetration/absorption, EPA selected 25% dermal absorption based on the weight-of-evidence available for structurally-related pyrethroids. For inhalation exposure, EPA used the oral NOAEL of 2.0 mg/kg/day and assumed 100% absorption by inhalation. Individual non-dietary risk exposure analyses were conducted using a flea infestation scenario that included pet spray, carpet, and room treatment, and lawn care, respectively. The total potential short-term and intermediate-term aggregate non-dietary exposure including lawn, carpet, and pet uses are: 0.000023 mg/kg/day for adults, 0.00129
EPA concluded that the potential non-dietary exposure for esfenvalerate are associated with substantial margins of safety (62 FR 63019).
5.
The acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account exposure from food and drinking water. The potential acute exposure from food and drinking water to the overall U.S. population provides an acute dietary exposure of 0.011756 mg/kg/day with an MOE of 170. This acute dietary exposure estimate is considered conservative, using anticipated residue values and percent crop treated data in conjunction with Monte Carlo analysis.
Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account chronic dietary food and water (considered to be a background exposure level) plus indoor and outdoor residential exposure. The potential short-term and intermediate-term aggregate risk for the U.S. population is an exposure of approximately 0.0082 mg/kg/day with an MOE of approximately 244.
It is important to acknowledge that these MOEs are likely to significantly underestimate the actual MOEs due to a variety of conservative assumptions and biases inherent in the exposure assessment methods used for their derivation. Therefore, it can be concluded that the potential non-dietary and dietary aggregate exposures for esfenvalerate are associated with a substantial degree of safety. EPA has previously determined (62 FR 63019) that there was reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to esfenvalerate residues. Head lettuce was included in that risk assessment.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.” In a final rule on esfenvalerate (62 FR 63019) EPA concluded, “available information” in this context might include not only toxicity, chemistry, and exposure data, but also scientific policies and methodologies for understanding common mechanisms of toxicity and conducting cumulative risk assessments. For most pesticides, although the Agency has some information in its files that may turn out to be helpful in eventually determining whether a pesticide shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, EPA does not at this time have the methodologies to resolve the complex scientific issues concerning common mechanism of toxicity in a meaningful way. EPA has begun a pilot process to study this issue further through the examination of particular classes of pesticides. The Agency hopes that the results of this pilot process will increase the Agency's scientific understanding of this question such that EPA will be able to develop and apply scientific principles for better determining which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and evaluating the cumulative effects of such chemicals. The Agency anticipates, however, that even as its understanding of the science of common mechanisms increases, decisions on specific classes of chemicals will be heavily dependent on chemical-specific data, much of which may not be presently available.
Although at present the Agency is not certain how to apply the information in its files concerning common mechanism issues to most risk assessments, there are pesticides for which common mechanism issues can be resolved. These pesticides include those that are toxicologically dissimilar to existing chemical substances (in which case the Agency can conclude that it is unlikely that a pesticide shares a common mechanism of activity with other substances) and pesticides that produce a common toxic metabolite (in which case common mechanism of activity will be assumed). Although esfenvalerate is similar to other members of the synthetic pyrethroid class of insecticides, EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether esfenvalerate has a common method of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, esfenvalerate does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that esfenvalerate has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.
1.
For acute exposure, a MOE greater than 100 is considered adequate. A Tier 3 acute dietary exposure assessment found the general population to have MOEs of 355 and 171 at the 99
Short-term and intermediate-term aggregate exposure risk from chronic dietary food and water plus indoor and outdoor residential exposure for the U.S. population is an exposure of approximately 0.0082 mg/kg/day with an MOE of approximately 244.
Therefore, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from chronic dietary, acute dietary, non-dietary, or aggregate exposure to esfenvalerate residues.
2.
A chronic dietary exposure assessment found the percentages of the RfD utilized by the most sensitive subpopulation to be 4.8% for children 1 to 6 years based on a dietary exposure of 0.000957 mg/kg/day. The percent RfD for children 7 to 12 years was 3.0%. The Agency has no cause for concern if RfDs are below 100%.
The most sensitive subpopulation, children 1 to 6 years, had acute dietary MOEs of 202 and 103 at the 99
Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) have been established for residues of fenvalerate on a number of crops that also have U.S. tolerances. There are some minimal differences between the section 408 tolerances and certain Codex MRL values. These differences could be caused by differences in methods to establish tolerances, calculate animal feed, dietary exposure, and as a result of different agricultural practices. Therefore, some harmonization of these maximum residue levels will be required.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-1007, must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Linda Hollis, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7511C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-8263; e-mail address: hollis.linda@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1007 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received pesticide petitions as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contain data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petitions.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The petitioner summaries of the pesticide petitions are printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summaries of the petitions were prepared by the petitioner and represent the view of the petitioner. The petition summaries announce the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received a request from Valent BioSciences Corporation, 870 Technology Way, Suite 100, Libertyville, IL 60048, referencing pesticide petition PP-6F4632 (transferred from Abbott Laboratories), proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.502 by establishing permanent tolerances for residues of the biochemical pesticide aminoethoxyvinylglycine (AVG) in or on the food commodities apples and pears at 0.08 part per million (ppm). EPA issued a final rule, published in the
Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Abbott Laboratories submitted a summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition which was published in the
AVG is a plant regulator useful in the management practices of apples and pears. It is applied once during the season at low rates (50 grams active ingredient per acre) using airblast sprayers. The product is recommended to be applied to apples and pears 4 weeks prior to the beginning of normal harvest.
1.
The analytical methods for detection of AVG in apple raw agricultural and processed commodities by high performance liquid chromatography were developed by Abbott Laboratories. A practical analytical method for detecting and measuring levels of AVG in or on commodities with a limit of quantitation (LOQ) that allows for monitoring of food, with the residues at or above the levels set in these tolerances has been submitted to EPA. EPA has provided information on this method to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The method is available to anyone interested in pesticide residue enforcement.
1.
1.
ii.
2.
1.
2.
EPA has received a request from Valent BioSciences Corporation, 870 Technology Way, Suite 100, Libertyville, IL 60048, referencing pesticide petition PP 9G5048 (transferred from Abbott Laboratories), proposing pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR 180.502 by extending the temporary tolerance for residues of the biochemical pesticide AVG in or on food commodities of the stone fruit crop group 12, including apricot, cherry (sweet and tart), nectarine, peach, plum, chickasaw plum, damson plum, Japanese plum, plumcot, and prune (fresh) at 0.170 ppm. EPA issued a final rule, published in the
Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, as amended, Abbott Laboratories submitted a summary of information, data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition which was published in the
AVG is a plant regulator useful in the management practices of stone fruit. It is applied once during the season at low rates (50 grams active ingredient per acre) using airblast sprayers. The product is recommended to be applied to stone fruit 7-14 days prior to the beginning of normal harvest. The proposed, amended, experimental use program will be conducted in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Washington. The proposed, amended, experimental program would utilize 146 pounds of active ingredient on 1,325 acres, in each year of the proposed 2-year program.
1.
1.
ii.
2.
1.
2.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities.
Comments, identified by docket control number PF-1003, must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I.C. of the
By mail: Joanne I. Miller, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-6224; e-mail address: miller.joanne@epa.gov.
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number PF-1003 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice.
7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
EPA has received pesticide petitions as follows proposing the establishment and/or amendment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a. EPA has determined that these petitions contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petitions. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on these petitions.
Environmental protection, Agricultural commodities, Feed additives, Food additives, Pesticides
The petitioner summaries of the pesticide petitions are printed below as required by section 408(d)(3) of the FFDCA. The summaries of the petitions were prepared by the petitioner and represents the view of the petitioner. EPA is publishing the petition summaries verbatim without editing them in any way. The petitioner's summaries announces the availability of a description of the analytical methods available to EPA for the detection and measurement of the pesticide chemical residues or an explanation of why no such method is needed.
EPA has received amended pesticide petitions (5F4440 and 5F4572) from Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1333 N. California Blvd., Ste. 600, Walnut Creek, CA 94596-8025 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 by extending time-limited tolerances for residues of clethodim in or on the raw agricultural commodities (RACs) alfalfa forage at 6 parts per million (ppm), alfalfa hay at 10 ppm, dry beans at 2 ppm, peanut hay at 3 ppm, peanut meal at 5 ppm, peanuts at 3 ppm, tomato paste at 3 ppm, and tomato puree at 2 ppm. Time-limited tolerances on these commodities would expire on April 30, 2003, to allow EPA sufficient time to evaluate new residue data. Valent USA Corporation is not proposing to extend the time-limited tolerance for residues on tomatoes at 1.0 ppm because tolerances are to be issued for residues on fruiting vegetables (except cucurbits), which includes tomatoes, at 1.5 ppm through a separate pesticide petition (0E6097). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408(d)(2) of the FFDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data support granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition. This notice includes a summary of the petitions prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, the registrant.
1.
2.
3.
Twelve residue trials for tomatoes were treated with two post-emergent applications of 0.25 lb. a.i./acre each. Tomatoes were harvested approximately 20 days after the last application. Clethodim residues ranged from
Combining the pepper residue data and the tomato residue data gives an overall average residue in fruiting vegetables of 0.45 ppm. These data from bell and non-bell peppers and tomatoes support a tolerance for fruiting vegetables (except cucurbits, crop group 8) of 1.5 ppm.
ii.
To support permanent tolerances on dry beans, Valent U.S.A. Corporation agreed to conduct 3 additional residue trials in EPA Region V to bring the total number of trials up to 12. In these 3 additional trials, beans were treated with two post-emergent applications of 0.25 lb. a.i./acre each approximately 14 days apart. Beans were harvested approximately 30 days after the last application. Clethodim residues ranged from 1.2 ppm to 2.0 ppm. The average residue level for all 12 residue trials, excluding samples less than the limit of detection, was 1.15 ppm. The HAFT residue was 2.0 ppm.
iii.
To support permanent tolerances on peanuts, Valent U.S.A. Corporation agreed to conduct 3 additional residue trials in EPA Region V to bring the total number of trials up to 12. In these three additional trials, peanuts were treated with two post-emergent applications of 0.25 lb. a.i./acre each approximately 14 days apart. Peanuts were harvested approximately 40 days after the last application. Clethodim residues ranged from 0.67 ppm to 1.2 ppm in nutmeats and from 0.8 ppm to 2.9 ppm in peanut hay. The average residue level for all 12 residue trials, excluding samples less than the limit of detection, was 0.94 ppm in nutmeats and 1.39 ppm in peanut hay. The HAFT residue was 1.75 ppm and 2.7 ppm in nutmeats and hay, respectively.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Comparing metabolites detected and quantified from plant and animal metabolism studies shows that there are no significant aglycones in plants which are not also present in the excreta or tissues of animals. Based on these metabolism studies, the residues of concern in crops and animal products are clethodim and its metabolites containing the cyclohexene moiety, and their sulfoxides and sulfones.
7.
Two metabolites of clethodim, clethodim imine sulfone and clethodim 5-hydroxy sulfone, have been tested in toxicity screening studies to evaluate the potential impact of these metabolites on the toxicity of clethodim. In general, these metabolites were found to be less
8.
1.
Chronic dietary exposure was at or below 4.5%% of the reference dose (RfD) when accounting for the percent of the crop treated. Calculated exposure increased to a maximum of 32.1%% non-nursing infants (
ii.
2.
There are other pesticidal compounds that are structurally related to clethodim including sethoxydim, cycloxydim, and tralkoxydim. Analytical methods convert some of these herbicides and their metabolites to common moieties. Plant and animal metabolism data demonstrates that no common metabolites are formed. In consideration of potential cumulative effects of clethodim and other substances that may have a common mechanism of toxicity, there are currently no available data or other reliable information indicating that any toxic effects produced by clethodim would be cumulative with those of other chemical compounds. Thus, only the potential risks of clethodim have been considered in this assessment of aggregate exposure and effects.
Valent U.S.A. Corporation will submit information for EPA to consider concerning potential cumulative effects of clethodim consistent with the schedule established by EPA on August 4, 1997 (62 FR 42020) (FRL-5734-6) and other subsequent EPA publications pursuant to the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA).
1.
i.
ii.
2.
The toxicological data base for evaluating prenatal and postnatal toxicity for clethodim is complete with respect to current data requirements. There are no special prenatal or postnatal toxicity concerns for infants and children, based on the results of the rat and rabbit developmental toxicity studies or the 3-generation reproductive toxicity study in rats. Valent U.S.A. Corporation concludes that reliable data support use of the standard 100-fold UF and that an additional uncertainty factor is not needed for clethodim to be further protective of infants and children.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue levels (MRLs) have been established or proposed for residues of clethodim in/on sugar beets (0.1 ppm), potatoes (0.2 ppm), rape seed (0.5 ppm), rape seed oils (0.5 ppm), sunflower seed (0.5 ppm), and sunflower seed oils (0.05 ppm). There are no conflicts between this proposed action and international residue limits.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement in
This case concerns a challenge to the rule entitled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Ferroalloys Production, published in the
For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement from persons who were not named as parties to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withhold or withdraw consent to the proposed settlement if the comments disclose facts or circumstances that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Copies of the settlement are available from Phyllis Cochran, (202) 564-5566. Written comments should be sent to Jon Devine at Air and Radiation Division (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and must be submitted on or before April 27, 2001.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Hooper Sands site in South Berwick, Maine with the following settling party: United States Department of the Navy. The settlement requires the settling party to seek Congressional authorization and appropriation to pay $1,005,478.00 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to take administrative action against the settling party pursuant to section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a). For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection with the Docket Clerk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England, Region 1, Suite 1100 (RAA), Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023, (617) 918-1093 (U.S. EPA CERCLA Docket No. I-98-1041).
Comments must be submitted on or before April 27, 2001.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection or may be obtained by mail by contacting Kathleen Woodward, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England, Region 1, Suite 1100 (SEL), Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023, (617) 918-1780. Comments should reference the Hooper Sands Site, South Berwick, Maine and EPA CERCLA Docket No. I-98-1041.
Kathleen Woodward, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—New England, Region 1, Suite 1100 (SEL),
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.
Notice of issuance of statement of federal financial accounting standards (SFFAS) No. 19).
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of Procedure, as amended in October, 1999, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 19, Technical Amendments to Accounting Standards for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees in Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 2.
The Board approved the Statement in December 2000, and submitted it to FASAB principals for a 90-day review. The review period completed on March 20, 2001.
In SFFAS No. 19, the Board adopted a number of technical amendments to SFFAS No. 2 for the following purposes:
(a) Clarify that the cash flow discount method used in the accounting standards prescribed in SFFAS No. 2 is consistent with the method required in the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as amended in July 1997.
(b) Clarify that the effective interest rate of a cohort of direct loans or loan guarantees is the interest rate adjusted for the interest rate re-estimate, as defined in paragraph 9(A), SFFAS No. 18, Amendments to Accounting Standards for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees in SFFAS No. 2.
(c) Clarify that the measurement for the default costs of direct loans and loan guarantees should include and exclude certain cash flow elements.
The standards prescribed in SFFAS No. 19 are effective for periods beginning after September 30, 2002. Hard copies of the statement will be mailed to the FASAB mailing list. It is also available on the FASAB web site at
Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 441 G St., N.W., Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, D.C. 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. 92-463.
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 12, 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.
Television Satellite Stations Review of Policy and Rules.
and
Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (CC Docket No. 96-98).
The 4.9 GHz Band Transferred from Federal Government Use (WT Docket No. 00-32).
Request by the Alliance of Information and Referral Systems, United Way of America, United Way 211 (Atlanta, Georgia) United Way of Connecticut, Florida Alliance of Information and Referral Services, Inc., and Texas I&R Network for Assignment of 211 Dialing Code.
The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements (CC Docket No. 92-105).
Broadcast Signal Carriage Issues.
Petition for Declaratory Ruling and Request for Expedited Action on the July 15, 1997 Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Regarding Area Codes 412, 610, 215 and 717 (CC Docket No. 96-98).
Examination of Exclusivity and Frequency Assignment Policies of the Private Land Mobile Services.
Federal Election Commission.
Thursday, April 12, 2001. Meeting open to the public. This meeting has been cancelled.
Tuesday, April 3, 2001 at 10:00 A.M.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 437g, § 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.
Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone (202) 694-1220.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collections by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the OMB 83-Is and supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Robert T. Maahs, Senior Supervisory Financial Analyst (202/872-4935), Douglas W. Carpenter, Supervisory Financial Analyst (202/452-2205) or Tina Robertson, Supervisory Financial Analyst (202/452-2949) for information concerning the specific bank holding company reporting requirements. The following may also be contacted regarding the information collection:
1.
2.
On November 17, 2000, the Board issued for public comment proposed revisions to certain bank holding company reports (65 FR 69525). The comment period expired on January 16, 2001. The Board of Governors received two comment letters pertaining to the FR Y-9C and two comment letters pertaining to the FR Y-9SP.
One bank holding company requested that the FR Y-9C report and the commercial bank Report of Condition and Income (Call Report; FFIEC 031) use the same format. As noted in the initial proposal, many of the proposed revisions were specifically designed to reduce differences between the FR Y-9C and the bank Call Report. The Federal Reserve approved reporting changes that will introduce more uniformity to certain aspects of regulatory reporting. These reporting changes include bringing a number of items on the FR Y-9C, as well as the overall reporting format of the FR Y-9C, into closer alignment with the Call Report.
A financial holding company (FHC) provided comments on the proposed collection of information on insurance-related activities. The FHC suggested a number of instructional changes and a few minor changes to the line item captions in order to bring the proposed items and instructions into closer alignment with insurance industry terminology and generally accepted accounting principles. The Federal Reserve has adopted many of these suggestions with changes to the line item captions included in the discussion below under “Current Actions.”
Two bank holding companies questioned the collection of information on the FR Y-9SP for total consolidated assets of the bank holding company on a semiannual basis. They note that many small holding companies only prepare this information once a year for their annual audit. The Federal Reserve will allow bank holding companies to provide reasonable estimates of total consolidated assets if such information is not routinely available by the reporting bank holding company.
Under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended, the Board is responsible for the supervision and regulation of all bank holding companies. The FR Y-9 and FR Y-11 series of reports historically have been, and continue to be, the primary sources of financial information on bank holding companies and their nonbanking activities between on-site inspections. Financial information, as well as ratios developed from these reports, are used to detect emerging financial problems, to review performance for pre-inspection analysis, to evaluate bank holding company mergers and acquisitions, and to analyze a holding company's overall financial condition and performance as part of the Federal Reserve System's overall supervisory responsibilities.
1.
Small businesses are affected.
The FR Y-9C consists of standardized financial statements similar to the Call Report. The FR Y-9C is filed quarterly by top-tier bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $150 million or more and by lower-tier bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $1 billion or more. In addition, multibank holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $150 million with debt outstanding to the general public or
• Schedule HI, Consolidated Income Statement, Item 5(i), “Premiums earned,” and item 7(d) “Benefits, losses and expenses from insurance-related activities,” have been moved from the main portion of this schedule and included in Memorandum item 12. In addition, the caption for item 5(i) has been rephrased as “Premiums.”
• Schedule HC-C, Loans and Lease Financing Receivables, item 7, “Loans to foreign governments and official institutions” was corrected. The proposed form erroneously indicated that Column B, “In Domestic Offices,” was not to be reported. However bank holding companies should report both consolidated and domestic office only information for this item.
• Schedule HC-I, Insurance Related Activities, Part I, Property and Casualty, item 1, “Agent balances” and item 3, “Deferred acquisition costs and value of insurance acquired” have been eliminated and item 4, “Policy benefits, reserves, and loss adjusted expenses” has been changed to “Claims and claims adjustment expense reserves.” Part II, Life and Health, item 2, “Asset valuation reserve and interest maximization reserve” and item 4, “Liabilities for premiums and other deposit funds” have been eliminated and item 3, “Policy benefits, reserves, and loss adjusted expenses” has been changed to “Policyholder benefits and contractholder funds.” In addition the line items in each part of this schedule have been renumbered consecutively.
• Schedule HC-R, Regulatory Capital, item 47, “Risk participations,” and item 50, “Retained recourse on financial assets with low-level recourse” were corrected. The proposed form erroneously indicated that no information was to be reported in Column F (100% risk weight category), however bank holding companies may report information in that category. Also proposed memorandum item 3(a)(4), “Other items included in ‘Minority interest in consolidated subsidiaries and similar items,' on Schedule HC subject in Tier 1 capital” was eliminated. Furthermore, Schedule HC-R, memorandum item 5, “Treasury stock (excluding offsetting debit to the liability for ESOP debt)” was corrected to indicate that any offsetting debit to the liability for ESOP debt is included in items 5.a and 5.b, as currently reported.
In addition, the Federal Reserve intends to add at a later date certain questions to the FR Y-9C to help identify those bank holding companies that will be required to complete a new report of their holdings in nonfinancial companies. This new report will be proposed in a separate
Finally, the Federal Reserve may incorporate other revisions to the FR Y-9C and other bank holding company reports that may become necessary due to changes in Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) or to the Capital Adequacy Guidelines.
2.
Small businesses are affected.
The FR Y-9LP includes standardized financial statements filed quarterly on a parent company only basis from each bank holding company that files the FR Y-9C. In addition, for tiered bank holding companies, a separate FR Y-9LP must be filed for each lower tier bank holding company.
• Schedule PI, Parent Company Only Income Statement, item 3, “Income (loss) before taxes, goodwill charges, and undistributed income” has been corrected to remove the words “goodwill charges.” These words were erroneously inserted into the proposed FR Y-9LP.
3.
Small businesses are affected.
The FR Y-9SP is a parent company only financial statement filed on a semiannual basis by one-bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $150 million, and multibank holding companies with total consolidated assets of less than $150 million that meet certain other criteria. This report, an abbreviated version of the more extensive FR Y-9LP, is designed to obtain basic balance sheet and income statement information for the parent company, information on intercompany transactions, and data for capital adequacy evaluation.
• Income Statement item 9, “Income (loss) before income taxes, goodwill charges, and before undistributed income of subsidiary(s)” has been corrected to remove the words “goodwill charges.” These words were erroneously inserted into the proposed FR Y-9SP.
In addition, the Federal Reserve intends to add at a later date certain questions to the FR Y-9SP to help identify those bank holding companies that will be required to complete a new report of their holdings in nonfinancial companies. This new report will be proposed in a separate
1.
Small businesses are affected.
The FR Y-11Q is filed quarterly by the top tier bank holding companies for each nonbank subsidiary of a bank holding company with total consolidated assets of $150 million or more in which the nonbank subsidiary has total assets of 5 percent or more of the top-tier bank holding company's consolidated Tier 1 capital, or where the nonbank subsidiary's total operating revenue equals 5 percent or more of the top-tier bank holding company's consolidated total operating revenue. The report consists of a balance sheet, income statement, off-balance-sheet items, information on changes in equity capital, and a memoranda section.
2.
Small businesses are affected.
The FR Y-11I is filed annually by the top tier bank holding companies for each of their nonbank subsidiaries that are not required to file a quarterly FR Y-11Q. The FR Y-11I report consists of similar balance sheet, income statement, off-balance-sheet, and change in equity capital information that is included on the FR Y-11Q. However, some of the items on the FR Y-11I are collected in a less detailed manner. In addition, the FR Y-11I also includes a loan schedule to be submitted only by respondents engaged in credit extending activities.
Notice is hereby given of the final approval of proposed information collection(s) by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) under OMB delegated authority, as per 5 CFR 1320.16 (OMB Regulations on Controlling Paperwork Burdens on the Public). Board-approved collections of information are incorporated into the official OMB inventory of currently approved collections of information. Copies of the OMB 83-Is and supporting statements and approved collection of information instrument(s) are placed into OMB's public docket files. The Federal Reserve may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1.
Small businesses are not affected.
1.
Small businesses are not affected.
2.
Small businesses are affected.
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 23, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 23, 2001.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 01-7145) published on page 16058 of the issue for Thursday, March 22, 2001.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland heading, the entry for Charter One Financial, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, is revised to read as follows:
Comments on this application must be received by April 16, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 22, 2001.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than April 11, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 22, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
11:00 a.m., Monday, April 2, 2001.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Notice with request for comments.
The Board requests comment on a proposal to discontinue the quarterly publication of interim pro forma financial statements for Federal Reserve priced services (pro formas). The Board believes information provided in the quarterly pro formas are of little value to parties interested in the Federal Reserve's priced-services financial results because it does not provide a relevant long-term cost-recovery assessment.
Comments must be submitted by April 23, 2001.
Comments, which should refer to Docket No. R-1098, may be mailed to Ms. Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20551 or mailed electronically to
Gregory L. Evans, Manager (202/452-3945); or Elizabeth Miyagi, Financial Analyst (202/452-2222), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems.
Currently, the Board publishes pro forma financial statements for Federal Reserve priced services (pro formas) for the first, second, and third quarters each year in the
The Monetary Control Act of 1980 (MCA) requires the Federal Reserve to set fees for its priced services to recover, over the long term, its actual costs of providing the services, as well as imputed costs and profits. Although it is not required by MCA, the Board has published the pro formas since 1984 to provide information to the public in a manner that is similar to the information published by other service providers.
The Federal Reserve uses a ten-year cost recovery rate as a benchmark to assess Reserve Bank compliance with MCA. The Board believes the ten-year historical recovery rate, together with the annual pro formas published in the Board's
Accordingly, the Board proposes to discontinue the quarterly publication of the pro formas. The Board will continue to publish, however, the annual pro formas in the
The Board requests comments on whether there are benefits to continuing the publication of the quarterly pro formas and, if so, what elements of the current pro formas provide the most relevant information.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), the General Services Administration (GSA) is making available to other government and interested private parties, the Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed construction of a 265,290 gross square feet Courthouse and office building including 80 secured parking spaces that will be located in the urban center of Eugene, Lane County, Oregon. The location currently known as the Chiquita site which was designated alternative 2, option A in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, is the preferred alternative and has been selected as the location of the new courthouse.
The ROD is on file and a copy may be obtained from John L. Meerscheidt, Herrera Environmental Consultants, 2200 Sixth Ave, Suite 601, Seattle, Washington, 98121 (206.441.9080) For further information, contact Michael D. Levine—U.S. General Services Administration, Region 10, (10PCP), 400 15th Street, SW., Auburn, Washington, 98001 (206) 931-7263. A copy of the ROD can be viewed at the following website: w4.gsa.gov/r10/EugeneCourthouse/
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice of Nominations.
The purpose of this notice is to solicit nominations for membership on the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS). The NCVHS is the statutory public advisory body to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the areas of health data policy, data standards, health information privacy and population-based data. The Committee has been assigned new advisory responsibilities in health data standards and health information privacy as a result of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Several vacancies are expected to occur on the Committee as of June 2001. New members of the Committee will be appointed to terms of up to four years by the Secretary of Health and Human Services from among persons who have distinguished themselves in the following fields: health statistics, electronic interchange of health care information, privacy and security of electronic information, population-based public health, purchasing or financing health care integrated computerized health information systems, health services, research, consumer interests in health information, health data standards, epidemiology, and the provision of health services.
In appointing members, the HHS will give close attention to equitable geographic distribution and to minority and female representation. Appointments will be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, gender, sexual orientation, HIV status, cultural, religious or socioeconomic status.
Nominations for new members should include a letter describing the qualifications of the nominee and the nominee's current resume or vitae. The information submitted must include complete name, title, and current address and telephone numbers. The closing date for nominations is April 27, 2001.
Nominations should be sent to: James Scanlon, Executive Staff Director, HHS Data Council, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 440-D, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201, Telephone: (202) 690-7100.
James Scanlon at (202) 690-7100 or Marjorie Greenberg at (301) 458-4245. Additional information about the NCVHS, including the charter, current roster, current activities and organization, and previous recommendations and reports is available on the NCVHS website:
The National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics serves as the statutory public advisory body to the Department of Health and Human Services in the area of health data policy.
In that capacity, the Committee, which celebrated its 50th anniversary last year, provides advice and assistance to HHS on a variety of key health data issues, including health data standards, privacy, population-based-data, and national health information infrastructure issues.
The Committee also provides advice to HHS on the implementation of the Administrative Simplification requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. The Committee consists of 18 members: Of the 18 members, one is appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives after consultation with the minority leader of the House of Representatives; one is appointed by the President pro tempore of the Senate after consultation with the minority leader of the Senate, and 16 are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2001 funds for an institutional training project grant (TPG) in occupational safety and health. This program will support the development of a Pacific Rim Basin focus in occupational safety and health. For the purposes of this announcement, the areas include Hawaii, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Samoa and the Northern Marianas with collaborative activities in countries, such as, Singapore and Taiwan. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area of occupational safety and health. The goal of the program is to provide an adequate supply of qualified personnel to carry out the purposes of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The specific program objective of this grant is to provide financial assistance to an eligible institution to assist in providing an adequate supply of qualified professional occupational safety and health personnel to address occupational and environmental exposure to toxins in the Pacific Rim Basin. This project will be supported as a Long-Term Training Project Grant (TPG).
Any public or private educational or training agency or institution with disciplines relevant to the field of occupational safety and health and which is located in a state, the District of Columbia, or U. S. Territory, is eligible to apply for a training grant.
Preference will be given to academic institutions in the Pacific Rim Basin dealing with transitional economies which expose workers to a multitude of new occupational and environmental exposures in a large minority population. Transitional economies can be defined as those which are moving from traditional types of industries and products to newer and diverse industries dominating the marketplace.
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 $250,000 is available in 2001 to fund one award. It is expected that the award will begin on or about August 1, 2001 and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to five years. 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.
The following are intended to serve as applicant requirements:
1. The applicant must document that the program(s) cover an occupational safety and health discipline in critical need or meets specific regional workforce needs in the Pacific Rim Basin Region. There shall be a minimum of three full-time students or full-time equivalent students in each academic program. Applicants should address the importance of providing training and education content related to special populations at risk, including minority and disadvantaged workers and multicultural populations. Justification should be provided in support of the degree levels proposed for financial assistance.
2. The types of training currently eligible for support are:
a. Undergraduate and other pre-baccalaureate training for disciplines, such as nursing and psychology, which provide trainees with capabilities for positions in business, industry, community agencies, government and labor organizations.
b. Special technical or other programs, such as short-term training programs for interdisciplinary training in occupational safety and health.
3. Curriculum content should focus on occupational health of workers in multicultural populations. The focus should be on occupational/environmental exposures and illness in tropical regions, including pesticides and environmental toxins found in farming and fisheries. Content should also include the behavioral and social aspects of work and work organization. Field experiences should be provided, including direct hands on work with exposures and environmental agents found in the region. Training plans and curricula should be structured and clearly identified for each level of training as well as the number of full and part-time students proposed.
4. Collaborative relationships should be established within the university and with external institutions and agencies that work with the culturally diverse community to serve as resources for the program and to promote education in the occupational health of multicultural populations. Examples of collaborating groups could include:
a. The disciplines of medicine, engineering, safety, nursing, business, psychology and others in the behavioral and social sciences.
b. Industry, labor, the public sector and worker organizations.
5. The Program Director shall be a full-time faculty member, preferably with education and experience in the occupational safety and health field. Consultants and adjunct faculty should be available and provide needed expertise in the field of occupational safety and health.
6. Key faculty should be full-time faculty with documented experience and education in their appropriate fields.
7. The applicant should include a plan for student recruitment, including entrance requirements.
8. The applicant shall include a plan for evaluation of the program, including placement of graduates, tracking of graduates, and contributions that graduates are making in providing programs for workers and meeting the occupational health and safety needs of populations in the region.
9. An Advisory Committee should be established representing stakeholders in occupational safety and health in the Pacific Rim Basin region, and should comprise members representing industry, the business community, professional groups, the public sector and labor groups.
Applications will be evaluated on the basis of the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation
Please consult the detailed Recommended Outline for a Training Project Grant for Cross-Cultural Training in the Pacific Rim Basin Region On the CDC website at
Applications should be clearly identified as an application for a TPG Training Grant.
Submit the original and two copies of CDC 2.145 A-TPG (OMB Number 0920-00261). Forms are in the application kit. Forms and instructions are also available on the CDC home page
(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.)
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC:
1. The extent of the occupational health and safety needs of populations in the Pacific Rim Basin area based on factors such as, a transitional economy, the nature of the workforce and workplaces, the composition of the population with respect to diverse cultures, and unique exposures in tropical climates. Documentation shall be provided of the need for training in the program area(s) outlined by the application and the contribution this project will make toward meeting the need for specialized training in occupational safety and health in the region.
2. Evidence of a plan describing the training program(s) that are proposed. Should include a plan for student recruitment, projected enrollment, job opportunities, and regional need for programs addressing the under-representation of minorities in the occupational safety and health field. The goals, elements of the program, faculty and amount of effort, facilities and equipment and methods for implementing and evaluating the program shall be documented.
3. Curriculum content and design which should include formalized program objectives, minimal course content to achieve degrees, course sequence, related courses open to students, time devoted to lecture, laboratory and field experience, nature and the interrelationship of these educational approaches. Field experiences shall include ongoing supervised hands-on experiences as part of the program of study.
4. Previous records of training in this or related areas, including placement of graduates.
5. The extent to which the program has initiated collaborative relationships with internal and external agencies and institutions to strengthen its training capabilities.
6. Methods in use or proposed to evaluate effectiveness of the training, including the use of feedback mechanisms from graduates and employers, placement of graduates, and reports from cooperative activities with other schools and institutions.
7. Degree of institutional commitment: Is grant support necessary for program initiation or continuation? Will support gradually be assumed? Is there related instruction that will go on with or without the grant?
8. Adequacy of facilities (classrooms, laboratories, library services, books, and journal holdings relevant to the program, and access to appropriate occupational settings).
9. Evidence of a plan for establishment of an Advisory Committee, including meeting times, members, roles and responsibilities. The Committee should meet at least annually to provide advice and periodic evaluation of TPG activities.
10. Evidence of a plan to develop a strategy for evaluating the impact that the program has had on the region. Examples could include a workforce needs survey, consultation programs provided to address regional occupational safety and health problems, a program data base to track the contributions of graduates to the occupational safety and health field.
11. The establishment of new and innovative programs and approaches to training and education relevant to the occupational safety and health field and based on documentation that the program meets specific regional and cultural needs. In reviewing such proposed programs, consideration shall be given to the developing nature of the program and its capability to produce graduates who will meet such workforce needs.
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. progress reports (annual and may be incorporated as component of non-competing continuation applications);
2. financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. final financial status and progress reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in Section J of this announcement, “Where to Obtain Additional Information”.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment 1 available with the application from the Grants Management Specialist.
Data collection initiated under this training grant program has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Number 0920-0261. “Training Grants, Application and Regulations—42 CFR Part 86,” Expiration Date 01/31/2004.
This program is authorized under section 21(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act [29 U.S.C. 670(a)]. Regulations applicable to this Program are in 42 CFR 86, “Grants for Education Programs in Occupational Safety and Health”. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.263.
This and other CDC announcements are available through the CDC homepage on the Internet. The address for the CDC home page is:
Please refer to Program Announcement 01035 when you request information. To receive additional written information and to request application materials 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: Sonia Rowell, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Announcement 01035, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: (770) 488-2724, Email address:
For program technical assistance, contact: Bernadine Kuchinski, Occupational Health Consultant, Office of Extramural Programs, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., Mailstop D-40, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, Telephone (404) 639-3342, Email address: bbk1@cdc.gov
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of meeting.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in cosponsorship with the Orange County Regulatory Affairs (OCRA) discussion group, is announcing its Fourth Annual Educational Workshop intended to give the drugs, devices, and biologics industries an opportunity to interact with FDA’s reviewers and compliance officers from FDA’s centers and district offices. The main focus of this interactive workshop is to provide regulatory updates, guidances, and recommendations regarding new product submissions, postapproval changes, and postmarketing issues.
If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Ramlah I. Oma at least 10 days in advance.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators.” FDA published a final rule requiring anyone who submits a marketing application for any drug, biologic, or device to submit certain information concerning the compensation to, and financial interests of, any clinical investigator conducting clinical studies covered by the rule. These requirements took effect on February 2, 1999. This guidance is intended to provide clarification and respond to questions and comments concerning implementation of the final rule.
Submit written comments at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance entitled “Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators” to Mary C. Gross, Office of International and Constituency Relations (HF-24), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send a self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Mary C. Gross, Office of International and Constituency Relations (HF-24), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-3450.
The financial disclosure by clinical investigators regulations require that financial interests and arrangements of clinical investigators that could affect the reliability of data submitted to FDA are identified and disclosed by the applicant. This requirement applies to any clinical study submitted in a marketing application that the applicant or FDA relies on to establish that the
The agency has received 12 comments on the draft guidance which published in the
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA’s good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115; 65 FR 56468, September 19, 2000). This guidance document represents the agency’s current thinking on financial disclosure by clinical investigators. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirement of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance on the Internet may access the guidance at http://internet-dev.fda.gov/oc/guidance/finsumm.html or http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm.
Interested persons may, at any time, submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) regarding this guidance document. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except individuals may submit one copy. Comments should be identified with the docket number found in the brackets in the heading of this document. A copy of the document and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the renewal of the Advisory Panel on Medicare Education (the Panel or APME). The Panel advises the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) and the Administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (the Administrator) concerning optimal strategies for implementing a national Medicare education program; enhancing the Federal Government's effectiveness in informing the Medicare consumer; expanding outreach to vulnerable and under-served communities; and assembling an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers to evaluate health plan options and build a community infrastructure for information, counseling, and assistance. In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, this notice announces the signing of the APME charter renewal by the Secretary on January 18, 2001. The charter will terminate on January 21, 2003, unless renewed by the Secretary.
Nancy Caliman, Partnership Development Group, Center for Beneficiary Services, HCFA, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S2-23-05, Baltimore, MD 21244, (410) 786-5052, or E-mail ncaliman@hcfa.gov.
On February 17, 1999, we published a notice in the
The Panel, chartered under section 1114(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. section 1314(f)), is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), that set forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees.
The Panel consists of up to 20 members with expertise in senior citizen advocacy; outreach to minority communities; health communications; disease-related health advocacy; disability policy and access; health research; health insurers and plans; providers and clinicians; and matters of labor and retirement. There are currently 16 members on the Panel.
The Panel advises the Secretary and the Administrator concerning optimal strategies for—
• Developing and implementing a national Medicare education program that describes the options for selecting a health plan under Medicare;
• Enhancing the Federal Government's effectiveness in informing the Medicare consumer, including providing information about the appropriate use of public-private partnerships;
• Expanding outreach to vulnerable and under-served communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, in the context of a national Medicare education program; and,
• Assembling an information base of “best practices” for helping consumers to evaluate health plan options and build a community infrastructure for information, counseling and assistance.
This notice announces the signing of the APME charter renewal by the Secretary on January 18, 2001. The charter will terminate on January 21, 2003, unless renewed by appropriate action before its expiration date.
You may obtain a copy of the charter for the APME by submitting a request to Nancy Caliman, Partnership Development Group, Center for Beneficiary Services, Health Care Financing Administration, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop S2-23-05, Baltimore, MD 21244, (410) 786-5052, or E-mail the request to
Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and 1395hh)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Public comments on the subject proposal are being solicited. An emergency paperwork number has been granted so that the program can make awards and operate in FY 2001.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name or OMB control number and be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 8226, Washington, DC 20410.
Jane Karadbil, Office of University Partnerships, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1537 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of the proposed forms and other available documents to be submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Karadbil.
An emergency paperwork has been granted so that the program can make awards and operate in FY 2001. The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review for a regular paperwork clearance, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Action of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected entities concerning the proposed information collection to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The following chart details the respondent burden on an annual basis:
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Sheila Jones, Reports Liaison Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 7232, Washington, DC 20410.
Bill Seedyke, Grants Manager, Office of Economic Development, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 7158, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number: (202) 708-1686, ext. 4445 (this is not a toll-free number) for copies of the proposed forms and other available documents:
The Department is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affecting agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name or OMB control number and be sent to: Reports Liaison Officer, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW, Room 8226, Washington, DC 20410.
David E. Chase, Office of Research, Evaluation and Monitoring, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-4230, extension 5733 (this is not a toll-free number). Copies of the proposed forms and other available documents to be submitted to OMB may be obtained from Mr. Chase.
The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended).
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimated burden; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Announcement of funding awards.
In accordance with section 210 of the VA-HUD Appropriations Act of 2000, this document notifies the public of funding provided to selected public housing authorities in the Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families of the Moving to Work Demonstration. The purpose of this document is to announce the names and addresses of the housing authorities and the amount of funds to be used to cover a portion of the cost of rent-based work incentives to families in selected public housing developments. Families in these selected developments shall be encouraged to go to work under work incentive plans approved by the Secretary and carefully tracked as part of the research and demonstration effort.
Garland E. Allen, Office of Research, Evaluation and Monitoring, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 8140, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-3700, extension 5710. To provide service for persons who are hearing- or speech-impaired, this number may be reached via TTY by dialing the Federal Information Relay Service on 1-800-877-8339, or (202) 708-1455. (Telephone numbers, other than “800” TTY number are not toll free.)
The Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families of the Moving to Work Demonstration was enacted in Section 204(a) of the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 and is administered by the Office of Research, Evaluation and Monitoring under the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. The Office of Research, Evaluation and Monitoring is also responsible for monitoring and evaluating the Jobs-Plus Initiative.
The Jobs-Plus Initiative is an innovative research program that is designed to substantially increase employment rates and earnings of residents in six experimental housing developments to become steadily employed using three main program components: (1) Employment related activities and services, including pre- and post-employment activities such as job search, education, training, job development, and case management, and support services such as child care and transportation assistance; (2) enhanced financial incentives to work, notably, reducing, the amount by which rent increases when earnings grow; and (3) a “community support for work” component, such as fostering work-related information sharing, peer support, and mutual aid among residents and with people living outside public housing. As part of the designed of Jobs-Plus, the Department agreed to provide funding to housing authorities selected for the Jobs-Plus Initiative to encourage them to create and implement innovative financial strategies to encourage residents to obtain and retain employment. The funding awarded in this notice is to cover the loss income that the housing authorities will not collect from residents as the direct result of their financial incentives for residents. During Fiscal Year 1999, the six housing authorities created financial incentives plans and HUD approved them for funding through December 31, 2003. The amount of funding provided to the housing authorities was based on each authority's estimated loss revenue as a result of the provision of incentives to residents. The amount of funding to cover the cost of financial incentives was estimated to be $12 million and $5 million of the $12 million was provided under the VA-HUD Appropriations Act of 2000. Hence, partial funding to cover the cost of the incentives are identified below.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing details concerning the recipients of funding awards, as set forth below.
1. Housing Authority of Baltimore City, 417 E. Fayette Street, Baltimore, MD 21202. Grant: $500,000.
2. Chattanooga Housing Authority, 505 W. Martin Luther King Boulevard, Chattanooga, TN 37406. Grant: $900,000.
3. Dayton Metropolitan Housing Authority, 400 Wayne Avenue, Dayton, OH 45410. Grant: $900,000.
4. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, 2600 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90057. Grant: $900,000.
5. St. Paul Housing Authority, 480 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55101. Grant: $900,000.
6. Seattle Housing Authority, 120 Sixth Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98109. Grant: $900,000.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications.
The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 USC 1531
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, tag, attach radio transmitters, and release) the giant kangaroo rat (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, collect and sacrifice) the San Diego fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Laguna Mountain skipper (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey and monitor nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey and monitor nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
These applicants request a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Quino checkerspot butterfly (
The applicant requests a permit to take (survey by pursuit) the Laguna Mountains Skipper (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and handle; collect tissue samples) the California tiger salamander (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, mark, and release) the Ash Meadows speckled dace (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, and release) the desert pupfish (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture, handle, and release; collect larvae) the Lost River sucker (
The applicant requests a permit to purchase, in interstate commerce, one female and one male captive bred Hawaiian (=nene) goose (
Written comments on these permit applications must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Chief, Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Fax: (503) 231-6243. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 20 days of the date of publication of this notice to the address above; telephone: (503) 231-2063. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when requesting copies of documents.
Notice of receipt of applications.
The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species
Applicant requests a permit to conduct surveys for the Yuma clapper rail
Applicant requests permit for authorization to take Gila topminnows
Applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
Applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for the cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl
Applicant requests a permit to authorize research involving capture and release of the Houston toad
Applicant requests a renewal of an expired permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for the following species: golden-cheeked warbler
Applicant requests a permit to authorize rehabilitative care for injured bats. These bat species could include the following: gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Indiana bat
Applicant requests a permit to survey for and collect the following Bexar County karst invertebrate species: Helotes mould beetle
Applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys, nest monitoring, and banding (including color banding) for the southwestern willow flycatcher
Applicant requests permit to capture and release for scientific research and recovery purposes the following fish species: humpback chub
Applicant requests a permit to conduct presence/absence surveys for the golden-cheeked warbler
Written comments on these permit applications must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Chief, Endangered Species Division, Ecological Services, P.O. Box 1306, Room 4102, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103; (505) 248-6649; Fax (505) 248-6788. Documents will be available for public inspection by written request, by appointment only, during normal business hours (8:00 to 4:30) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.
Chief, Endangered Species Division, Albuquerque, New Mexico, at the above address. Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, to the address above.
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, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,
The applicant requests renewal of a permit to authorize interstate and foreign commerce, export and cull of excess male barasingha (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to import biological samples from live Amur leopard (
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,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability and receipt of application.
Wildcat Line (Applicant), a California limited partnership, has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for an incidental take permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The Service proposes to issue a 10-year permit that would authorize take of the endangered Smith's blue butterfly
We request comments from the public on the permit application, which is available for review. The application includes a Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan). The Plan describes the proposed project and the measures that the Applicant would undertake to minimize and mitigate take of the Smith's blue butterfly.
We also request comments on our preliminary determination that the Plan qualifies as a “low-effect” habitat conservation plan, eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act. The basis for this determination is discussed in an Environmental Action Statement, which is also available for public review.
Written comments should be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Send written comments to Ms. Diane Noda, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, California 93003. Comments may be sent by facsimile to (805) 644-3958.
Ms. Diane Pratt, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, at the above address or call (805) 644-1766.
Please contact the above office if you would like copies of the application, Plan, and Environmental Action Statement. Documents also will be available for review by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and Federal regulation prohibit the “take” of fish or wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened, respectively. Take of listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act to include kill, harm, or harass. The Service may, under limited circumstances, issue permits to authorize incidental take; i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively.
The Wildcat Line Single-Family Residence project area is located east of Highway 1, southeast of Yankee Point, and north of Malpaso Creek in Carmel Highlands, Monterey County. The Applicant is requesting a 10-year incidental take permit for the Smith's blue butterfly.
The proposed project is development of a single-family residence on an 11.46-acre parcel. The Applicant proposes to grade the upper portions of the finger ridge to provide an area suitable for construction of one single-family residence. Other improvements to the site include an all-weather driveway, a picnic area, a new water tank and access
The project would disturb a 1.56-acre area (impact area), of which 0.8 acre is coastal sage scrub dominated by seacliff buckwheat, a larval and adult host plant of the Smith's blue butterfly, federally listed as endangered under the Act. The Applicant has submitted a Plan to minimize and mitigate for the removal of approximately 4,923 individual plants of seacliff buckwheat, considered suitable habitat for the Smith's blue butterfly, which grow within the impact area. The project site does not contain any other threatened or endangered species or habitat. No critical habitat for any listed species occurs on the project site. Approximately 2.93 acres (26 percent) of the 11.46-acre parcel is characterized by Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), which is included on the California Native Plant Society List 1B as a species that is rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere. Lewis' clarkia
Under the Plan, the 0.8 acre of coastal sage scrub habitat dominated by seacliff buckwheat and affected by the proposed project would be replaced with 0.97 acre of restored coastal sage scrub habitat elsewhere on the project site. To mitigate the effects of take on the Smith's blue butterfly, the impacted seacliff buckwheat plants providing foraging habitat would be replaced at a 1:1 ratio and established in the restored and existing coastal sage scrub habitat at the project site. In addition, approximately 9.86 acres of the 11.46-acre site, of which approximately 7.19 acres is coastal sage scrub habitat, would be protected in perpetuity through placement of a deed restriction and establishment of an endowment for long term management.
The Service's Proposed Action consists of the issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the Plan, which includes measures to minimize and mitigate impacts of the project on the Smith's blue butterfly. Two alternatives to the taking of listed species under the Proposed Action are considered in the Plan. Under the No Action Alternative, no permit would be issued. However, this alternative would result in an economic burden to the Applicant and conservation measures for the Smith's blue butterfly, such as exotic weed eradication, would not be implemented. Another alternative would result in a redesigned project with the relocation of the development footprint to another portion of the parcel. However, much of the property is too steep to be developed, and relocation of the footprint to the western portion of the property would result in the removal of an undetermined number of Monterey pine trees. The Service considers the proposed development footprint as more desirable than development elsewhere on the property because the potential reduction of take of Smith's blue butterflies and reduction of modification of their habitat would not be significant.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the Plan qualifies as a “low-effect” plan as defined by its Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook (November 1996). Our determination that a habitat conservation plan qualifies as a low-effect plan is based on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation of the plan would result in minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the plan would result in minor or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the plan, considered together with the impacts of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects would not result, over time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources which would be considered significant. As more fully explained in our Environmental Action Statement, the Applicant's Plan for the Wildcat Line Single-Family Residence Project qualifies as a “low-effect” plan for the following reasons:
1. Approval of the Plan would result in minor or negligible effects on the Smith's blue butterfly and its habitat. The Service does not anticipate significant direct or cumulative effects to the Smith's blue butterfly resulting from development of the Wildcat Line Single-Family Residence Project.
2. Approval of the Plan would not have adverse effects on unique geographic, historic or cultural sites, or involve unique or unknown environmental risks.
3. Approval of the Plan would not result in any cumulative or growth inducing impacts and, therefore, would not result in significant adverse effects on public health or safety.
4. The project does not require compliance with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management), Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, nor does it threaten to violate a Federal, State, local or tribal law or requirement imposed for the protection of the environment.
5. Approval of the Plan would not establish a precedent for future actions or represent a decision in principle about future actions with potentially significant environmental effects.
The Service therefore has made a preliminary determination that approval of the Plan qualifies as a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act, as provided by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). Based upon this preliminary determination, we do not intend to prepare further National Environmental Policy Act documentation. The Service will consider public comments in making its final determination on whether to prepare such additional documentation.
The Service provides this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act. We will evaluate the permit application, the Plan, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10 (a) of the Act. If the requirements are met, the Service will issue a permit for the incidental take of the Smith's blue butterfly from development of the Wildcat Line Single-Family Residence Project area. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days from the date of this notice.
Vale District, Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Meeting of John Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council (RAC): La Grande, Oregon May 8-9, 2001.
On May 8, 2001 at 11:00 a.m. there will be a meeting of the John Day/Snake RAC at Mr. Sandman Motel, 2410 E. R Avenue, La Grande, Oregon. The meeting is open to the public. Public comments will be received at 1:00 p.m. on May 8, 2001. The following topics will be discussed by the council: Program of work review; Charter review; Counties Payment Act (1608 Act); Hells Canyon Subgroup update; RAC membership update; Blue Mountain Subgroup update; ICBEMP Subgroup update; OHV Subgroup update; Noxious Weeds Subgroup update; Field trip to Blue Mountain Demo Area; A 15 minute round table for general issues.
Roy L. Masinton, Bureau of Land Management, Vale District Office, 100 Oregon Street, Vale, Oregon 97918, Telephone (541) 473-3144
Bureau of Land Management, Northwest California Resource Advisory Council, Fortuna, California.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committees Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Pub. L. 94-579), the U. S. Bureau of Land Management's Northwest California Resource Advisory Council will meet Wednesday and Thursday, April 18 and 19, 2001, in Fortuna, California, for a field tour and business meeting. The meeting and tour are open to the public, but anyone attending must provide their own transportation and lunch.
On Wednesday, April 18, the council members will convene at 10 a.m. at the Best Western Country Inn, 2025 River Walk Drive, Fortuna, and depart immediately for a tour of lands included in the proposed Lost Coast Headlands Project. On Wednesday, the council will convene at 8 a.m. in the Coho Room of the River Lodge Conference Center, 1800 River Walk Drive, Fortuna. Agenda items include a discussion of the land use planning status for the BLM's Arcata, Redding and Ukiah field offices, and program status reports from the field offices. Time will be set aside for public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak, a time limit may be established.
Contact Lynda J. Roush, BLM Arcata Field Manager, at (707) 825-2300.
Bureau of Land Management, DOI.
Notice.
The following public lands in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico have been examined and found suitable for classification for lease or conveyance to The American Legion Griego y Tafoya Post 62 and the Spanish Seventh Day Adventist Church, both non-profit organizations, under the provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869
The lands are not needed for Federal Purposes. Lease or conveyance is consistent with current BLM land use planning and would be in the public interest.
The lease/conveyance, when issued, will be subject to the following terms, conditions and reservations:
1. Provisions of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act and to all applicable regulations of the secretary of the Interior.
2. A right-of-way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States.
3. All minerals shall be reserved to the United States, together with the right to prospect for, mine, and remove the minerals.
4. Those rights for a cable transmission system granted to Mark Twain Cablevision Limited Partnership by Permit No. NM-65192 (American Legion lot).
5. Those rights for domestic water system granted to Dixon Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association by Permit No. NM-51413 (American Legion lot).
Detailed information concerning this action is available for review at the office of the Bureau of Land Management, Taos Resource Area, 226 Cruz Alta, Taos, NM 87571.
Upon publication of this notice in the
Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for a meeting facility for the American Legion Griego y Tafoya Post 62 or the Spanish Seventh Day Adventist Church cemetery site. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for the proposed use.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Extension of a currently approved form SF 95, Claim for Damage, Injury, or Death.
The Department of Justice, Civil Division, Torts Branch, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for “sixty days” until May 29, 2001.
If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Jeffrey Axelrad, 202-616-4400, Director, Torts Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 888, Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: It is estimated that the total public burden associated with this collection is 1.8 million annual burden hours.
If additional information is required contact: Mr. Robert B. Briggs, Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1220, National Place, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice.
The National Endowment for the Arts, 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)(A)]. This program helps ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collected instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the National Endowment for the Arts, on behalf of the Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, is soliciting comments concerning renewal of the Application for Indemnification. A copy of this collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the address section of this notice.
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the address section below on or before June 4, 2001. The National Endowment for the Arts its particularly interested in comments which:
Alice Whelihan, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100
The National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that the following meetings of the Humanities Panel will be held at the Old Post Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.
Laura S. Nelson, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on (202) 606-8282.
The proposed meetings are for the purpose of panel review, discussion, evaluation and recommendation on applications for financial assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965, as amended, including discussion of information given in confidence to the agency by the grant applicants. Because the proposed meetings will consider information that is likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential and/or information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, pursuant to authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close Advisory Committee meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined that these meetings will be closed to the public pursuant to subsections (c) (4), and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) has issued an amendment to the Certificate of Compliance for the United States Enrichment Corporation's Paducah, Kentucky, facility. The amendment increases the assay limit for the facility from the current 2.75 wt%
The initial licensing review was completed and a preliminary Compliance Evaluation Report was issued on February 16, 2001. An operational readiness review was then performed at the facility from February 20 through March 2, 2001. The remaining licensing review was then completed and the amendment was issued on March 19, 2001.
In addition, there is a public meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 28, 2001, to discuss this amendment. The meeting will be held at the Paducah Community College, Rosenthal Hall #111 (Engineering Building) from 7-9 pm. For more information concerning the meeting, contact Heather Astwood on 301-415-5819.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment, and the Compliance Evaluation Report written in support of issuing the amendment. These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, NRC's Headquarters Building, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852 and electronically from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document management system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web Site at:
Brief description of amendment: The U.S. Enrichment Corporation requested that the assay limit for the Paducah
Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-1: The amendment will be revision number 55 to the certificate and is allowing the facility to produce the higher enrichment. This amendment also finalizes changes to the Technical Safety Requirements.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 155 under the Securities Act provides safe harbors for a registered offering following an abandoned private offering, or a private offering following an abandoned registered offering, without integrating the registered and private offering in either case. Rule 155 requires any prospectus filed as a part of a registration statement after a private offering to include disclosure regarding abandonment of the private offering. Similarly, the rule requires an issuer to provide each offeree in a private offering following an abandoned registered offering with: (1) Information concerning withdrawal of the registration statement; (2) the fact that the private offering is unregistered; and (3) the legal implications of the offering's unregistered status. The likely respondents will be companies. It is estimated that 600 issuers will file Rule 155 submissions annually at an estimated 4 hours per response. Also, it is estimated that 50% of the 2,400 total annual burden hours (1,200 burden hours) would be prepared by the company. We estimate that the company's outside counsel would prepare the other 1,200 burden hours.
Rule 477 under the Securities Act sets forth procedures for withdrawing a registration statement or any amendment or exhibits thereto. The rule provides that if a registrant applies in anticipation of reliance on Rule 155's registered-to-private safe harbor, the registrant must state in the withdrawal application that the registrant plans to undertake a subsequent private offering in reliance on the rule. Without this statement, the Commission would not be able to monitor issuers' reliance on and compliance with Rule 155(c). The likely respondents will be companies. It is estimated that 300 issuers will file Rule 477 submissions annually at an estimated one-hour per response for a total annual burden of 300 hours.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that on February 23, 2001, MBS Clearing Corporation (“MBSCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) an application pursuant to Section 19(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On February 2, 1987, pursuant to Sections 17A(b) and 19(a) of the Act
In the most recent extension of MBSCC's temporary registration, the Commission stated that it planned in the near future to seek comment on granting MBSCC permanent registration as a clearing agency. The extension of MBSCC's temporary registration will enable the Commission to do so within the next few months.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the CHX rules governing its voluntary price improvement program. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Article XX, Rule 37(h) to permit application of the Exchange's SuperMAX 2000 price improvement algorithm to odd lot orders, thereby increasing the opportunities for price improvement. The text of the proposed rule change is below. Additions are in italics.
SuperMAX 2000 shall be a voluntary automatic execution program within the MAX System. SuperMAX 2000 shall be available for any security trading on the Exchange in decimal price increments. A specialist may choose to enable this voluntary program within the MAX System on a security-by-security basis.
(i) In the event that an order to buy or sell at least 100 shares is received in a security in which SuperMAX 2000 has been enabled, such order shall be executed at the ITS Best Offer or NBO (for a buy order) or the ITS Best Bid or NBB (for a sell order) if the spread between the ITS Best Bid and the ITS Best Offer (or NBB and NBO, for Nasdaq/NM issues) in such security at the time the order is received is less than $.03.
(ii) In the event that an order to buy or sell 100 shares is received in a security in which SuperMAX 2000 has been enabled, and the spread between the ITS Best Bid and the ITS Best Offer (or NBB and NBO, for Nasdaq/NM issues) in such security at the time the order is received is $.03 or greater, such order shall be executed (subject to the short sale rule) at a price at least $.01 lower than the ITS Best Offer or NBO (for a buy order) or at least $.01 higher than the ITS Best Bid or NBB (for a sell order).
(iii) In the event that an order to buy or sell more than 100 shares is received in a security in which SuperMAX 2000 has been enabled, such order shall be executed at the ITS Best Offer or NBO, or better (for a buy order) or the ITS Best Bid or NBB, or better (for a sell order) as the specialist may designate and is approved by the Exchange.
(2) Operating Time. SuperMAX 2000 will operate each day that the Exchange is open for trading from the commencement of the Primary Trading Session until the close of the Primary Trading Session; provided, however, that preopening orders shall not be eligible for SuperMAX 2000 price improvement. A specialist may enable or remove SuperMAX 2000 for a particular security only on one given day each month, as determined by the Exchange from time to time. Notwithstanding the previous sentence, during unusual market conditions, individual securities or all securities may be removed from SuperMAX 2000 with approval of two members of the Committee on Floor Procedure.
(3) Timing. Orders entered into SuperMAX 2000 shall be immediately executed upon completion of the foregoing price improvement algorithm without delay (i.e., in 0 seconds).
(4) Applicability to Odd Lots
(5) Out of Range. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, SuperMAX 2000 will not automatically execute an order if such execution would result in an out of range execution.
(6) Other. Any eligible order in a security for which SuperMAX 2000 has been enabled which is manually presented at the post by a floor broker must also be guaranteed an execution by the specialist pursuant to the pricing
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
According to the CHX, the primary purpose of the proposed rule change is to increase the number of orders that are eligible for automated price improvement. To this end, the CHX proposes to amend the CHX rules governing its voluntary automated price improvement program, known as SuperMAX 2000, for issues quoting in decimal price increments. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Article XX, Rule 37(h) to permit application of the SuperMAX 2000 algorithm to odd lot orders, thereby increasing the opportunities for price improvement.
On December 19, 2000, the Commission approved (SR-CHX-00-37),
In assessing price improvement offered by other members of the securities industry, the Exchange believes that, in order to be competitive, its odd lot dealers must be permitted (but not obligated) to offer price improvement of odd lot orders. The proposal would permit odd lot dealers to provide price improvement of $.01 or better, in the case of odd lot orders received when the national best bid and offer spread is $.05 or larger.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will ensure that SuperMAX 2000 provides CHX odd lot dealers with the requisite flexibility to respond to customer price improvement requirements in a decimal environment. The proposal contemplates equality among order-sending firms (and their customers) by mandating that price improvement be provided by CHX odd lot dealers on an issue-by-issue basis; odd lot dealers would not be permitted to distinguish among order-sending firms when designating price improvement levels. Moreover, SuperMAX 2000 remains a strictly voluntary price improvement program; odd lot dealers who do not wish to participate are not obligated to enable SuperMAX 2000 for any or all issues they trade.
The CHX believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
The CHX has requested accelerated approval of the proposed rule change. While the Commission will not grant accelerated approval at this time, the Commission will consider granting accelerated approval of the proposal at the close of an abbreviated comment period of 15 days from the date of publication of the proposal in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, 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 coping at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to file number SR-CHX-01-06 and should be submitted by April 12, 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”),
NASD Regulation is proposing to amend Rule 1032 of the NASD to implement Section 203 the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (“GLBA”),
(2) A person qualified solely as a Limited Representative—Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products shall not be qualified to function as a representative in any area not [pr]
(2) A person qualified solely as a Limited Representative—Direct Participation Programs shall not be qualified to function in any area not [pr]
(3) A person registered as a Limited Representative—Options shall not be qualified to function in any area not [pr]
A person qualified solely as a Limited Representative—Corporate Securities shall not be qualified to function in any area not [pr]
(2) A person registered solely as a Limited Representative—Government Securities shall not be qualified to function in any area not [pr]
(A)
(B)
In its filing with the Commission, NASD Regulation 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. NASD Regulation 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 implement Section 203 of GLBA. Section 203 adds new subsection (j) to Section 15A of the Act, which requires that the NASD, as a registered securities association, create a limited registration category for any associated person of a member whose investment banking and securities business is limited solely to effecting sales of private securities offerings. Section 203 also states that any bank employee who during the six-month period prior to the enactment of GLBA (
GLBA also establishes functional regulation, meaning that each industry segment of a multi-industry organization will be regulated by the agency charged by law with the regulation of that industry. In connection with functional regulation, GLBA eliminates the long-standing general exclusion for banks from the definitions of “broker” and “dealer” under the Act and instead provides exclusions for certain bank activities. With respect to private placement activity, GLBA permits private placements to be effected in a bank (that is not a broker or dealer) where (a) the bank is not affiliated with any broker or dealer, the aggregate dollar amount of any private placement offering (excluding government or municipal securities) does not exceed 25% of the bank's capital. A bank that meets these conditions will be eligible to engage in private placement activities without having to register its personnel with the NASD. Notwithstanding this exclusion, many banks will be required to effect private securities offerings in a registered broker/dealer. For banks that are not excluded from the definition of “broker,” employees that effect sales of private securities offerings will be required to become associated persons of a registered broker/dealer, and as such, will be subject to NASD qualification examination and other requirements.
As part of the effort to facilitate a smooth transition of private placement activities from banks to broker/dealers, GLBA creates a new limited registration category for persons engaging solely in sales of private securities offerings. As noted above, while certain banks will still be permitted to engage in private securities offerings, many others will be required to effect these sales in a registered broker/dealer with appropriately registered personnel.
The proposed rule change effectuates the provisions of Section 203 by establishing a new registration category for persons engaged solely in sales of private securities offerings through a registered broker/dealer. Applicants seeking to register with the NASD under this limited registration category must meet the eligibility criteria for associated persons of a member in the NASD By-Laws and pass the necessary qualification examination. However, consistent with GLBA, the proposed rule change provides that any person who engaged in sales of private securities offerings as an employee of a bank during the period from May 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999, is not required to complete the qualification examination. An applicant seeking exemption from the qualification examination pursuant to this provision will be required to provide such evidence as NASD Regulation determines to be appropriate, demonstrating that he or she was engaged in effecting sales of private securities offerings at the bank during the period from May 12, 1999 to November 12, 1999.
The new limited registration category permits a person to effect sales of private securities offerings. However, the new limited registration category does not permit a person to effect sales of municipal or government securities or equity interests in or the debt of direct participation programs (“DPP securities”). Although sales of municipal securities and DPP securities may involve private securities offerings, NASD Regulation does not believe that the limited registration category should allow persons to sell such securities. Persons who effect sales of municipal securities, including bank employees, currently are required to be qualified in accordance with the rules of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”). MSRB rules, among other things, require that persons pass a specific qualification examination. NASD Regulation does not believe that the new limited registration category was intended to create a subcategory of persons that are eligible to engage in certain offerings of municipal securities without meeting the specific qualification requirements of the MSRB.
Based upon conversations with SEC staff, NASD Regulation has included language in the proposed rule change to exclude from the scope of the limited registration category the ability to effect sales of private placements of government securities. With respect to government securities, NASD Regulation already offers a limited registration category for persons involved in the solicitation, purchase or sale of government Securities.
The new limited registration category also does not qualify a person to engage in offerings of DPP securities. In general, DPP securities are specialized programs that provide for flow-through tax consequences. Persons who wish to effect sales of DPP securities are required to register as a general securities representative or under a limited registration category for DPP securities.
Finally, NASD Regulation emphasizes that the new limited registration category permits persons only to effect sales of private placement securities as part of a primary offering. As such, persons registered in this category will not be permitted to effect resales of or secondary market transactions in private placement securities. Any person wishing to effect resales of or secondary market transactions in private placement securities will be required to register as a General Securities Representative, or, where appropriate, as a Limited Representative—Corporate Securities.
NASD Regulation is making the proposed rule change to effectuate the provisions of Section 203 of GLBA. NASD Regulation staff is currently in the process of developing the qualification examination and will file the study outline and specifications under separate cover.
NASD Regulation also is making several clerical changes to Rule 1032, replacing the word “described” for the word “prescribed.” This change more accurately reflects the intended meaning of the affected paragraphs.
NASD Regulation believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
NASD Regulation does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule 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 also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the NASD. All submissions should refer to the file number SR-NASD-00-69 and should be submitted by April 18, 2001.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Phlx Rule 101 to establish the Primary Trading Session hours of securities whose primary market is not the Exchange. Under the proposal, the first trading session (“Primary Trading Session”) would be conducted on the floor of the Exchange during the same hours the security is trading on its primary market, if the Exchange is not the primary market for such security, provided, however, that if the primary market for such security is PCX Equities, Inc., the Primary Trading Session for such security shall end no later than 4 p.m. Eastern Time.
The text of the proposed rule change appears below. New text is in italics; deletions are in brackets.
Supplementary Material:
.02 Equity Trading Hours.
(i
(ii
(iii) Transactions in Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock may be effected on the Exchange until 4:15 p.m. each business day as well as pursuant to Rule 232(c).]
In its filing with the Commission, 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. 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 establish in Phlx Rule 101 the Primary Trading Session hours for equities whose primary market is not Phlx. Phlx Rule 101 is a general provision dealing with hours of business on the Exchange. Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 101 provides that “[t]rading in any equity security on the Exchange's equity trading floor shall commence at 9:30 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. each business day, unless otherwise announced by the Exchange * * *” This broad provision is applicable to all equities. However, subsection (iii) of Supplementary Material .02 states that trading in Nasdaq 100 Index Tracking stock
The proposed rule defines “Primary Trading Session” to track the hours of trading of each security on its primary market. Proposed Supplementary Material .02 states that the Primary Trading Session will be conducted during the same hours as the primary trading session on the security's primary market. The proposed rule change provides that, if the primary market for such security is PCX Equities, Inc., the Primary Trading Session shall end no later than 4 p.m. Eastern Time. Since the proposed rule change set forth trading hours of all the equities traded primarily on other exchanges (including Nasdaq 100 Index Tracking Stock
The proposed amendment's general definition should help to accommodate future changes in the trading hours of the equities at their primary market, without the need of periodic amendments. Furthermore, as the number of products traded on the Exchange on an Unlisted Trading Privileges (“UTP”) basis grows, so will the need for rules establishing trading parameters for these products. Proposed Supplementary Material .02 should be broad enough to address the trading hours of all UTP equity products that will be traded on Phlx in the future, without requiring additional rule amendments stating the specific trading hours of each new product.
In practice, the proposed rule change will not effect a change in the current trading hours of the equities traded on Phlx. All equity trading on Phlx is conducted between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. (the Primary Trading Session hours), except for the Post Primary Session (“PPS”) and other specific cases stated in Phlx Rule 101. Under the proposed rule change, for equities traded on the Primary Trading Session until 4 p.m., PPS would continue to take place from 4 p.m. and 4:15 p.m. Equities whose Primary Trading Session ends after PPS began cannot be traded on PPS. The proposed rule change does not change the PPS trading hours.
Phlx believes the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6 of the Act
Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
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 filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-01-21 and should be submitted by April 18, 2001.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The following forms, to be used only in the event that inductions into the armed services are resumed, have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the extension of clearance in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S. Chapter 35):
Copies of the above identified forms can be obtained upon written request to Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed extension of clearance of the form(s) should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice to Selective Service System, Reports Clearance Officer, 1515 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, Virginia 22209-2425.
A copy of the comments should be sent to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer, Selective Service System, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3235, Washington, DC 20503.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of Reporting Requirements Submitted for OMB Review.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before April 27, 2001. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare comments promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance Officer before the deadline.
Address all comments concerning this notice to:
Jacqueline White, Agency Clearance Officer, (202) 205-7044.
Covington and Washington Counties and the contiguous counties of Baldwin, Butler, Choctaw, Clarke, Coffee, Conecuh, Crenshaw, Escambia, Geneva and Mobile in the State of Alabama; Okaloosa and Walton in the State of Florida; Greene and Wayne in the State of Mississippi constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and tornadoes that occurred on March 12, 2001. Applications for loans for physical damage may be filed until the close of business on May 18, 2001 and for economic injury until the close of business on December 18, 2001 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations:
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 332211 for Alabama; 332311 for Florida; 332411 for Mississippi. For economic injury the numbers are 9K9900 for Alabama, 9L0000 for Florida, 9L0100 for Mississippi.
Department of State.
Notice.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
The following summarizes the information collection proposal submitted to OMB:
Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Public comments, or requests for additional information, regarding the collection listed in this notice should be directed to Margaret A. Dickson, CA/PPT/FO/FC, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room H904, Washington, DC 20522, and at 202-663-2460.
U.S. Department of State
Notice.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
The following summarizes the information collection proposal submitted to OMB:
Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Public comments, or requests for additional information, regarding the collection listed in this notice should be directed to Margaret A. Dickson, CA/PPT/FO/FC, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW, Room H904, Washington, D.C. 20522, and at 202-663-2460.
Department of State.
Notice.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
The following summarizes the information collection proposal submitted to OMB:
Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Public comments, or requests for additional information, regarding the collection listed in this notice should be directed to Margaret A. Dickson, CA/PPT/FO/FC, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW, Room H904, Washington, D.C. 20522, and at 202-663-2460.
Department of State.
Notice.
The Department of State is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment in the
The following summarizes the information collection proposal submitted to OMB:
Public comments are being solicited to permit the agency to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of technology.
Public comments, or requests for additional information, regarding the collection listed in this notice should be directed to Margaret A. Dickson, CA/PPT/FO/FC, Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room H904, Washington, DC 20522, and at 202-663-2460.
United States Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459], the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681
For further information, including a list of the exhibit object, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619-5997, and the address is Room 700, United States Department of State, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Office of the Secretary, DOT.
Notice.
The purpose of this notice is to re-open the time period for public comments on DOT's Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries. The Guidance was published in the
Comments from the public on this Guidance are encouraged and invited on or before May 29, 2001.
Written comments should be addressed to Marc Brenman, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Civil Rights, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590, or marc.brenman@ost.dot.gov; comments may also be submitted by facsimile at 202-366-9371.
Marc Brenman, Office of Civil Rights, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-1119; email marc.brenman@ost.dot.gov; or David Tochen, Office of the General Counsel, 400 7th St. SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone 202-366-9153, e-mail david.tochen@ost.dot.gov.
On January 22, 2001, DOT published Guidance to Recipients on Special Language Services to Limited English Proficient (LEP) Beneficiaries. DOT
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of charter renewal.
The Secretary of Transportation has renewed the charter for the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC) for 2 years from January 11, 2001, until January 11, 2003. NOSAC is a Federal advisory committee under 5 U.S.C. App. 2. It advises the Coast Guard on safety and environmental protection issues relating to the offshore mineral and energy industries.
You may request a copy of the charter by writing to Commandant (G-MSO), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001; by calling 202-267-0214; or by faxing 202-267-4570. This notice and the charter are available on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.
Captain Peter Richardson, Executive Director of NOSAC, or Mr. Jim Magill, Assistant to the Executive Director, telephone 202-267-1082, fax 202-267-4570.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of meeting; request for comments; notice of intent to prepare environmental assessment.
The Thirteenth Coast Guard District is holding a series of public meetings to discuss changes in the overall risk environment along the North Washington Coast and a proposed relocation of assets including the closure of Station Quillayute River. The Coast Guard announces its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) to cover these proposed actions. The public meetings are meant to discuss, answer questions, and get feedback from the public about these proposed actions. The Coast Guard is also seeking written feedback.
The open meetings will be held on:
Written material, including comments submitted via the Internet must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 23, 2001.
The meetings will be held at the following locations:
You may mail comments to the Chief, Resource Management Division, Thirteenth Coast Guard District, Room 3408, Jackson Federal Building, 915 Second Avenue, Seattle, WA 98174-1067. You may also deliver written comments to the same address between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 206-220-7130 or 800-982-8813 extension 7130. You may also submit comments via the Internet at http://www.uscg.mil/D13.
For further information on this notice contact Commander Carl Bromund, Chief of Thirteenth Coast Guard District Resource Management Division, telephone 206-220-7130 or 800-982-8813, extension 7130.
The general population, number of registered boaters, and commercial vessel activity is increasing in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound Region causing an increase in demand for Coast Guard services. Along with these increases, there is an expanded need to counter drug smuggling activity and enforce laws for commercial and recreational fishing in the same region.
The Search and Rescue workload at Station Quillayute River has been declining over the past five years. The station has responded to an annual average of less than 28 cases in the last four years, and has only responded to six cases where lives were at risk since 1993. On average, Coast Guard Stations in Washington and Oregon (including Station Quillayute River) respond to about 160 cases per year. In the past five months (between October 1, 2000 and February 28, 2001), the Station has only performed eight Search and Rescue cases. If the proposed relocation were to occur, the demand for Coast Guard services in the Quillayute River area will continue to be met by newer and faster vessels located at Grays Harbor and Neah Bay and the existing aircraft from Port Angeles.
A Search and Rescue (SAR) Performance Model Evaluation was completed to analyze the mission impact of closing Station Quillayute River. The SAR Performance Model is a computer model used to quantify SAR system performance within the area of operations around a station. The results from that analysis showed no significant difference operating with Station Quillayute River open or closed with regards to the estimated number of lives saved, cases with response time greater than 2 hours, or 90% response time (90% of the cases are responded to within this time). An average increase of 9 minutes is predicted for the response time if the station were to be closed.
The Coast Guard is proposing to move the people and boats assigned at Station
The EA will be prepared in accordance with Coast Guard procedures and policies (Commandant Instruction M16475.1C) and section 102 (2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-15068).
The Coast Guard encourages submission of written data, views, or arguments on this notice. Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify this notice (CGD13-01-003), the specific issue that each comment addresses, and the reason for the comment. Please submit all comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches to the Coast Guard at the address under
Attendance is open to the public. With advance notice, and as time permits, members of the public may make oral presentations during the meeting. Persons wishing to make oral presentations should notify Commander Carl Bromund listed under
For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request assistance at the meeting(s), contact Commander Carl Bromund at the address or phone number under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at the Yeager Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
Comments must be received on or before April 27, 2001.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address:
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Tim Murnahan, Assistant Director of the Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority at the following address: 100 Airport Road, Suite 175, Charleston, WV 25311.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority under § 158.23 of Part 158.
Kenneth Kroll, AIP/PFC Team Leader, Programming and Planning Branch, FAA Eastern Region Airports Division, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, New York, 718-553-3357. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and to impose and use revenue from a PFC at Yeager Airport under the provision of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
On March 16, 2002 the FAA determined that the application to impose and to impose and use revenue from a PFC submitted by the Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than June 16, 2001.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Brief description of proposed project(s):
Class or classes of air carriers which the public agency has requested not be required to collect PFCs: Under FAR Part 135, Charter Operators for hire to the general public; Under FAR Part 121, Charter Operators for hire to the general public; Non-signatory and non-scheduled Air carriers which operate from the airport and enplane less than one percent of the annual Enplanements.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Central West Virginia Regional Airport Authority.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection requests described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. We published a Federal Register Notice with a 60-day public comment period on these information collections on November 6, 2000 (65 FR 66578). We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by April 27, 2001.
You may send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention: DOT Desk Officer. You are asked to comment on any aspect of these information collections, including: (1) Whether the proposed collections are necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that the burdens could be minimized, including the use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information.
1.
Mr. Jack Wasley, (202) 366-4658, Infrastructure Core Business Unit, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
2.
Ms. Martha Soneira, 202-493-3468, Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Research, Development and Technology Service Business Unit, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 6300 Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
3.
Mr. Mohan Pillay, 202-366-4655, 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.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation.
Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), in cooperation with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB), the City and County of San Francisco, and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Caltrain Downtown Extension Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIS/EIR will address alternatives for: (1) A new, multi-modal transportation facility at the site of the current Transbay Terminal at First and Mission Streets, and (2) an extension of Caltrain commuter rail service from its current San Francisco terminus at 4th and Townsend to the new Transbay Terminal along with establishment of a redevelopment area and development of a mix of new transit-oriented uses on publicly-owned property in the vicinity of the new terminal to help defray project costs. Other project features include: an off-site bus storage facility, new bus ramps connecting to the Bay Bridge, construction and operation of a temporary bus facility for the construction period, and a reconfigured Caltrain layover yard. The EIS/EIR will evaluate the following alternatives: (1) A No-Build Alternative, (2) a Build Alternative with design options, and (3) any additional reasonable alternatives that emerge from the scoping process.
Previous studies relevant to this action include: the recently completed Transbay Terminal Study (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2001); associated technical reports regarding such subjects as Transbay Terminal design options, joint development options, and terminal operations; and the original Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) for the Caltrain San Francisco Downtown Extension Project (FTA-U.S. DOT/Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, 1997). Although the 1997 DEIS/DEIR contributed to the planning history of the proposed project, this new EIS/EIR will completely replace the 1997 document.
Scoping will be accomplished through meetings and correspondence with interested persons, organizations, the general public, and federal, state, and local agencies. Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments have been sent to the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have expressed or are known to have interest in this proposal.
Comment Due Date—Written comments on the scope of alternatives and impacts to be considered must be postmarked no later than April 18, 2001 and should be sent to the San Francisco Planning Department at the address below. Scoping Meetings—Two public scoping meetings will be held: April 4, from 6 until 8 p.m. at the San Francisco City Hall, Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett, Jr. Place, San Francisco, California 94102; and April 11, from 6 until 8 pm at the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, 2nd Floor Auditorium, 1250 San Carlos Avenue, San Carlos, California 94070. The first hour (6-7 p.m.) will be an open house. A brief presentation of the project purpose and alternatives will be provided at 7 p.m., and project staff will be present to receive formal agency and public input regarding the scope of the environmental studies, key issues, and other suggestions.
Written comments should be sent to Joan Kugler, AICP, EIR Project Manager, San Francisco Planning Department, 1660 Mission Street, Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94103-2414. The addresses for the scoping meetings are given above in the
Jerome Wiggins, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Program Development at (415) 744-3116.
The proposed project is located in the central business district of the City of San Francisco in the South of Market Area. The project area includes the existing Transbay Terminal (built in 1939) generally located between Mission and Natoma and Beale and Second Streets. The New Transbay Terminal is proposed to be constructed at the same site as the existing Terminal it would replace. The project includes the proposed underground right-of-way linking the existing Caltrain Terminal at 4th and Townsend to the new proposed terminal. Development, including transit-oriented development, is proposed for parcels under public ownership within the boundaries of the proposed Redevelopment Plan Area.
• Improve public access to bus and rail services: A multi-modal transportation facility would provide a centralized location for bus (AC Transit, MUNI, Golden Gate, SamTrans, Greyhound), paratransit, and rail (Caltrain) services in San Francisco's growing Financial District/South of Market Area and would enhance transit access for passengers arriving in and departing San Francisco. The extension of the Caltrain system from its current terminus at 4th and Townsend to a new Transbay Terminal at First and Missions Streets would improve access for residents and workers in San Francisco's high-density financial district and improve connections to other local and regional transit providers. Additionally, a multi-modal terminal facility and Caltrain extension would facilitate future expansion of regional express train service and potential statewide high-speed rail service.
•
•
•
A new Transbay Terminal would consist of an approximate 600,000 square-foot multi-modal transit facility with 50 bus bays on two levels served by ramps directly connected to the Bay Bridge. The basement would accommodate train platforms and tracks. The facility would include transit passenger service areas and an estimated 150,000-225,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, conference, educational, and cultural space. During MTC's Transbay Terminal Study, this concept (known as “Great Expectations”) was adopted by the Transbay Panel and Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA) following a review of multiple design options.
Two preliminary design options are proposed for the Caltrain Downtown Extension. Key criteria used in developing the two design options include: (1) Ability to provide efficient and effective rail operations and accommodate high-speed rail, (2) potential impacts to land use and proposed developments, (3) potential for a future rail connection to the East Bay, (4) relationship of rail services to Transbay Terminal and transit operations, and (5) anticipated community impacts. Option 1 for the Caltrain Extension would follow the 1997 DEIS/DEIR “long-radius, short mined tunnel” alignment from 4th and Townsend to Essex Street. From there, the alignment would continue northward underground as cut-and-cover construction to a station generally oriented north-south, terminating at Minna Street just to the west of the new Transbay Terminal. Option 2 for the Caltrain Extension would curve northeasterly from Townsend Street to a cut-and-cover alignment under Second Street. As the alignment approaches Howard Street, it would curve eastward into the basement of the new Transbay Terminal. This option includes additional tracks in a cut-and-cover section passing through the east end of the new Terminal and curving south under Main Street. This track would be used for temporary train storage and could ultimately be extended as a San Francisco to Oakland cross-bay alignment.
Development of publicly-owned property along in the vicinity of the Transbay Terminal, including transit-oriented uses would enhance the Transbay Terminal area. Revenues or tax increments could be used to defray a portion of the costs for the new Transbay Terminal and Caltrain downtown extension. Two development scenarios will be evaluated in the EIS/EIR. The “full build” development scenario assumes about 7.7 million square feet of residential/office/retail/hotel development, including approximately 4,500 residential units (including affordable housing), 1.1 million square feet of office, 400,000 square feet of retail, and 475,000 square feet of hotel. A “reduced scope” development scenario that assumes a lesser amount of commercial and retail development and that is weighted toward housing will also be evaluated.
The adoption of a redevelopment plan for a portion of the terminal vicinity in the area between Mission, Main, Folsom, and Second streets is proposed to allow City assistance in the revitalization and enhancement of the Transbay Terminal area.
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action is 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/EIR should be directed to the San Francisco Planning Department's EIR Project Manager at the address provided above.
Surface Transportation Board, DOT.
Policy statement on use of third-party contracting in preparation of environmental documentation; correction.
The Surface Transportation Board published a document in the
Victoria Rutson, (202) 565-1545.
In the
We have examined the third-party contractor processes used by other agencies to see if we could improve our process and allow applicants to better control costs without compromising the need to ensure the independent nature of the contractor's environmental analysis.
The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau Clearance
Written comments should be received on or before April 27, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by law, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is hereby giving notice of cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) in certain benefit
These COLAs are effective December 1, 2000. The headstone or marker allowance rate is effective October 1, 2000.
Paul Trowbridge, Consultant, Compensation and Pension Service (212A), Veterans Benefit Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-7218.
Under 38 U.S.C. 2306(d), VA may provide reimbursement for the cost of non-Government headstones or markers in an amount equal to the actual cost of the non-Government headstone or marker or the average actual cost of Government-furnished headstones or markers during the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the non-Government headstone or marker was purchased, whichever is less.
Section 8041 of Public Law 101-508 amended 38 U.S.C. 2306(d) to eliminate the payment of the monetary allowance in lieu of VA-provided headstone or marker for deaths occurring on or after November 1, 1990. However, in a precedent opinion (O.G.C. Prec. 17-90), VA's General Counsel held that there is no limitation period applicable to claims for benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 2306(d).
The average actual cost of Government-furnished headstones or markers during any fiscal year is determined by dividing the sum of VA costs during that fiscal year for procurement, transportation, and miscellaneous administration, inspection and support staff by the total number of headstones and markers procured by VA during that fiscal year and rounding to the nearest whole dollar amount.
The average actual cost of Government-furnished headstones or markers for Fiscal Year 2000 under the above computation method was $94. Therefore, effective October 1, 2000, the maximum rate of reimbursement for non-Government headstones or markers purchased during Fiscal Year 2001 is $94.
Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5312 and section 306 of Public Law 95-588, VA is required to increase the benefit rates and income limitations in the pension and parents' DIC programs by the same percentage, and effective the same date, as increases in the benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act. The increased rates and income limitations are also required to be published in the
The Social Security Administration has announced that there will be a 3.5 percent cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2000. Therefore, applying the same percentage and rounding up in accordance with 38 CFR 3.29, the following increased rates and income limitations for the VA pension and parents' DIC programs will be effective December 1, 2000:
DIC shall be paid monthly to parents of a deceased veteran in the following amounts (38 U.S.C. 1315):
No DIC is payable under this table if annual income exceeds $10,584.
No DIC is payable under this table if annual income exceeds $10,584.
No DIC is payable under this table if combined annual income exceeds $14,228.
The rates in this table are also applicable in the case of one surviving parent who has remarried, computed on the basis of the combined income of the parent and spouse, if this would be a greater benefit than that specified in Table 2 for one parent.
Section 421 of Public Law 104-204 added a new chapter 18 to title 38, United States Code, authorizing VA to provide certain benefits, including a monthly monetary allowance, to children born with spina bifida who are natural children of veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 1805(b)(3), spina bifida rates are subject to adjustment under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5312, which provides for the adjustment of certain VA benefit rates whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401
In notice document 01-6868 beginning on page 15699 in the issue of Tuesday, March 20, 2001, make the following correction:
On page 15700, in the first column, in the third line, “rice” should be “price”.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. The proposed amendments are necessary to implement the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, which requires that the NRC recover approximately 98 percent of its budget authority in fiscal year (FY) 2001, less the amounts appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) and the General Fund. The amount to be recovered for FY 2001 is approximately $453.3 million.
The comment period expires April 27, 2001. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure only that comments received on or before this date will be considered. Because OBRA-90 requires that NRC collect the FY 2001 fees by September 30, 2001, requests for extensions of the comment period will not be granted.
Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays. (Telephone 301-415-1678).
Comments may also be submitted via the NRC's interactive rulemaking Website (http://ruleforum.llnl.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 site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, 301-415-5905; e-mail
With the exception of restricted information, documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
In addition to being available in ADAMS, the agency workpapers that support these proposed changes to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 may also be examined during the 30-day comment period at the NRC Public Document Room, Room O-1F22, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-2738.
Glenda Jackson, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; Telephone 301-415-6057.
For FYs 1991 through 2000, OBRA-90, as amended, required that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less the amount appropriated from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) administered Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF), by assessing fees. To address fairness and equity concerns raised by the NRC related to charging NRC license holders for agency expenses that do not provide a direct benefit to the licensee, the FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act amended OBRA-90 to decrease the NRC's fee recovery amount from 100 percent to 98 percent of the NRC's budget authority in FY 2001. The OBRA-90 amendment further decreases the fee recovery amount by an additional two percent per year beginning in FY 2002 until the fee recovery amount is 90 percent by FY 2005. In addition to the 2 percent reduction to the fee recovery amount, $3.2 million has been appropriated from the General Fund for activities related to regulatory reviews and assistance provided to other Federal agencies and States. The FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act states that this $3.2 million shall be excluded from license fee revenues. The total amount to be recovered for FY 2001 is approximately $453.3 million.
The NRC assesses two types of fees to meet the requirements of OBRA-90, as amended. First, license and inspection fees, established at 10 CFR Part 170 under the authority of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA), 31 U.S.C. 9701, recover the NRC's costs of providing special benefits to identifiable applicants and licensees. Examples of the services provided by the NRC for which these fees are assessed are the review of applications for new licenses, the review of applications for renewal of existing licenses, and the review of requests for license amendments. Second, annual fees, established in 10 CFR Part 171 under the authority of OBRA-90, recover generic and other regulatory costs not otherwise recovered through 10 CFR Part 170 fees.
The NRC is proposing to amend its licensing, inspection, and annual fees to recover approximately 98 percent of its FY 2001 budget authority, including the budget authority for its Office of the Inspector General, less the appropriations received from the NWF and the General Fund. The NRC's total budget authority for FY 2001 is $487.4 million, of which $21.6 million has been appropriated from the NWF. In addition, $3.2 million has been appropriated from the General Fund for activities related to regulatory reviews and assistance provided to other Federal agencies and States. Based on the 98 percent fee recovery requirement, the NRC must collect approximately $453.3 million in FY 2001 through Part 170 licensing and inspection fees, Part 171 annual fees, and other offsetting receipts. The total amount to be recovered through fees and other offsetting receipts for FY 2001 is $6.3 million more than the amount estimated for recovery in FY 2000; however, the FY 2001 fee recovery amount is further reduced by a $3.1 million carryover from additional collections in FY 2000 that were unanticipated at the time the final FY 2000 fee rule was published. This leaves approximately $450.2 million to be recovered in FY 2001 through Part 170 licensing and inspection fees, Part 171 annual fees, and other offsetting receipts.
The NRC estimates that approximately $112.1 million will be recovered in FY 2001 from Part 170 fees and other offsetting receipts. The NRC also estimates a net adjustment for FY 2001 of approximately $0.4 million for payments received in FY 2001 for FY
Table I summarizes the budget and fee recovery amounts for FY 2001.
The final FY 2001 fee rule will be a “major” final action as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. Therefore, the NRC's fees for FY 2001 would become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the
As a matter of courtesy, the NRC plans to continue mailing the proposed fee rules to all licensees, although, in accordance with its FY 1998 announcement, the NRC has discontinued mailing the final rule to all licensees as a cost-saving measure. Accordingly, the NRC does not plan to routinely mail the FY 2001 final rule or future final rules to licensees. However, the NRC will send the final rule to any licensee or other person upon request. To request a copy, contact the License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch, Division of Accounting and Finance, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, at 301-415-7554, or e-mail us at fees@nrc.gov. It is our intent to publish the final rule in late May or early June of 2001. In addition to publication in the
The NRC is proposing to make changes to 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 as discussed in Sections A and B below.
The NRC is proposing to revise the hourly rates used to calculate fees and to adjust the 10 CFR Part 170 fees based on the revised hourly rates and the results of the NRC's biennial review of fees required by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-578, Nov. 15, 1990, 104 Stat 2838) (CFO Act). Additionally, the NRC is proposing to eliminate the fees currently assessed to Agreement State licensees who file revisions to the information submitted on their initial filing of NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States,” and include the costs for these revisions in the application fees assessed for the initial Form 241. The NRC is also proposing to establish an annual registration fee of $450 to be assessed for Part 31 general licensees required to register certain types of generally licensed devices. These proposed revisions are further discussed below.
The proposed amendments are as follows:
The NRC is proposing to revise the two professional hourly rates for NRC staff time established in § 170.20. These proposed rates would be based on the number of FY 2001 direct program full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FY 2001 NRC budget, excluding direct program support costs and NRC's appropriations from the NWF and the General Fund. These rates are used to determine the Part 170 fees. The proposed hourly rate for the reactor program is $150 per hour ($266,997 per direct FTE). This rate would be applicable to all activities for which fees are assessed under § 170.21 of the fee regulations. The proposed hourly rate for the nuclear materials and nuclear waste program is $144 per hour ($255,563 per direct FTE). This rate would be applicable to all activities for which fees are assessed under § 170.31 of the fee regulations. In the FY 2000 final fee rule, the reactor and materials program rates were $144 and $143, respectively. The proposed increases are primarily due to the Government-wide pay increase in FY 2001.
The method used to determine the two professional hourly rates is as follows:
a. Direct program FTE levels are identified for the reactor program and the nuclear material and waste program.
b. Direct contract support, which is the use of contract or other services in
c. All other program costs (i.e., Salaries and Benefits, Travel) represent “in-house” costs and are to be collected by dividing them uniformly by the total number of direct FTEs for the program. In addition, salaries and benefits plus contracts for non-program direct management and support, and for the Office of the Inspector General, are allocated to each program based on that program's direct costs. This method results in the following costs which are included in the hourly rates.
As shown in Table II, dividing the $264.6 million (rounded) budgeted amount included in the hourly rate for the reactor program by the reactor program direct FTEs (991.0) results in a rate for the reactor program of $266,997 per FTE for FY 2001. The Direct FTE Hourly Rate for the reactor program would be $150 per hour (rounded to the nearest whole dollar). This rate is calculated by dividing the cost per direct FTE ($266,997) by the number of productive hours in one year (1,776 hours) as set forth in the revised OMB Circular A-76, “Performance of Commercial Activities.” Similarly, dividing the $74.8 million (rounded) budgeted amount included in the hourly rate for the nuclear materials and nuclear waste program by the program direct FTEs (292.7) results in a rate of $255,563 per FTE for FY 2001. The Direct FTE Hourly Rate for the materials program would be $144 per hour (rounded to the nearest whole dollar). This rate is calculated by dividing the cost per direct FTE ($255,563) by the number of productive hours in one year (1,776 hours).
The NRC is proposing to adjust the current part 170 fees in §§ 170.21 and 170.31 to reflect both the changes in the revised hourly rates and the results of the biennial review of part 170 fees required by the CFO Act. To comply with the requirements of the CFO Act, the NRC has evaluated historical professional staff hours used to process a new license application for those materials licensees whose fees are based on the average cost method, or “flat” fees. This review also included new license and amendment applications for import and export licenses.
Evaluation of the historical data shows that fees based on the average number of professional staff hours required to complete materials licensing actions should be increased in some categories and decreased in others, as described below, to more accurately reflect current costs incurred in completing these licensing actions. The data for the average number of professional staff hours needed to complete new licensing actions was last updated in FY 1999 (64 FR 31448; June 10, 1999). Thus, the revised average professional staff hours reflect the changes in the NRC licensing review program that have occurred since FY 1999.
In summary, the proposed licensing fees reflect an increase in average time for new license applications for seven of 33 materials fee categories included in the biennial review, a decrease in average time for five fee categories, and the same average time for the remaining 21 fee categories. Similarly, the average time for applications for new export and import licenses and for amendments to export and import licenses remained the same for eight fee categories in §§ 170.21 and 170.31, and decreased for two other fee categories.
The proposed licensing fees are based on the revised average professional staff hours needed to process the licensing actions multiplied by the proposed professional hourly rate for FY 2001. The amounts of the materials licensing “flat” fees are rounded as follows: fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10, fees that are greater than $1,000 but less than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $100, and fees that are greater than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
The proposed licensing “flat” fees are applicable to fee categories K.1 through K.5 of § 170.21, and fee categories 1C, 1D, 2B, 2C, 3A through 3P, 4B through 9D, 10B, 15A through 15E, and 16 of § 170.31. An additional proposed change to Category 16 is discussed in item 3. below. Applications filed on or after the effective date of the final rule would be subject to the revised fees in this proposed rule.
The NRC has taken several actions in the past few years to streamline and stabilize fees assessed to materials user licensees subject to “flat” fees. These actions included elimination of the inspection, renewal, and amendment fees from Part 170, and inclusion of the costs for these activities in the Part 171 annual fees. Materials user licensees affected by these changes have responded favorably to the elimination of multiple types of individual fees.
The NRC is proposing a similar streamlining action for certain submittals from Agreement State licensees operating in areas under NRC jurisdiction under the Part 150 reciprocity provisions. Currently, a Part 170 fee of $1,200 is charged for each initial filing of NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States,” and an additional fee of $200 is charged for each revision to the information submitted on the initial NRC Form 241. Revisions are filed to request approval for work locations, radioactive materials, or work
The NRC is proposing to eliminate the revision fees and include the costs for processing them in the fee assessed for each initial reciprocity application. Under this proposal, the reciprocity applicants would no longer be required to submit payments with their revision requests, and the NRC's administrative burden of processing the revisions for fee collection purposes would be eliminated. This proposed change plus the increase in the hourly rate would result in an increase in the application fee, from $1,200 to $1,400. The costs of the reciprocity program would still be recovered from those receiving the benefit of the NRC's reciprocity activities. It is the NRC's belief that the nominal increase to the application fee and any potential inequities that might result because not all reciprocity licensees file revisions during the year are outweighed by the efficiencies to be gained by both the reciprocity applicants and the NRC in streamlining the process.
A conforming revision to 10 CFR 150.20(b)(2) would also be made to reflect this proposed change.
The NRC published a proposed rule in the
The NRC published a final rule on December 18, 2000 (65 FR 79162), amending 10 CFR Parts 30, 31, and 32 to explicitly require that certain general licensees register their generally licensed devices with the NRC each year and pay the appropriate registration fee. Therein the NRC stated that the final fee, estimated at approximately $440 to $450, would be established in the FY 2001 fee rulemaking based on that year's budgeted costs for the program, the new FTE rate, and the estimated number of general licensees required to register.
The NRC currently estimates that approximately 4300 general licensees will be required to register their generally licensed devices. Based on the estimated number of registrants, current resource estimates, and the FY 2001 FTE rate, the proposed registration fee is $450. The registration fee would be imposed beginning with the first re-registration of devices currently in use. The registration fee would be required for each annual re-registration of the devices, and for all new registrations of devices acquired after the registration program is fully implemented.
Because this is a “flat” fee based on average cost, it will be reviewed biennially as required by the CFO Act. The registration fee established in the FY 2001 final fee rule will not change until the next biennial review of fees in FY 2003.
In the recent past, several requests for Part 170 fee exemptions have been filed by licensees and various organizations who submit topical reports or other documents to the NRC for review. Part 170 currently provides that fees will not be assessed for requests or reports submitted to the NRC in response to an NRC inquiry to resolve an identified safety, safeguards, or environmental issue; or to assist the NRC in developing a rule, regulatory guide, policy statement, generic letter or bulletin; or as a means of exchanging information between industry organizations and the NRC for the purpose of supporting generic regulatory improvements or efforts. Many of the fee exemption requests have been denied because the submittals have not met the intent of the waiver provision. For example, several fee waiver requests were based on the industry's future use of the reports, rather than these reports being submitted, reviewed, and approved for the purpose of NRC's generic regulatory improvements.
In the statement of considerations for the FY 1994 fee rule (59 FR 36895; July 20, 1994) which incorporated this fee waiver provision, the NRC stated that it believed the costs for some requests or reports filed with the NRC are more appropriately captured in the Part 171 annual fees rather than assessing specific fees under Part 170. The statement of considerations continued that these reports, although submitted by a specific organization, support NRC's development of generic guidance and regulations and resolution of safety issues applicable to a class of licensee. To clarify the intent of the fee waiver provision, the NRC is modifying the current criterion 3. of Footnote 4 to § 170.21 and criterion (c) of Footnote 5 to § 170.31 to specifically state that the review and approval of the reports must support NRC's generic regulatory improvements or efforts. In addition, criteria 1., 2., and 3. of Footnote 4 to § 170.21 would be redesignated as criteria (a), (b), and (c).
In summary, the NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 170 to—
1. Revise the material and reactor program FTE hourly rates;
2. Revise the licensing fees to be assessed to reflect the revised hourly rates and to comply with the CFO Act requirement that fees be reviewed biennially and revised as necessary to reflect the cost to the agency;
3. Eliminate fees for Agreement State licensees who submit revisions to their initial requests for reciprocity in States under NRC jurisdiction, and incorporate these costs into the initial reciprocity application fee;
4. Establish registration fees to be assessed for each registration or re-registration of generally licensed devices under 10 CFR 31.5, beginning with the first re-registration of those generally licensed devices currently in use; and
5. Clarify that the fee waiver provisions of the current criterion 3. of Footnote 4 to § 170.21 and criterion (c) of Footnote 5 to § 170.31 apply only to requests/reports submitted to the NRC for the purpose of supporting NRC's generic regulatory improvements or efforts, and redesignate criteria 1., 2., and 3., of Footnote 4 to § 170.21 as criteria (a), (b), and (c).
The NRC proposes to revise the annual fees for FY 2001 and revise the current process for providing NRC Form 526 to licensees for purposes of certifying that they qualify as a small entity. The proposed amendments are as follows.
The NRC is proposing to establish rebaselined annual fees for FY 2001. The Commission's policy commitment, made in the statement of considerations accompanying the FY 1995 fee rule (60 FR 32225; June 20, 1995) and further explained in the statement of considerations accompanying the FY 1999 fee rule (64 FR 31448; June 10, 1999), establishes that base annual fees will be re-established (rebaselined) at least every third year, and more frequently if there is a substantial change in the total NRC budget or in the magnitude of the budget allocated to a specific class of licensees. The fees were last rebaselined in FY 1999. After carefully considering all factors, including the changes to the amount of the budget allocated to classes of licensees, and weighing the complex issues related to both fairness and stability of fees, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to rebaseline the annual fees this year. Rebaselining fees would result in reduced annual fees for a majority of the categories of licenses and increased annual fees for other categories.
Although the NRC is sensitive to the effects the rebaselined fees will have on those licensees with fee increases, establishing new baseline annual fees this year would result in a more precise relationship between annual fees and NRC costs of providing services. It thus would constitute one means to fairly and equitably allocate costs among the NRC's licensees.
The annual fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 would be revised for FY 2001 to recover approximately 98 percent of the NRC's FY 2001 budget authority, less fees collected under 10 CFR Part 170 and funds appropriated from the NWF and the General Fund. The total amount to be recovered through annual fees for FY 2001 is $337.7 million, compared to $341.0 million for FY 2000.
The proposed FY 2001 annual fees would increase for some categories of licensees and decrease for others from the previous year. The decreases in annual fees range from approximately 0.2 percent for operating power reactor licensees (including the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee), to approximately 29.0 percent for uranium recovery licensees. The increases in annual fees range from approximately 2.6 percent for materials licenses authorizing distribution of radiopharmaceuticals, to approximately 165.2 percent for transportation quality assurance program approvals authorizing use only.
Factors affecting the changes to the annual fee amounts include changes in budgeted costs affecting the classes of licensees, the reduction in the fee recovery rate from 100 percent for FY 2000 to 98 percent for FY 2001, the estimated Part 170 collections for the various classes of licensees, a $3.1 million carryover from additional collections in FY 2000 that were unanticipated at the time the final FY 2000 fee rule was published, the increased hourly rates, decreases in the numbers of licensees for certain categories of licenses, and, for the materials user class, the results of the biennial review of Part 170 fees required by the CFO Act. The biennial review shows that the average number of professional hours to conduct inspections and to review new license applications for materials licenses increased for some fee categories, decreased for others, or remained the same. The average time to conduct inspections and to review new license applications for the materials user license fee categories serve as accurate measures of the complexity of the licenses and, therefore, are used to allocate the materials budget for rebaselining the annual fees. Increases in the average professional time for inspections and reviews of new license applications result in higher annual fees for the affected fee categories, assuming all else remains the same (e.g., no loss of licensees).
The increase in annual fees (from $2,300 to $6,100) for transportation quality assurance approvals authorizing use only, which would have the largest percentage increase, is due in part to the allocation of budgeted costs for the enhanced participatory Part 71 rulemaking, headquarters and regional allegation and enforcement follow-up activities, and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards' risk study activities. In addition, there has been a decrease in the amount of budgeted costs allocated for Part 71 vendor inspections while the allocation of budgeted costs for quality assurance reviews remained about the same. The ratio of the budgeted costs for these activities is currently used to allocate the total annual fee amount for the transportation class, less the amount allocated to DOE for its certificates of compliance, between the quality assurance approvals authorizing use only and those that authorize use and fabrication/design. As a result of the decrease in budgeted costs for Part 71 vendor inspections, a larger percentage of the total annual fee amount for the transportation class would be allocated to quality assurance approvals authorizing use only than in the past.
Table III below shows the proposed rebaselined annual fees for FY 2001 for representative categories of licensees.
The annual fees assessed to each class of licensees include a surcharge to recover those NRC budgeted costs that are not directly or solely attributable to the classes of licensees, but must be recovered from licensees to comply with the requirements of OBRA-90, as amended. Based on the amendment to OBRA-90 that reduced the NRC's fee recovery requirement by 2 percent for FY 2001, from 100 percent to 98 percent of the NRC's budget authority, the total surcharge costs will be reduced by about $9.3 million. The total FY 2001 budgeted costs for these activities and the reduction to these amounts for fee recovery purposes are shown in Table IV. All dollar amounts in the Table are rounded.
As shown in Table IV, $48.3 million would be the total surcharge cost allocated to the various classes of licensees for FY 2001. The NRC would continue to allocate the surcharge costs, except Low-Level Waste (LLW) surcharge costs, to each class of licensees based on the percent of budget for that class. The NRC would continue to allocate the LLW surcharge costs based on the volume of LLW disposed of by certain classes of licensees. The proposed surcharge costs allocated to each class would be included in the annual fee assessed to each licensee. The FY 2001 proposed surcharge costs that would be allocated to each class of licensees are shown in Table V.
The budgeted costs allocated to each class of licensees and the calculations of the rebaselined fees are described in A through H below. The workpapers which support this proposed rule show in detail the allocation of NRC's
Because the FY 2001 fee rule will be a “major” final action as defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC's fees for FY 2001 would become effective 60 days after publication of the final rule in the
a.
The methodology allows for changes in the number of licensees or certificate holders, licensed-certified material/activities, and total programmatic resources to be recovered through annual fees. When a license or certificate is modified, this fuel facility fee methodology may result in a change in fee category and may have an effect on the fees assessed to other licensees and certificate holders. For example, if a fuel facility licensee amended its license/ certificate in such a way that it resulted in the licensee not being subject to Part 171 fees applicable to fuel facilities, the budget for the safety and/or safeguards component would be spread among the remaining licensees/certificate holders, and result in a higher fee for those remaining in that fee category.
The methodology is applied as follows. First, a fee category is assigned based on the nuclear material and activity authorized by the license or certificate. Although a licensee/ certificate holder may elect not to fully utilize a license/certificate, it is still used as the source for determining authorized nuclear material possession and use/activity. Next, the category and license/certificate information are used to determine where the licensee/certificate holder fits into the matrix. The matrix depicts the categorization of licensee/certificate holders by authorized material types and use/activities and the relative programmatic effort associated with each category. The programmatic effort (expressed as a value in the matrix) reflects the safety and safeguards risk significance associated with the nuclear material and use/activity and the commensurate generic regulatory program (i.e., scope, depth, and rigor).
The effort factors for the various subclasses of fuel facility licensees are summarized in the table below.
Applying these factors to the safety, safeguards, and surcharge components of the $17.6 million total annual fee amount for the fuel facility class results in the proposed annual fees for each licensee within the subcategories of this class summarized in the table below.
b.
The methodology for establishing Part 171 annual fees for uranium recovery licensees has not changed and is as follows.
(1) The methodology identifies three categories of licensees: conventional uranium mills (Class I facilities), solution mining uranium mills (Class II facilities), and mill tailings disposal facilities (11e(2) disposal facilities). Each of these categories benefits from the generic uranium recovery program efforts (e.g., rulemakings, staff guidance documents, etc.);
(2) The matrix relates the category and the level of benefit by program element and subelement;
(3) The two major program elements of the generic uranium recovery program are activities related to facility operations and those related to facility closure;
(4) Each of the major program elements was further divided into three subelements;
(5) The three major subelements of generic activities associated with uranium facility operations are regulatory efforts related to the operation of mills, handling and disposal of waste, and prevention of groundwater contamination. The three major subelements of generic activities associated with uranium facility closure are regulatory efforts related to decommissioning of facilities and land clean-up, reclamation and closure of tailings impoundments, and groundwater clean-up. Weighted values were assigned to each program element and subelement considering health and safety implications and the associated effort to regulate these activities. The applicability of the generic program in each subelement to each uranium recovery category was qualitatively estimated as either significant, some, minor, or none.
The relative weighted factors per facility type for the various subclasses of uranium recovery licensees are as follows:
Applying these factors to the $864,000 in budgeted costs to be recovered results in the following proposed annual fees.
The proposed FY 2001 annual fees for Class I and Class II facilities (conventional mills and in-situ mills), would drop below the $100,000 threshold currently established in § 171.19 for quarterly billing, and therefore, under the current requirements these licensees would be subject to annual fee billing based on the anniversary date of their license for FY 2001. In FY 1999 the reverse situation occurred for these licensees; i.e., in FY 1998 the annual fees were below the $100,000 quarterly billing threshold and the licensees were billed on the license anniversary date, but beginning in FY 1999 the licensees became subject to quarterly billing for the annual fees because the fees were over the $100,000 threshold. Because the annual fees for these licensees have been close to the $100,000 threshold, small changes to the annual fee amounts have resulted in frequent changes to their annual fee billing schedule. To provide stability in the billing schedule, the NRC is proposing to revise § 171.19 to establish a quarterly billing schedule for the Class I and Class II licensees, regardless of the annual fee amount. This would provide these licensees with a consistent, predictable schedule for paying their annual fees. As provided in § 171.19(b), if the amounts collected in the first three quarters of FY 2001 exceed the amount of the revised annual fee, the overpayment will be refunded.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Annual fee = Constant × [Application Fee + (Average Inspection Cost divided by Inspection Priority)]+ Inspection Multiplier × (Average Inspection Cost divided by Inspection Priority) + Unique Category Costs.
The constant is the multiple necessary to recover approximately $15.1 million in general costs and is 0.96 for FY 2001. The inspection multiplier is the multiple necessary to recover approximately $5.7 million in inspection costs for FY 2001, and is 1.2 for FY 2001. The unique category costs are any special costs that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category of licensees. For FY 2001, unique costs of approximately $143,000 were identified for the medical development program, an amount attributable to medical licensees.
The annual fee assessed to each licensee also includes a share of the $1.8 million in surcharge costs allocated to the materials user class of licensees and, for certain categories of these licenses, a share of the approximately $300,000 in LLW surcharge costs allocated to the class. The proposed annual fee for each fee category is shown in § 171.16(d).
h.
In the FY 2000 fee rule (65 FR 36946; June 12, 2000), the NRC stated that it would re-examine small entity fees each year that annual fees are rebaselined. Accordingly, the NRC has re-examined the small entity fees and does not believe that a change to the small entity fees is warranted for FY 2001. The NRC revised the small entity fees in FY 2000, for the first time since they were introduced in FY 1991 and FY 1992, based on the 25 percent increase in average total fees assessed to other materials licensees since the small entity fees were first established and on changes that had occurred in the fee structure for materials licensees over time (65 FR 36956, 36957). The NRC does not consider the approximately 13 percent decrease in the average FY 2001 fees for other materials licensees to be significant enough to warrant another change to the small entity fees this year.
Unlike the annual fees assessed to other licensees, the small entity fees are not designed to recover the agency costs associated with particular licensees. Rather, they are designed to provide some fee relief for qualifying small entity licensees while at the same time recovering from those licensees some of the NRC's costs for activities that benefit them. The costs not recovered from small entities must be recovered from other licensees. The current small entity fees of $500 and $2,300 provide considerable relief to many small entities.
In the future the NRC plans to re-examine small entity fees every two years, in the same years in which it conducts the biennial review of fees as required by the CFO Act, instead of each year that annual fees are rebaselined as indicated in the FY 2000 fee rule. The annual fees for materials users now include the cost of amendments, renewals, and inspections. However, at a maximum, annual fees are rebaselined every three years, but may be rebaselined earlier if warranted. Therefore, reviewing the small entity fees only when the annual fees are rebaselined results in a variable schedule for the re-examinations and any potential changes to the fees. Re-examining the small entity annual fees every two years, on the same schedule as the biennial review under the CFO Act, provides a routine, predictable schedule and allows licensees to anticipate when potential changes to these fees might occur.
The NRC currently sends an NRC Form 526, “Certification of Small Entity Status for the Purposes of Annual Fees Imposed Under 10 CFR Part 171,” with each annual fee invoice issued to materials licensees. Although the instructions on the form state that it is to be filed only by those licensees who qualify as a small entity under NRC's size standards, the NRC has received many improperly filed forms. When contacted, many of these licensees have indicated they completed the form because it was enclosed with the annual fee invoice. In an effort to minimize the number of improperly filed forms, the NRC is proposing to discontinue mailing the form with each annual fee invoice. Instead, licensees would be able to access NRC Form 526 on the NRC's external web site at
In summary, the NRC is proposing to—
1. Establish new rebaselined annual fees for FY 2001;
2. Revise § 171.16(c)(2) to eliminate the mailing of NRC Form 526 with the annual fee invoice to individual materials licensees;
3. Revise § 171.19 to establish a quarterly annual fee billing schedule for Class I and Class II uranium recovery licensees; and
4. Re-examine the small entity fees every two years, on the same schedule as the biennial review of fees required by the CFO's Act.
The Presidential Memorandum dated June 1, 1998, entitled, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” directed that the Federal government's writing be in
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless using such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or is otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC is amending the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its licensees and applicants as necessary to recover approximately 98 percent of its budget authority in FY 2001 as is required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement has been prepared for the proposed regulation. By its very nature, this regulatory action does not affect the environment and, therefore, no environmental justice issues are raised.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
With respect to 10 CFR Part 170, this proposed rule was developed pursuant to Title V of the Independent Offices Appropriation Act of 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701) and the Commission's fee guidelines. When developing these guidelines the Commission took into account guidance provided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 4, 1974, in
The Commission's fee guidelines were upheld on August 24, 1979, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in
(1) The NRC had the authority to recover the full cost of providing services to identifiable beneficiaries;
(2) The NRC could properly assess a fee for the costs of providing routine inspections necessary to ensure a licensee's compliance with the Atomic Energy Act and with applicable regulations;
(3) The NRC could charge for costs incurred in conducting environmental reviews required by NEPA;
(4) The NRC properly included the costs of uncontested hearings and of administrative and technical support services in the fee schedule;
(5) The NRC could assess a fee for renewing a license to operate a low-level radioactive waste burial site; and
(6) The NRC's fees were not arbitrary or capricious.
With respect to 10 CFR Part 171, on November 5, 1990, the Congress passed Pub. L. 101-508, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), which required that, for FYs 1991 through 1995, approximately 100 percent of the NRC budget authority be recovered through the assessment of fees. OBRA-90 was subsequently amended to extend the 100 percent fee recovery requirement through FY 2000. The FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act amended OBRA-90 to decrease the NRC's fee recovery amount from 100 percent to 98 percent of the NRC's budget authority for FY 2001. To comply with this statutory requirement, and in accordance with § 171.13, the NRC is publishing the proposed amount of the FY 2001 annual fees for reactor licensees, fuel cycle licensees, materials licensees, and holders of Certificates of Compliance, registrations of sealed source and devices and QA program approvals, and Government agencies. OBRA-90, consistent with the accompanying Conference Committee Report, and the amendments to OBRA-90, provides that—
(1) The annual fees be based on approximately 98 percent of the Commission's FY 2001 budget of $481.9 million less the amounts collected from Part 170 fees and funds directly appropriated from the NWF to cover the NRC's high level waste program;
(2) The annual fees shall, to the maximum extent practicable, have a reasonable relationship to the cost of regulatory services provided by the Commission; and
(3) The annual fees be assessed to those licensees the Commission, in its discretion, determines can fairly, equitably, and practicably contribute to their payment.
In addition, the NRC's FY 2001 appropriations language provides that $3.2 million appropriated from the General Fund for activities related to regulatory reviews and other assistance provided to the other Federal agencies and States be excluded from fee recovery.
10 CFR Part 171, which established annual fees for operating power reactors effective October 20, 1986 (51 FR 33224; September 18, 1986), was challenged and upheld in its entirety in
The NRC is required by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, as amended, to recover approximately 98 percent of its FY 2001 budget authority through the assessment of user fees. This act further requires that the NRC establish a schedule of charges that fairly and equitably allocates the aggregate amount of these charges among licensees.
This proposed rule establishes the schedules of fees that are necessary to implement the Congressional mandate for FY 2001. The proposed rule would result in increases in the annual fees charged to certain licensees and holders
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) was signed into law on March 29, 1996. The SBREFA requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written compliance guide for each rule for which the agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. Therefore, in compliance with the law, Attachment 1 to the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is the small entity compliance guide for FY 2001.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule and that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule. The backfit analysis is not required because these proposed amendments do not require the modification of or additions to systems, structures, components, or the design of a facility or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility.
Criminal penalties, Hazardous materials transportation, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Source material, Special nuclear material.
Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
Annual charges, Byproduct material, Holders of certificates, Registrations, Approvals, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 150, 170 and 171.
1. The authority citation for Part 150 continues to read as follows:
Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended, sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2021); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
Sections 150.3, 150.15, 150.15a, 150.31, 150.32 also issued under secs. 11e(2), 81, 68, Stat. 923, 935, as amended, secs. 83, 84, 92 Stat. 3033, 3039 (42 U.S.C. 2014e(2), 2111, 2113, 2114). Section 150.14 also issued under sec. 53, 68 Stat. 930, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073). Section 150.15 also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161). Section 150.17a also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 150.30 also issued under sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444 (42 U.S.C. 2282).
2. In § 150.20, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2) Shall file an amended NRC Form 241 or letter with the Regional Administrator to request approval for changes in work locations, radioactive material, or work activities different from the information contained on the initial NRC Form 241.
3. The authority citation for Part 170 is revised to read as follows:
sec. 9701, Pub. L. 97-258, 96 Stat. 1051 (31 U.S.C. 9701); sec. 301, Pub. L. 92-314, 86 Stat. 227 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, Pub. L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841); sec. 205a, Pub. L. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2842, as amended (31 U.S.C. 901, 902).
4. Section 170.2 is amended by adding a new paragraph (s) to read as follows:
(s) A holder of a general license granted by 10 CFR part 31 who is required to register a device(s).
5. Section 170.3 is amended by revising the definitions of Materials License and Special Projects:
(1) In response to a Generic Letter or NRC Bulletin that does not result in an amendment to the license, does not result in the review of an alternate method or reanalysis to meet the requirements of the Generic Letter, or does not involve an unreviewed safety issue;
(2) In response to an NRC request (at the Associate Office Director level or above) to resolve an identified safety, safeguards, or environmental issue, or to assist the NRC in developing a rule, regulatory guide, policy statement, generic letter, or bulletin; or (3) As a means of exchanging information between industry organizations and the NRC for the purpose of supporting the NRC's generic regulatory improvements or efforts.
6. In Section 170.12, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
(a)
7. Section 170.20 is revised to read as follows:
Fees for permits, licenses, amendments, renewals, special projects, 10 CFR part 55 re-qualification and replacement examinations and tests, other required reviews, approvals, and inspections under §§ 170.21 and 170.31 will be calculated using the following applicable professional staff-hour rates:
8. In § 170.21, the introductory text, Category K, and footnotes 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the table are revised to read as follows:
Applicants for construction permits, manufacturing licenses, operating licenses, import and export licenses, approvals of facility standard reference designs, re-qualification and replacement examinations for reactor operators, and special projects and holders of construction permits, licenses, and other approvals shall pay fees for the following categories of services.
9. Section 170.31 is revised to read as follows:
Applicants for materials licenses, import and export licenses, and other regulatory services, and holders of materials licenses or import and export licenses shall pay fees for the following categories of services. This schedule includes fees for health and safety and safeguards inspections where applicable.
10. Section 170.41 is revised to read as follows:
If the Commission determines that an applicant or a licensee has failed to pay a prescribed fee required in this part, the Commission will not process any application and may suspend or revoke any license or approval issued to the applicant or licensee. The Commission may issue an order with respect to licensed activities that the Commission determines to be appropriate or necessary to carry out the provisions of this part, parts 30, 31, 32 through 35, 40, 50, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, and 76 of this chapter, and of the Act.
11. The authority citation for Part 171 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 7601, Pub. L. 99-272, 100 Stat. 146, as amended by sec. 5601, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330, as amended by sec. 3201, Pub. L. 101-239, 103 Stat. 2132, as amended by sec. 6101, Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, as amended by sec. 2903a, Pub. L. 102-486, 106 Stat. 3125 (42 U.S.C. 2213, 2214); sec. 301, Pub. L. 92-314, 86 Stat. 227 (42 U.S.C. 2201w); sec. 201, Pub. L. 93-438, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841).
12. In Section § 171.5, the definition of Materials License is revised to read as follows:
13. In § 171.15, paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) are revised to read as follows:
(b)(1) The FY 2001 annual fee for each operating power reactor which must be collected by September 30, 2001, is $2,809,000.
(2) The FY 2001 annual fee is comprised of a base operating power reactor annual fee, a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee, and associated additional charges (surcharges). The activities comprising the FY 2001 spent storage/reactor decommissioning base annual fee are shown in paragraph (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2001 surcharge are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2001 base annual fee for operating power reactors are as follows:
(i) Power reactor safety and safeguards regulation except licensing and inspection activities recovered under part 170 of this chapter and generic reactor decommissioning activities.
(ii) Research activities directly related to the regulation of power reactors, except those activities specifically related to reactor decommissioning.
(iii) Generic activities required largely for NRC to regulate power reactors, e.g., updating part 50 of this chapter, or operating the Incident Response Center. The base annual fee for operating power reactors does not include generic activities specifically related to reactor decommissioning.
(c)(1) The FY 2001 annual fee for each power reactor holding a part 50 license that is in a decommissioning or possession only status and has spent fuel on-site and each independent spent fuel storage part 72 licensee who does not hold a part 50 license is $275,000.
(2) The FY 2001 annual fee is comprised of a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee (which is also included in the operating power reactor annual fee shown in paragraph (b) of this section), and an additional charge (surcharge). The activities comprising the FY 2001 surcharge are shown in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2001 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning rebaselined annual fee are:
(i) Generic and other research activities directly related to reactor decommissioning and spent fuel storage; and
(ii) Other safety, environmental, and safeguards activities related to reactor decommissioning and spent fuel storage, except costs for licensing and inspection activities that are recovered under part 170 of this chapter.
(d)(1) The activities comprising the FY 2001 surcharge are as follows:
(i) Low level waste disposal generic activities;
(ii) Activities not attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class of licensees (e.g., international cooperative safety program and international safeguards activities, support for the Agreement State program, and site decommissioning management plan (SDMP) activities); and
(iii) Activities not currently subject to 10 CFR part 170 licensing and inspection fees based on existing law or Commission policy, e.g., reviews and inspections conducted of nonprofit educational institutions, licensing actions for Federal agencies, and costs that would not be collected from small entities based on Commission policy in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
(2) The total FY 2001 surcharge allocated to the operating power reactor class of licensees is $38.2 million, not including the amount allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class. The FY 2001 operating power reactor surcharge to be assessed to each operating power reactor is approximately $367,000. This amount is calculated by dividing the total operating power reactor surcharge ($38.2 million) by the number of operating power reactors (104).
(3) The FY 2001 surcharge allocated to the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning class of licensees is $4.3 million. The FY 2001 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning surcharge to be assessed to each operating power reactor, each power reactor in decommissioning or possession only status that has spent fuel onsite, and to each independent spent fuel storage part 72 licensee who does not hold a part 50 license is approximately $35,600. This amount is calculated by dividing the total surcharge costs allocated to this class by the total number of power reactor licenses, except those that permanently ceased operations and have no fuel on site, and part 72 licensees who do not hold a part 50 license.
(e) The FY 2001 annual fees for licensees authorized to operate a non-power (test and research) reactor licensed under part 50 of this chapter, unless the reactor is exempted from fees under § 171.11(a), are as follows:
14. In § 171.16, paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) are revised to read as follows:
(c) A licensee who is required to pay an annual fee under this section may qualify as a small entity. If a licensee qualifies as a small entity and provides
(1) A licensee qualifies as a small entity if it meets the size standards established by the NRC (See 10 CFR 2.810).
(2) A licensee who seeks to establish status as a small entity for the purpose of paying the annual fees required under this section must file a certification statement with the NRC. The licensee must file the required certification on NRC Form 526 for each license under which it is billed. NRC Form 526 can be accessed through the NRC's external web site at
(3) For purposes of this section, the licensee must submit a new certification with its annual fee payment each year.
(4) The maximum annual fee a small entity is required to pay is $2,300 for each category applicable to the license(s).
(d) The FY 2001 annual fees for materials licensees and holders of certificates, registrations or approvals subject to fees under this section are shown in the following table. The FY 2001 annual fees are comprised of a base annual fee and an additional charge (surcharge). The activities comprising the FY 2001 surcharge are shown for convenience in paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) The activities comprising the surcharge are as follows:
(1) LLW disposal generic activities;
(2) Activities not directly attributable to an existing NRC licensee or class(es) of licensees; e.g., international cooperative safety program and international safeguards activities; support for the Agreement State program; Site Decommissioning Management Plan (SDMP) activities; and
(3) Activities not currently assessed licensing and inspection fees under 10 CFR part 170 based on existing law or Commission policy (e.g., reviews and inspections of nonprofit educational institutions and reviews for Federal agencies; activities related to decommissioning and reclamation; and costs that would not be collected from small entities based on Commission policy in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act).
15. In § 171.19, paragraphs (b) and (d) are revised to read as follows:
(b) Annual fees in the amount of $100,000 or more and described in the
(d) Annual fees of less than $100,000 must be paid as billed by the NRC. Materials license annual fees that are less than $100,000, except those for Class I and Class II uranium recovery licensees, are billed on the anniversary date of the license. The materials licensees that are billed on the anniversary date of the license are those covered by fee categories 1C, 1D, 2A(2) Other Facilities, 2A(3), 2A(4), 2B, 2C, 3A through 3P, 4B through 9D, 10A, and 10B.
This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended, (5 U.S.C. 601
The NRC has established standards for determining which NRC licensees qualify as small entities (10 CFR 2.801). These size standards reflect the Small Business Administration's most common receipts-based size standards and include a size standard for business concerns that are manufacturing entities. The NRC uses the size standards to reduce the impact of annual fees on small entities by establishing a licensee's eligibility to qualify for a
From FY 1991 through FY 2000, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA-90), as amended, required that the NRC recover approximately 100 percent of its budget authority, less appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund, by assessing license and annual fees. The FY 2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act amended OBRA-90 to decrease the NRC's fee recovery amount for FY 2001 to 98 percent of the NRC's budget. Certain NRC costs related to reviews and assistance provided to other Federal agencies and States were excluded from the fee recovery requirement for FY 2001 by the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act. The amount to be recovered for FY 2001 is approximately $453.3 million.
OBRA-90 requires that the schedule of charges established by rule should fairly and equitably allocate the total amount to be recovered from NRC's licensees and be assessed under the principle that licensees who require the greatest expenditure of agency resources pay the greatest annual charges. Since 1991, the NRC has complied with OBRA-90 by issuing a final rule that amends its fee regulations. These final rules have established the methodology used by NRC in identifying and determining the fees to be assessed and collected in any given fiscal year.
In FY 1995, the NRC announced that, in order to stabilize fees, annual fees would be adjusted only by the percentage change (plus or minus) in NRC's total budget authority, adjusted for changes in estimated collections for 10 CFR Part 170 fees, the number of licensees paying annual fees, and as otherwise needed to assure the billed amounts resulted in the required collections. The NRC indicated that if there were a substantial change in the total NRC budget authority or the magnitude of the budget allocated to a specific class of licensees, the annual fee base would be recalculated.
In FY 1999, the NRC concluded that there had been significant changes in the allocation of agency resources among the various classes of licensees and established rebaselined annual fees for FY 1999. The NRC stated in the final FY 1999 rule that to stabilize fees it would continue to adjust the annual fees by the percent change method established in FY 1995, unless there were a substantial change in the total NRC budget or the magnitude of the budget allocated to a specific class of licensees, in which case the annual fee base would be reestablished.
After carefully considering all factors, including the changes to the amount of the budget allocated to classes of licensees, and weighing the complex issues related to both fairness and stability of fees, the Commission has determined that it is appropriate to rebaseline its Part 171 annual fees in FY 2001. Rebaselining fees would result in reduced annual fees for a majority of the categories of licenses, and increased annual fees for other categories.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) is intended to reduce regulatory burdens imposed by Federal agencies on small businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. SBREFA also provides Congress with the opportunity to review agency rules before they go into effect. Under this legislation, the NRC annual fee rule is considered a “major” rule and must be reviewed by Congress and the Comptroller General before the rule becomes effective. SBREFA also requires that an agency prepare a guide to assist small entities in complying with each rule for which a final regulatory flexibility analysis is prepared. This Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) and the small entity compliance guide (Attachment 1) have been prepared for the FY 2001 fee rule as required by law.
The fee rule results in substantial fees being charged to those individuals, organizations, and companies that are licensed by the NRC, including those licensed under the NRC materials program. The comments received on previous proposed fee rules and the small entity certifications received in response to previous final fee rules indicate that NRC licensees qualifying as small entities under the NRC's size standards are primarily materials licensees. Therefore, this analysis will focus on the economic impact of the annual fees on materials licensees. About 20 percent of these licensees (approximately 1,400 licensees for FY 2000) have requested small entity certification in the past. A 1993 NRC survey of its materials licensees indicated that about 25 percent of these licensees could qualify as small entities under the NRC's size standards.
The commenters on previous fee rulemakings consistently indicated that the following results would occur if the proposed annual fees were not modified.
1. Large firms would gain an unfair competitive advantage over small entities. Commenters noted that small and very small companies (“Mom and Pop” operations) would find it more difficult to absorb the annual fee than a large corporation or a high-volume type of operation. In competitive markets, such as soils testing, annual fees would put small licensees at an extreme competitive disadvantage with their much larger competitors because the proposed fees would be the same for a two-person licensee as for a large firm with thousands of employees.
2. Some firms would be forced to cancel their licenses. A licensee with receipts of less than $500,000 per year stated that the proposed rule would, in effect, force it to relinquish its soil density gauge and license, thereby reducing its ability to do its work effectively. Other licensees, especially well-loggers, noted that the increased fees would force small businesses to get rid of the materials license altogether. Commenters stated that the proposed rule would result in about 10 percent of the well-logging licensees terminating their licenses immediately and approximately 25 percent terminating their licenses before the next annual assessment.
3. Some companies would go out of business.
4. Some companies would have budget problems. Many medical licensees noted that, along with reduced reimbursements, the proposed increase of the existing fees and the introduction of additional fees would significantly affect their budgets. Others noted that, in view of the cuts by Medicare and other third party carriers, the fees would produce a hardship and some facilities would experience a great deal of difficulty in meeting this additional burden.
Since annual fees for materials licenses were first established, approximately 3,000 license, approval, and registration terminations have been requested. Although some of these terminations were requested because the license was no longer needed or licenses or registrations could be combined, indications are that other termination requests were due to the economic impact of the fees.
To alleviate the significant impact of the annual fees on a substantial number of small entities, the NRC considered the following alternatives in accordance with the RFA, in developing each of its fee rules since 1991.
1. Base fees on some measure of the amount of radioactivity possessed by the licensee (e.g., number of sources).
2. Base fees on the frequency of use of the licensed radioactive material (e.g., volume of patients).
3. Base fees on the NRC size standards for small entities.
The NRC has reexamined its previous evaluations of these alternatives and continues to believe that establishment of a maximum fee for small entities is the most appropriate and effective option for reducing the impact of its fees on small entities.
The RFA and its implementing guidance do not provide specific guidelines on what constitutes a significant economic impact on a small entity. Therefore, the NRC has no benchmark to assist it in determining the amount or the percent of gross receipts that should be charged to a small entity. In developing the maximum small entity annual fee in FY 1991, the NRC examined its 10 CFR Part 170 licensing and inspection fees and Agreement State fees for those fee categories which were expected to have a substantial number of small entities. Six Agreement States; Washington, Texas, Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Utah were used as benchmarks in the establishment of the maximum small entity annual fee in 1991. Because small entities in those Agreement States were paying the fees, the NRC concluded that these fees did not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, those fees were considered a useful benchmark in establishing the NRC maximum small entity annual fee.
The NRC maximum small entity fee was established as an annual fee only. In addition to the annual fee, NRC small entity licensees were required to pay amendment, renewal and inspection fees. In setting the small entity annual fee, NRC ensured that the total amount small entities paid annually would not exceed the maximum paid in the six benchmark Agreement States.
Of the six benchmark states, the maximum Agreement State fee of $3,800 in Washington
In 1992, the NRC introduced a second, lower tier to the small entity fee in response to concerns that the $1,800 fee, when added to the license and inspection fees, still imposed a significant impact on small entities with relatively low gross annual receipts. For purposes of the annual fee, each small entity size standard was divided into an upper and lower tier. Small entity licensees in the upper tier continued to pay an annual fee of $1,800 while those in the lower tier paid an annual fee of $400.
Based on the changes that had occurred since FY 1991, the NRC re-analyzed its maximum small entity annual fees in FY 2000, and determined that the small entity fees should be increased by 25 percent to reflect the increase in the average fees paid by other materials licensees since FY 1991 as well as changes in the fee structure for materials licensees. The structure of the fees that NRC charged to its materials licensees changed during the period between 1991 and 1999. Costs for materials license inspections, renewals, and amendments, which were previously recovered through Part 170 fees for services, are now included in the Part 171 annual fees assessed to materials licensees. As a result, the maximum small entity annual fee increased from $1,800 to $2,300 in FY 2000. By increasing the maximum annual fee for small entities from $1,800 to $2,300, the annual fee for many small entities was reduced while at the same time materials licensees, including small entities, would pay for most of the costs attributable to them. The costs not recovered from small entities are allocated to other materials licensees and to power reactors.
While reducing the impact on many small entities, the NRC determined that the maximum annual fee of $2,300 for small entities may continue to have a significant impact on materials licensees with annual gross receipts in the thousands of dollars range. Therefore, the NRC continued to provide a lower-tier small entity annual fee for small entities with relatively low gross annual receipts, and for manufacturing concerns and educational institutions not State or publicly supported, with less than 35 employees. The NRC also increased the lower tier small entity fee by the same percentage increase to the maximum small entity annual fee. This 25 percent increase resulted in the lower tier small entity fee increasing from $400 to $500 in FY 2000.
In the FY 2000 fee rule (65 FR 36946; June 12, 2000), the NRC stated that it would re-examine small entity fees each year that annual fees are rebaselined. Accordingly, the NRC has re-examined the small entity fees, and does not believe that a change to the small entity fees is warranted for FY 2001. The revision to the small entity fees in FY 2000 was the first change to the fees since they were introduced in FY 1991 and FY 1992. The revised fees were based on on the 25 percent increase in average total fees assessed to other materials licensees since the small entity fees were first established and changes that had occurred in the fee structure for materials licensees over time. The NRC does not consider the approximately 13 percent decrease in the average FY 2001 fees for other licensees to be significant enough to warrant another change to the small entity fees this year.
Unlike the annual fees assessed to other licensees, the small entity fees are not designed to recover the agency costs associated with particular licensees. Rather, they are designed to provide some fee relief for qualifying small entity licensees while at the same time recovering from those licensees some of the agency's costs for activities that benefit them. The costs not recovered from small entities must be recovered from other licensees. The current small entity fees of $500 and $2,300 provide considerable relief to many small entities.
In the future the NRC plans to re-examine the small entity fees every two years, in the same years in which it conducts the biennial review of fees as required by the CFO Act, instead of each year that annual fees are rebaselined as indicated in the FY 2000 fee rule. The annual fees for materials users now include the cost of amendments, renewals, and inspections. However, at a maximum, annual fees are rebaselined every three years, but may be rebaselined earlier if warranted. Therefore, reviewing the small entity fees only when the annual fees are rebaselined results in a variable schedule for the re-examinations and any potential changes to the fees. Re-examining the small entity annual fees every two years, on the same schedule as the biennial review under the CFO Act, provides a routine, predictable schedule and allows licensees to anticipate when potential changes to these fees might occur. Therefore, the NRC plans to re-examine the small entity fees in FY 2003.
The NRC has determined that the 10 CFR Part 171 annual fees significantly impact a substantial number of small entities. A maximum fee for small entities strikes a balance between the requirement to recover 98 percent of the NRC budget and the requirement to consider means of reducing the impact of the fee on small entities. On the basis of its regulatory flexibility analysis, the NRC concludes that a maximum annual fee of $2,300 for small entities and a lower-tier small entity annual fee of $500 for small businesses and not-for-profit organizations with gross annual receipts of less than $350,000, small governmental jurisdictions with a population of less than 20,000, small manufacturing entities that have less than 35 employees, and educational institutions that are not State or publicly supported and have less than 35 employees reduces the impact on small entities. At the same time, these reduced annual fees are consistent with the objectives of OBRA-90. Thus, the fees for small entities maintain a balance between the objectives of OBRA-90 and the RFA. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions established in the FY 2000 fee rule remain valid for FY 2001.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written guide for each “major” final rule as defined by the Act. The NRC's fee rule, published annually to comply with the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (OBRA-90), as amended, is considered a “major” rule under SBREFA. Therefore, in compliance with the law, this compliance guide has been prepared to assist NRC material licensees comply with the FY 2001 fee rule.
Licensees may use this guide to determine whether they qualify as a small entity under NRC regulations and are eligible to pay reduced FY 2001 annual fees assessed under 10 CFR Part 171. The NRC has established two tiers of separate annual fees for those materials licensees who qualify as small entities under NRC's size standards.
Licensees who meet NRC's size standards for a small entity must submit a completed NRC Form 526 “Certification of Small Entity Status for the Purposes of Annual Fees Imposed Under 10 CFR Part 171” to qualify for the reduced annual fee. This form can be accessed on the NRC's external web site at
The NRC has defined a small entity for purposes of compliance with its regulations (10 CFR 2.810) as follows:
1. Small business—a for-profit concern that provides a service or a concern not engaged in manufacturing with average gross receipts of $5 million or less over its last 3 completed fiscal years;
2. Manufacturing industry—a manufacturing concern with an average number of 500 or fewer employees based upon employment during each pay period for the preceding 12 calendar months;
3. Small organizations—a—not-for-profit organization which is independently owned and operated and has annual gross receipts of $5 million or less;
4. Small governmental jurisdiction—a government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000;
5. Small educational institutional institution—an educational institution supported by a qualifying small governmental jurisdiction, or one that is not state or publicly supported and has 500 or fewer employees.
To further assist licensees in determining if they qualify as a small entity, we are providing the following guidelines, which are based on the Small Business Administration regulations.
1. A small business concern is an independently owned and operated entity which is not considered dominant in its field of operations.
2. The number of employees means the total number of employees in the parent company, any subsidiaries and/or affiliates, including both foreign and domestic locations (i.e., not solely the number of employees working for the licensee or conducting NRC licensed activities for the company).
3. Gross annual receipts includes all revenue received or accrued from any source, including receipts of the parent company, any subsidiaries and/or affiliates, and account for both foreign and domestic locations. Receipts include all revenues from sales of products and services, interest, rent, fees, and commissions, from whatever sources derived (i.e., not solely receipts from NRC licensed activities).
4. A licensee who is a subsidiary of a large entity does not qualify as a small entity.
In 10 CFR 171.16 (c), the NRC has established two tiers of small entity fees for licensees that qualify under the NRC's size standards. The fees are as follows:
To pay a reduced annual fee, a licensee must use NRC Form 526. The NRC is proposing to eliminate mailing NRC Form 526 with the annual fee invoice. Instead, licensees can access this form on the NRC's external web site at
1. File a separate NRC Form 526 for each annual fee invoice received.
2. Complete all items on NRC Form 526 as follows:
a. The license number and invoice number must be entered exactly as they appear on the annual fee invoice.
b. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code must be entered if known.
c. The licensee's name and address must be entered as they appear on the invoice. Name and/or address changes for billing purposes must be annotated on the invoice. Correcting the name and/or address on NRC Form 526, or on the invoice does not constitute a request to amend the license. Any request to amend a license is to be submitted to the respective licensing staffs in the NRC Regional or Headquarters Offices.
d. Check the appropriate size standard for which the licensee qualifies as a small entity. Check only one box. Note the following:
(1) A licensee who is a subsidiary of a large entity does not qualify as a small entity.
(2) The size standards apply to the licensee, including all parent companies and affiliates—not the individual authorized users listed in the license or the particular segment of the organization that uses licensed material.
(3) Gross annual receipts means all revenue in whatever form received or accrued from whatever sources—not solely receipts from licensed activities. There are limited exceptions as set forth at 13 CFR 121.104. These are: The term receipts excludes net capital gains or losses; taxes collected for and remitted to a taxing authority if included in gross or total income; proceeds from the transactions between a concern and its domestic or foreign affiliates (if also excluded from gross or total income on a consolidated return filed with the IRS); and amounts collected for another entity by a travel agent, real estate agent, advertising agent, or conference management service provider.
(4) The owner of the entity, or an official empowered to act on behalf of the entity, must sign and date the small entity certification.
The NRC sends invoices to its licensees for the full annual fee, even though some entities qualify for reduced fees as a small entity. Licensees who qualify as a small entity and file NRC Form 526, which certifies eligibility for small entity fees, may pay the reduced fee, which for a full year is either $2,300 or $500 depending on the size of the entity, for each fee category shown on the invoice. Licensees granted a license during the first six months of the fiscal year, and licensees who file for termination or for a possession only license and permanently cease licensed activities during the first six months of the fiscal year, pay only 50 percent of the annual fee for that year. Such an invoice states the “Amount Billed Represents 50% Proration.” This means the amount due from a small entity is not the prorated amount shown on the invoice, but rather one-half of the maximum annual fee shown on NRC Form 526 for the size standard under which the
A new small entity form (NRC Form 526) must be filed with the NRC each fiscal year to qualify for reduced fees in that year. Because a licensee's “size,” or the size standards, may change from year to year, the invoice reflects the full fee and a new Form 526 must be completed and returned in order for the fee to be reduced to the small entity fee amount. licensees will not be issued a new invoice for the reduced amount. The completed NRC Form 526, the payment of the appropriate small entity fee, and the “Payment Copy” of the invoice should be mailed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch at the address indicated on the invoice.
If you have questions regarding the NRC's annual fees, please call the license fee staff at 301-415-7554, e-mail the fee staff at
False certification of small entity status could result in civil sanctions being imposed by the NRC under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. 3801
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from January 29, 2001 to February 9, 2001, consists of the PMNs and TMEs, both pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. The “S” and “G” that precede the chemical names denote whether the chemical idenity is specific or generic.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
Barbara Cunningham, Director, Office of Program Management and Evaluation, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7401), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPPTS-51965 and the specific PMN number in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from January 29, 2001 to February 9, 2001, consists of the PMNs and TMEs, both pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
This status report identifies the PMNs and TMEs, both pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available. The “S” and “G” that precede the chemical names denote whether the chemical idenity is specific or generic.
In table I, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
In table II, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the TMEs received:
In table III, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Premanufacturer notices.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
Section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory) to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a premanufacture notice (PMN) or an application for a test marketing exemption (TME), and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from February 12, 2001 to February 28, 2001, consists of the PMNs, pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. The “S” and “G” that precede the chemical names denote whether the chemical idenity is specific or generic.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
Barbara Cunningham, Director, Office of Program Management and Evaluation, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (7401), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe the specific entities that this action may apply to. Although others may be affected, this action applies directly to the submitter of the premanufacture notices addressed in the action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPPTS-51966 and the specific PMN number in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Section 5 of TSCA requires any person who intends to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) a new chemical (i.e., a chemical not on the TSCA Inventory to notify EPA and comply with the statutory provisions pertaining to the manufacture of new chemicals. Under sections 5(d)(2) and 5(d)(3) of TSCA, EPA is required to publish a notice of receipt of a PMN or an application for a TME and to publish periodic status reports on the chemicals under review and the receipt of notices of commencement to manufacture those chemicals. This status report, which covers the period from February 12, 2001 to February 28, 2001, consists of the PMNs, pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period.
This status report identifies the PMNs, pending or expired, and the notices of commencement to manufacture a new chemical that the Agency has received under TSCA section 5 during this time period. If you are interested in information that is not included in the following tables, you may contact EPA as described in Unit II. to access additional non-CBI information that may be available. The “S” and “G” that precede the chemical names denote whether the chemical idenity is specific or generic.
In table I, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the PMNs received by EPA during this period: the EPA case number assigned to the PMN; the date the PMN was received by EPA; the projected end date for EPA's review of the PMN; the submitting manufacturer; the potential uses identified by the manufacturer in the PMN; and the chemical identity.
In table II, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the Notices of Commencement to manufacture received:
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Premanufacturer notices.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Proposed Criteria and Request for Public Comment.
This Notice provides the Bureau of the Census' (Census Bureau's) proposed criteria for defining urban and rural territory based on the results of Census 2000. It also provides a description of the changes from the criteria used for the 1990 census. The Census Bureau identifies and classifies urban and rural population and delineates urbanized areas (UAs) after each decennial census using criteria that originated with the 1950 census. Since the 1950 census, the Census Bureau has reviewed and revised these criteria for each decennial census. These criteria revisions over the years reflect the Census Bureau's desire to improve the classification of urban and rural population by refining the criteria to take advantage of improvements in data collection and reporting methodologies as well as advancements in technology.
Since the 1990 census, significant technological advancements, together with already existing nationwide block numbering (which was initiated with the 1990 census), has made it possible to classify urban and rural territory on a uniform basis. The Census Bureau proposes a number of significant changes to the criteria for classification of urban and rural population to make use of this opportunity to meet its objective of a uniform result nationwide.
The Census Bureau identifies and tabulates data for the urban and rural population and territory solely for the purpose of statistical presentation and comparison. It does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any nonstatistical uses that may be made of these areas or their associated data, nor does it attempt to meet the requirements of such nonstatistical program uses. Nonetheless, the Census Bureau recognizes that some federal and state agencies are legally required to use the Census Bureau-defined urban and rural classifications for allocating program funds, setting program standards, and implementing aspects of their programs. The agencies that make such nonstatistical uses of the areas and data should be aware that the changes to the urban and rural criteria also might affect the implementation of their programs.
If a federal, state, local, or tribal agency voluntarily uses these urban and rural criteria in a nonstatistical program, it is that agency's responsibility to ensure that the results are appropriate for such use. In considering the appropriateness of such nonstatistical program uses, the Census Bureau urges each agency to consider permitting appropriate modifications of the results of implementing the urban and rural criteria specifically for the purposes of its program. When a program permits such modifications, the Census Bureau urges each agency to use descriptive terminology that clearly identifies the different criteria being applied so as to avoid confusion with the Census Bureau's official urban and rural classifications.
Any comments, suggestions, or recommendations concerning this Census 2000 proposed program in this notice should be submitted in writing April 27, 2001.
Address all written comments to the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 2049, Federal Building 3, Washington, DC 20233-0001.
Robert Marx, Chief, Geography Division, Census Bureau, Room 651, WP-1, Washington, DC 20233-7400, telephone (301) 457-1099-2131, or e-mail (
This notice does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action” as specified in Executive Order 12866.
Because a notice of program criteria is not required by Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), section 553 or any other law, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared (5 U.S.C. 603 (a)).
This program notice does not represent a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Title 44, U.S.C., Chapter 35.
The following criteria will apply to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The Census Bureau may apply these criteria to other areas as well.
For Census 2000, an urbanized area (UA) will consist of a densely settled core of census block groups (BGs)
A. The “densely settled core” of a UA or UC shall include the following:
1. One or more contiguous
2. One or more contiguous census blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 ppsm, if no qualifying BG exists.
3. One or more census BGs that have a land area less than or equal to 2 square miles, a population density of at least 500 ppsm, and that are contiguous with the census BGs and census blocks identified by criterion I.A.1. (Figures 1 and 6).
4. One or more contiguous census blocks that have a population density of at least 500 ppsm and that are contiguous with the qualifying census BGs and census blocks identified by criterion I.A.1., I.A.2., or I.A.3. (Figures 2 and 7).
5. The Census Bureau will include in the core any noncontiguous census BG(s) and/or census block(s) that otherwise qualifies based on population density and land area if it can be reached using a “hop” connection. That is, if the distance to the core is no greater than 0.5 miles, and it is connected to the core by one or more nonqualifying census blocks that:
a. When combined, have the highest population density along the shortest road connection, and
b. Has a combined population density of at least 500 ppsm, or
c. The least populated area (core or noncontiguous census BG(s) or census block(s) has a population greater than or equal to 1,000 (Figures 3 and 9).
6. Census BGs and/or census blocks surrounded by the core, as defined above, provided the BGs or blocks contain fewer than 5 square miles
7. Census BGs and/or blocks that are indentations into the core, as long as the indentation is no longer than 1 mile across the open end, and has a length at least three times greater than the distance across the open end (Figure 8).
B. Census BGs and/or census blocks adjacent to a UA or UC core consists of the following:
1. Territory made up of one or more contiguous census blocks, with a population density of at least 500 ppsm, that are not contiguous to the core, provided that the core of the UA or UC has a population of at least 1,000, and that the contiguous blocks are within the distance of either a jump, a jump plus one or more hops, or an uninhabitable territory connection.
2. The following connection criteria determine the method used for connecting densely settled noncontiguous territory to the qualifying core of a UA or UC:
a. The Census Bureau will include additional noncontiguous area in a UA or UC using a “jump” connection if the noncontiguous area is within 2.5 miles of the main body of a core that has a total population of at least 1,500 people, and is connected to it by one or more nonqualifying census blocks that:
(1) Are adjacent to a road connection;
(2) When combined, have the highest population density along the connection; and
(3) Together with the qualifying outlying blocks/BGs, have a combined population density of at least 500 ppsm (Figures 3 and 10), or the noncontiguous qualifying blocks/BGs has a total population greater than or equal to 1,000.
The Census Bureau will not include additional noncontiguous area in a UA or UC if the connection required to include it is greater than 0.5 miles and the link required to connect the additional area starts from territory already qualifying under criterion I.B.1.b.
b. For territory added using a jump, the Census Bureau will include additional noncontiguous area in a UA or UC that is connected to territory added using a jump by using a “hop” connection if the distance between the UA or UC is within 0.5 miles of qualifying territory, and connected to it by one or more nonqualifying census blocks that:
(1) When combined, have the highest population density along the shortest road connection; and
(2) Together with the outlying qualifying territory, have a combined population density of at least 500 ppsm (Figures 3 and 9), or the noncontiguous qualifying territory has a total population greater than or equal to 1,000. Hop connections are allowed after jump connections as long as the conditions in criterion I.B.1.b. still apply.
c. The Census Bureau will include uninhabitable territory
(1) The noncontiguous qualifying territory has a total population greater than or equal to 1,000; or
(2) The overall population density of the linking and noncontiguous qualifying territory (excluding water) has a total population density of at least 500 ppsm (Figure 4).
Hops are allowed after uninhabitable territory connections as long as the conditions in criterion I.B.1.a. still apply.
3. Other territory with a population density of less than 500 ppsm, provided that it:
a. Eliminates an enclave of no more than 5 square miles in the territory otherwise qualifying for a UA or UC when the surrounding territory qualifies on the basis of population density, or
b. Closes an indentation in the boundary of the territory otherwise qualifying for inclusion in a UA or UC if the contiguous territory qualifies on the basis of population density, provided that the indentation:
(1) Is no more than 1 mile across the open end;
(2) Has a length at least 3 times greater than the distance across the open end;
(3) Is closeable by means of a census block boundary located across or close to its open end; and
(4) Encompasses no more than 5 square miles.
4. As a result of the UA and UC delineation, an incorporated place
The Census Bureau will identify one or more central places for each UA and UC (if an incorporated place or CDP exists within the UC) using the following criteria:
A. The UA or UC central place is an incorporated place or CDP with the most population within the UA or UC. Additional places may become UA or UC central places provided that:
1. The place's population within a UA or UC exceeds 50,000 people; or
2. The place's population is at least
The title of a UA or UC identifies the place(s) that is (are) most populated within the UA or UC. All population requirements for places and minor civil divisions
The following criteria are used to determine UA and UC titles:
1. The UA or UC title includes the name of the incorporated place with the most population within the UA or UC (minimum population of 2,500). As many as two additional incorporated place names can be part of the UA or UC title. Additional incorporated place names are added to the title, provided that either the incorporated place's UA or UC population exceeds 250,000 people or the incorporated place has both (1) a UA or UC population of at least 2,500 and (2) a UA or UC population that is at least
If the UA or UC does not contain an incorporated place having at least 2,500 people, the UA or UC title will include the single name that occurs first from the following list:
a. The nonmilitary CDP with the largest population within the UA or UC, if its population is at least 2,500;
b. The incorporated place with the largest population within the UA or UC;
c. The nonmilitary CDP with the largest population within the UA or UC;
d. The military CDP with the largest population within the UA or UC;
e. The governmental MCD with the largest population within the UA or UC; or
f. A local name recognized for the area by the United States Geological Survey's Geographic Names Information System, with preference given to post office names recognized by the United States Postal Service (USPS).
2. The criterion for the sequence of place or MCD names in the UA or UC title consists of the qualifying names in descending order of their Census 2000 population within the UA or UC.
3. The UA or UC title will include the USPS abbreviation of the name of each state into which the UA or UC extends. The order of the state names is the same as the order of the related place or MCD names in the UA or UC title. For UAs or UCs that extend into states in which there are no place names as part of the UA or UC title, the names of these states are included in descending order of the state's Census 2000 population within the UA or UC.
4. If a single place or MCD qualifies as the title of more than one UA or UC, the largest UA or UC will use the name of the place or MCD. The smaller UA or UC will have a title consisting of the place or MCD name and a compass directional. The compass directional will generally describe the location of the lesser populated UA or UC; for example, a UA titled Allenville and a UC titled Allenville South.
5. If any name in a UA or UC name duplicates a name in another UA or UC within the same state, the name of the county that has most of the population of the largest place or MCD will be appended after the duplicate place or MCD name in parentheses for each UA or UC. If there is no central place or MCD, then the name of the county with the greatest population residing in the UA or UC will be appended. For example, Springfield (Ames County), OH, and Springfield (Jefferson County), OH.
The Census Bureau will assign a 5-digit numeric code to each UA and UC. The code will be based on an alphabetic sequence of all UA and UC names, and sequenced by state code where names repeat.
The Census Bureau uses the geographic structure of metropolitan areas (MAs), which includes metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), consolidated metropolitan statistical areas (CMSAs), and primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs) to determine when to define separate contiguous UAs.
The Census Bureau will split UAs when the following conditions exist:
1. Two or more qualifying UAs are in different MSAs or PMSAs, and the distance along which their areas are contiguous is less than 3 miles.
The split will occur at the location nearest the MSA or PMSA boundary along which their area of contiguity is less than 3 miles.
2. Two or more qualifying UAs are in different CMSAs, and the distance along which their areas are contiguous is less than 3 miles. The split will occur at the CMSA boundary.
The Census Bureau will classify as urban all population residing within the boundaries of UAs and UCs. Conversely, the Census Bureau will classify as rural all population and territory that are not within any UA or UC.
The following summary describes the most important differences between the 1990 census UA criteria and the UA criteria proposed for Census 2000:
A. The Census Bureau will not automatically recognize previously existing UA territory for Census 2000 UA delineation. There will be no “grandfathering” of areas that qualified for earlier censuses. In past censuses, the Census Bureau generally included all territory from previous UA
Grandfathering creates a significant impediment when trying to implement UA criteria changes. When areas that would not qualify under new criteria are retained within UAs due to the use of “grandfathering,” this diminishes the effect of the new criteria by retaining areas that the new criteria otherwise would exclude. Therefore, “grandfathering” creates an uneven application of the criteria where similar nonqualifying areas are either retained or excluded from different UAs based solely on “grandfathering.”
B. The Census Bureau will use UCs rather than places to determine the total urban population outside of UAs. Previously, place boundaries were used to determine the urban and rural classification of territory outside of UAs; all incorporated places that had at least 2,500 people had all or part (based on the extended city criteria) of their population classified as urban. The entire land area and population of all CDPs with a population of at least 2,500
Urban classification, based solely on the boundaries of incorporated places and CDPs, is very uneven and limited. Urban classification of a place outside of a UA stopped at the place's boundary. Densely settled areas that were adjacent to a qualifying place were not classified as urban. Areas that were densely settled and included more than 2,500 inhabitants, but did not include a place with a population of at least 2,500, were classified as rural. CDPs that were overbounded, containing little densely settled area, but with a population of at least 2,500, always were classified as entirely urban.
The UC concept, based only on census BG and census block density, does not recognize incorporated place or CDP boundaries (except where the boundaries serve as qualifying BG or block boundaries). Densely settled qualifying agglomerations of 2,500 or more people qualify regardless of the total population, or even the existence, of incorporated places or CDPs. This eliminates bias by removing the effect of state laws governing incorporation and annexation or of local participation in the CDP program.
C. The extended city criteria are extensively modified for 2000. Any place that is split by a UA or UC boundary is referred to as an extended place. Previously, sparsely settled areas were examined using density and area measurements to determine whether or not they were excluded from the UA.
The 1990 extended city criteria complemented the previous UA criteria whose focus was to include whole places wherever possible, except for those incorporated places that were very overbounded and very large. The use of different density thresholds within incorporated place territory (100 ppsm rather than 1,000 ppsm outside of places) again was biased based on state laws of incorporation and annexation. The new urban criteria, based solely on the population density of census BGs and census blocks, will provide a continuum of urban areas.
D. The proposed criteria increase the permitted jump distance from 1.5 to 2.5 miles. Jumps between qualifying areas that are less than or equal to 0.5 miles are hops, not jumps. In addition, noncontiguous areas with a population of 1,000 or more qualify for inclusion regardless of the overall combined density of the qualifying and connecting areas.
The increase in the permitted jump distance is proposed as a means to recognize improvements in the transportation network, and the associated changes in development patterns that reflect these improvements, coupled with governmental influence to provide additional “green space” between developments.
The Census Bureau developed the use of hops to extend the urban definition across small nonqualifying census blocks, thereby avoiding the need to designate the break in qualifying blocks as a jump. Most of these hop blocks are developed for nonresidential uses, such as schools, shopping centers, office complexes, industrial parks, and parks or other green space.
E. An indentation in qualifying territory has to be three times longer than the distance across its mouth for its inclusion in a UA or UC. Previously, an indentation only had to be two times longer. Increasing the distance it takes for inclusion of indentations reduces the chances of sparsely settled area along the fringe of a core being classified as urban.
F. The revised uninhabitable jump criteria are more restrictive regarding the types of terrain over which an uninhabitable jump can be made than was permitted under the 1990 census UA criteria.
The new restriction on the types of territory that can be treated as uninhabitable is an attempt to remove ambiguity from the designation of undevelopable or uninhabitable territory. The 1990 census criteria permitted jumps across various types of supposedly undevelopable terrain based on information that normally is not contained within the TIGER data base. For example, floodplains, mud flats, steep slopes, and marshes were designated as undevelopable, but only where a census or local official specifically requested the designation. Because this type of terrain information usually does not exist within the TIGER data base, attempting to use such information under the current criteria is inappropriate. Therefore, the designation of uninhabitable territory is limited to those types of terrain and land use for which the TIGER data base has a complete inventory, such as bodies of water, national parks and monuments, and military installations.
G. The UA central place and title criteria will no longer follow standards predefined by other federal agencies. Previously, many UA central places and titles were based on MA central city definitions set forth by the Office of Management and Budget.
The new MA criteria will be, and always have been, applied later than the UA criteria. To avoid creating a situation in which the 2000 UA or UC central places and titles would need to follow MA central city definitions that were established in the early 1990s, these criteria create an objective zero-based approach.
A. The aforementioned changes in urban criteria may classify as much as three percent (five million) more people as urban than the previous criteria did.
The majority of this increase will come from how urban population is defined outside of UAs. Under the former criteria, urban population outside of UAs was limited to people living in incorporated places and CDPs that had a total population of 2,500 or more. With the change to UC delineation, many densely settled unincorporated areas will be classified as urban for the first time, as well as places having a population fewer than 2,500 that adjoin densely settled territory that brings the total population of the area to 2,500 or more.
The overwhelming majority of densely settled unincorporated areas are located adjacent to incorporated places. Incorporated places in states with strict annexation laws are less likely to annex the densely settled areas that are adjacent to them. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania are states with strict annexation laws. These states will have a higher proportional increase in urban population than those states with liberal annexation laws, such as Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas, where incorporated places are more likely to annex adjacent densely settled areas.
Another element of the criteria that will cause an increase in total urban population is the inclusion into UAs of nearby areas that did not qualify under the former jump criteria. Some areas that were excluded from a 1990 UA because it took two jumps to get to them may be included in a Census 2000 UA because one of the jumps is now classified as a hop. Others may be included because of the increase in the jump distance from 1.5 to 2.5 miles.
B. The total urban area may decrease by as much as 7 percent (6,600 square miles).
The decrease in urban area is due to the removal of the whole place and extended city qualification criteria and
C. When the Census 2000 UA criteria are applied using 1990 census data, the following four 1990 census UAs fail to qualify using the proposed criteria:
The removal of the whole place qualification criteria is the primary reason why these four areas may fail to qualify as UAs following Census 2000. The 1990 census whole place qualification criteria required that whole CDPs were either included or excluded from a 1990 UA, but there is no requirement under the Census 2000 criteria to include whole CDPs. The 1990 UA qualification of Brunswick, Dover, and Ithaca relied on the inclusion of whole CDPs, but large areas of these CDPs did not meet the population density requirement under the 2000 criteria. Bristol was a 1980 UA, which by virtue of “grandfathering,” qualified all 1980 UA territory as 1990 qualifying territory. In addition, the entire area of Bristol City was included in the UA because it failed to meet the extended city criteria. However, portions of Bristol City do not qualify under the Census 2000 criteria because of low population density.
Even though the 1990 UAs listed above fail to qualify using Census 2000 criteria and 1990 data, they do not necessarily indicate that they will not qualify as Census 2000 UAs. There may have been positive population growth since 1990 in those four areas such that the total qualifying population will rise above 50,000. As stated previously, 1990 census population data were used to determine the qualifying area for these four 1990 UAs. No other 1990 UAs failed to qualify as a result of the criteria changes.
A. Former urban places may be classified as rural under the Census 2000 UC criteria.
The UC criteria do not qualify incorporated places and CDPs that have a population of 2,500 or more as urban based solely on their total populations. Urban classification is based solely on the delineation of a qualifying UC of at least 2,500 people at a density of at least 500. Those places that do not have a qualifying UC of at least 2,500 population based primarily on density will be classified as rural. Places with a population just above 2,500 and those with low densities or dispersed cores may not qualify as urban. Conversely, incorporated places and CDPs that have a population less than 2,500 may be classified wholly or partially as urban when the population outside the place is inside part of a qualifying UC that reaches the 2,500 population threshold.
Withdrawal of Notice Published on March 23, 2001 and Publication of New Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2001.
The Secretary invites applications for new awards for FY 2001 under the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational and Technical Institutions Program (TCPVTIP or the program) authority of section 117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (the Act or the 1998 amendments) (20 U.S.C. 2327) and announces deadline dates for the transmittal of applications for funding under the program.
(a) Is formally controlled, or has been formally sanctioned or chartered, by the governing body of an Indian tribe or tribes;
(b) Offers a technical degree or certificate granting program;
(c) Is governed by a board of directors or trustees, a majority of whom are Indians;
(d) Demonstrates adherence to stated goals, a philosophy, or a plan of operation, that fosters individual Indian economic and self-sufficiency opportunity, including programs that are appropriate to stated tribal goals of developing individual entrepreneurships and self-sustaining economic infrastructures on reservations;
(e) Has been in operation for at least 3 years;
(f) Holds accreditation with or is a candidate for accreditation by a nationally recognized accrediting authority for postsecondary vocational and technical education; and
(g) Enrolls the full-time equivalent of not less than 100 students, of whom a majority are Indians.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
(b) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) as follows:
(1) 34 CFR part 74 (Administration of Grants and Agreements to Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations).
(2) 34 CFR part 75 (Direct Grant Programs).
(3) 34 CFR part 77 (Definitions that Apply to Department Regulations).
(4) 34 CFR part 81 (General Education Provisions Act—Enforcement).
(5) 34 CFR part 82 (New Restrictions on Lobbying).
(6) 34 CFR part 85 (Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants)).
(7) 34 CFR part 86 (Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention).
(8) 34 CFR part 97 (Protection of Human Subjects).
(9) 34 CFR part 98 (Student Rights In Research, Experimental Programs and Testing).
(10) 34 CFR part 99 (Family Educational Rights and Privacy).
This notice implements section 117 of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-332), enacted October 31, 1998. Section 117 authorizes the Secretary to award grants to tribally controlled postsecondary vocational and technical institutions to operate vocational and technical education programs.
The 1998 amendments to the Perkins Act changed many of the requirements applicable to the TCPVTIP. Former grant recipients under the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions Program will find that the changes brought about by the 1998 amendments are likely to have a noticeable impact on how tribal postsecondary institutions must now operate projects.
The following summary is intended to help potential applicants to become familiar with important changes to the TCPVTIP and with the way in which these changes impact on the administration of the TCPVTIP.
(a)
(b)
(2) While section 117(e)(1)(B) of the Act continues to authorize the use of grant funds for capital expenditures, including operations and maintenance, and minor improvements and repair, and physical plant maintenance costs, under the Act these costs are allowable only when incurred for the conduct of programs funded under section 117 of the Act. (20 U.S.C. 2327(e)(1)(B)).
(3) Section 117(e)(1)(A) of the Act specifically authorizes student stipends, whereas the previous statute did not. Institutions may provide a stipend to a student to enable the student to participate in a vocational and technical education program under section 117 of the Act. (20 U.S.C. 2327(e)(1)(A)).
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Under section 117(h)(2)(C) of the Act, the Indian student count does not include either credit earned by students for purposes of obtaining a high school degree or its equivalent, or the number of students registered in programs that provide a high school degree or its equivalent. (20 U.S.C. 2327(h)(2)(C)).
If grantees use inconsistent methods for converting credit and clock hours to a full-time equivalent, in order to arrive at a consistent calculation of the full-time equivalent for students in summer and continuing education programs using the semester, trimester, or quarter system, the Secretary will divide the number of credit hours by 12 and the number of clock hours by 24.
(a) An educational institution in any State that_
(1) Admits as regular students only persons having a certificate of graduation from a school providing secondary education, or the recognized equivalent of such a certificate;
(2) Provides an educational program for which the institution awards a bachelor's degree or provides not less than a 2-year program that is acceptable for full credit toward such a degree;
(3) Is a public or other nonprofit institution; and
(4) Is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association, or if not so accredited, is an institution that has been granted preaccreditation status by such an agency or association that has been recognized by the Secretary of the Interior for the granting of preaccreditation status, and the Secretary of the Interior has determined that there is satisfactory assurance that the institution will meet the accreditation standards of such an agency or association within a reasonable time.
(b) The term also includes—
(1) Any school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation and that meets the provisions of paragraphs (a)(1), (3), and (4) of this definition.
(2) A public or nonprofit private educational institution in any State that, in lieu of the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this definition, admits as regular students persons who are beyond the age of compulsory school attendance in the State in which the institution is located.
(a) Is formally controlled, or has been formally sanctioned or chartered, by the governing body of an Indian tribe or tribes;
(b) Offers a technical degree or certificate granting program;
(c) Is governed by a board of directors or trustees, a majority of whom is Indians;
(d) Demonstrates adherence to stated goals, a philosophy, or a plan of operation that fosters individual Indian economic and self-sufficiency opportunity, including programs that are appropriate to stated tribal goals of developing individual entrepreneurships and self-sustaining economic infrastructures on reservations;
(e) Has been in operation for at least 3 years;
(f) Holds accreditation with or is a candidate for accreditation by a nationally recognized accrediting authority for postsecondary vocational and technical education; and
(g) Enrolls the full-time equivalent of not less than 100 students, of whom a majority is Indians.
(1) Offer a sequence of courses that provides an individual with the academic and technical knowledge and skills the individual needs to prepare for further education and careers (other than careers requiring a baccalaureate, master's, or doctoral degree) in current or emerging employment sectors; and
(2) Include competency-based applied learning that contributes to an individual's academic knowledge, higher-order reasoning and problem-solving skills, work attitudes, general employability skills, technical skills, and occupational-specific skills.
For the purposes of this definition, the term “sequence of courses” means a series of courses in which vocational and academic education are integrated, and which directly relates to, and leads to, both academic and occupational competencies.
Applicants are encouraged to review all applicable definitions in section 3 of the Act.
Under the TCPVTIP, projects may use grant funds to pay for the following—
(a)
(1) The maintenance and operation of the vocational and technical education program funded under section 117 of the Act, including development costs, costs of basic and special instruction (including special programs for individuals with disabilities and academic instruction), materials, student costs, administrative expenses, boarding costs, transportation, student services, daycare and family support programs for students and their families (including contributions to the costs of education for dependents) and student stipends;
(2) Capital expenditures, including operations and maintenance, and minor improvements and repair, and physical plant maintenance costs, for the conduct of vocational and technical education programs funded under section 117 of the Act; and
(3) Cost associated with the repair, upkeep, replacement, and upgrading of instructional equipment used in vocational and technical education programs funded under the grant. (20 U.S.C. 2327(e)(1)).
(b)
(2) In order to receive a stipend, the student must—
(i) Be enrolled in a vocational and technical education project funded under this program as at least a half-time student;
(ii) Be in regular attendance in a TCPVTIP project and meet the tribally controlled postsecondary institution's attendance requirement;
(iii) Maintain satisfactory progress in his or her course of study according to the tribally controlled postsecondary institution's published standards of satisfactory progress; and
(iv) Have an acute economic need that—
(A) Prevents participation in a project funded under this program; and
(B) Cannot be met through a work-study program.
(3) Acute economic need means an income, of the family of a dependent student or of an independent student, that is at or below the national poverty level according to the latest available data from the Department of Commerce or the Department of Health and Human Services Poverty Guidelines.
(4) The amount of a stipend may be the greater of either the minimum hourly wage prescribed by State or local law, or the minimum hourly wage established under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(5) An institution may only award a stipend if the stipend combined with other resources the student receives does not exceed the student's financial need. The student's financial need is the difference between the student's cost of attendance and the financial aid or other resources that will be used to defray the costs of the student participating in the TCPVTIP.
(6) To calculate the amount of a student's stipend, a grantee would multiply the number of hours a student actually attends vocational and technical education instruction by the amount of the minimum hourly wage that is prescribed by State or local law, or by the minimum hourly wage that is established under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
If a grantee uses the Fair Labor Standards Act minimum hourly wage of $6.15 and a student attends classes for 18 hours a week, the student's stipend would be $110.70 for the week during which the student attends classes ($6.15 × 18 = 110.70).
(a) The portion of any student financial assistance received under the Act that is made available for attendance costs described in paragraph (b) of this section of the notice may not be considered as income or resources in determining eligibility for assistance under any other program funded in whole or in part with Federal funds.
(b) For purposes of this section, attendance costs are—
(1) Tuition and fees normally assessed a student carrying the same academic workload as determined by the institution, including costs for rental or purchases of any equipment, materials, or supplies required of all students in the same course of study; and
(2) An allowance for books, supplies, transportation, dependent care, and miscellaneous personal expenses for a student attending an institution on at least a half-time basis, as determined by the institution.
Except as specifically provided for in the Act, eligibility for assistance under this program shall not preclude any tribally controlled postsecondary vocational and technical institution from receiving Federal financial assistance under any program authorized under the Higher Education Act of 1965, or any other applicable program for the benefit of institutions of
To receive a grant under the TCPVTIP, an applicant must include the following information in the application:
(a) Documentation showing that the institution is eligible according to each of the requirements in the “Eligible Applicants” section of this notice, including meeting the definition of the term “institution of higher education” (e.g., proof of the accreditation of the institution, resolution from an Indian tribe).
(b) For each of the past three academic years—
(i) A list of the vocational and technical education certificate and degree programs that were offered by the institution (e.g., Nursing, Automotive Technology); and
(ii) For the vocational and technical education program(s), the total number of students that enrolled, dropped out, graduated, and were placed in additional training or education, military service, or employment after graduation.
(c) The institution's Indian student counts, as defined in this notice, for academic years 1998-1999 and 1999-2000.
(d) The courses of study to be supported under the TCPVTIP project.
(e) The number of students to be served in the proposed project in each course of study.
(f) Goals and objectives for the proposed project, including how the goals and objectives further the tribal economic develop plan.
(g) Long-range and short-range needs to be addressed by the project, including the institution's plans for the placement of students (e.g., placement into additional training or education, military service, or employment).
(h) A detailed budget identifying the costs to be paid with a grant under this program and resources available from other Federal, State, and local sources, including any student financial aid, that will be used to achieve the goals and objectives of the proposed project.
(i) Strategies and resources for objectively evaluating the institution's progress towards, and success in, achieving the goals and objectives of the project. (20 U.S.C. 2302(28); 2327(a), (c), (d), (e), (g)(1), and (h)(2))
Under the authority of 34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii), the Secretary gives preference to applications that meet the following competitive priorities. The Secretary awards up to five points to applicants that meet the competitive priority in a particularly effective way. These priority points are in addition to any points an applicant earns under the selection criteria for the program.
Projects that propose to introduce, expand, or refine “high interest/high demand” vocational and technical education programs in the applicant institution. The need for “high interest/high demand” programs should be based on the institution reviewing such evidence as changing trends in an occupation, documented labor market needs, or evidence of emerging jobs in the career or occupational area (e.g., occupational forecast data, survey data from interested persons and business owners in the local area).
Projects that propose on-going professional development activities (e.g., internships, teacher externships, business/education collboratives, use of technology to facilitate training activities) intended to enhance the teaching or occupational skills and competencies of the applicant's staff who serve vocational and technical education students. The training should be designed to help the staff to better meet the vocational and technical educational goals and objectives of the proposed project. To the extent possible, professional development activities should be related to training students for emerging occupations relevant to the needs of the community.
Projects that propose, as a part of their TCPVTIP projects' vocational and technical education program, to use effective techniques for increasing student recruitment, enrollment, retention, and completion. The effectiveness of the techniques must be supported by empirical data.
The Secretary uses the following criteria to evaluate an application. The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses.
(a)
(2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The magnitude of the need for the specific services to be provided or specific activities to be carried out by the proposed project, as evidenced by data such as local labor market demand, occupational trends, advice from an advisory board for a course of study, surveys, recommendations from accrediting agencies, or tribal economic development plans.
(ii) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses.
(b)
(2) In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The likelihood that the proposed project will result in system change or improvement in the applicant's educational program.
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the vocational and technical education needs of the target population.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project involves the development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies for providing vocational and technical education to Native Americans.
(iv) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable vocational and technical education practitioners to use the information or strategies developed by the proposed project.
(c)
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which goals, objectives, and outcomes are clearly specified and measurable (e.g., student vocational and technical education activities; expected enrollments, completions, and student placements in jobs, military specialties, and continuing education/training opportunities in each vocational training area; the number of teachers, counselors, and administrators to be trained; identification of requirements for each course of study; description of
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program of training in the field and the courses of study are accredited.
(iv) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population.
(d)
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project are appropriate to the needs of the intended recipients or beneficiaries of those services.
(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project reflect up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(iii) The extent to which training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project for the staff of its vocational and technical education program are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practices among the applicant's staff.
(iv) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous program-defined academic standards.
(v) The likelihood that services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the skills necessary to gain employment or build capacity for independent living.
(e)
(2) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director.
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel, especially the extent to which the proposed project will use instructors who are qualified to teach in the fields in which they will provide instruction.
(iii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
(f)
(2) In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies and other resources, from the applicant institution.
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment (e.g., articulation agreements, memoranda of understanding, letters of support, commitments to employ project participants) of the applicant, tribal entities to be served by the project, and local employers.
(iii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, services, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits.
(v) The potential for continued support of the key project activities after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to provide such support.
(g)
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities for carrying out each activity under the project, timelines, and the milestones and performance standards for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(iii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
(iv) The adequacy of mechanisms for ensuring high-quality outcomes and services from the proposed project.
(h)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted by an independent evaluator of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation proposed by the grantee are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) objective and performance indicator discussed elsewhere in this notice, and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(iv) The extent to which the evaluation will provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or testing in other settings.
To ensure the high quality of TCPVTIP projects and the achievement of the goals and purposes of section 117(a)-(f) and (h) of the Act, the Secretary establishes the following program requirements:
(a)
(2) The evaluation must—
(i) Be appropriate for the project and be both formative and summative in nature;
(ii) Include performance measures that are clearly related to the intended
(iii) Measure the effectiveness of the project, including a comparison between the intended and observed results, and a demonstration of a clear link between the observed results and the specific treatment given to project participants.
(3) A proposed project evaluation design must be submitted to the Department for review and approval prior to the end of the first six months of the project period.
(4) As required in paragraph (b)(2) of the “Program Requirements” section of this notice, the interim and final results of this evaluation must be submitted to the Secretary along with the annual performance report. (34 CFR 75.590)
(b)
(1) An annual performance report, unless the Secretary requires more frequent reporting, summarizing significant project accomplishments and, if applicable, barriers impeding progress and steps taken to alleviate those barriers. A performance report must include, for the period covered by the report—
(i) A comparison of actual accomplishments in relation to the objectives established for the period and a description of any problems, delays, or adverse conditions that materially impair the ability of the project to accomplish its purposes, the reasons for such problems, delays or adverse conditions, and an explanation of any action or actions taken or contemplated to resolve the difficulties. Note: Grantees must request prior approval for a change in the scope or the objectives of the project or program (even if there is no associated budget revision requiring prior written approval). (34 CFR 74.25(c));
(ii) A description of any favorable developments that will permit the project to accomplish its purposes sooner, at less cost, or more effectively than projected;
(iii) The institution's Indian student counts, as defined in this notice; and
(iv) A report covering—
(A) The extent to which the project achieved its goals with respect to enrollment, completion, and placement (into additional training or education, military service, or employment) of participants for the most recently completed training cycle(s), by gender and by courses of study for which instruction was provided;
(B) The number and kind of academic, vocational and technical, and work credentials and competencies acquired and demonstrated by individuals participating in the project, especially the number of students earning certificates and degrees. Grantees should also report students' participation in programs providing training at the associate degree level that is articulated with an advanced degree option; and
(C) The number of referrals the project made to social services and related services to aid participants to benefit from the project, to prepare them for employment, or to assist them in obtaining employment.
(2) An annual evaluation report that is submitted along with the annual performance report.
(3) An annual accurate and detailed accounting of the institution's operating and maintenance expenses and such other information concerning costs as the Secretary may reasonably require. (20 U.S.C. 2327(e)(2)).
(a) The number of grants made and the amount of each grant is determined under the provisions of 34 CFR 75.230-75.234 and section 117(e) of the Act. The formula in section 117(c) of the Act does not apply to the first year of funding under this competition.
(b) For fiscal years subsequent to the first year of funding under this competition—
(i) The Secretary will determine the number of grants and the amount of each grant based on the availability of appropriations, 34 CFR 75.253, and section 117(e) of the Act; and
(ii) If appropriations for each such subsequent fiscal year are not sufficient to fund the total amount that approved grantees are eligible to receive, the Secretary will allocate grant amounts in accordance with section 117(c) of the Act.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) places management expectations and requirements on Federal departments and agencies by creating a framework for more effective planning, budgeting, program evaluation, and fiscal accountability for Federal programs. The intent of GPRA is to improve public confidence by holding departments and agencies accountable for achieving program results. Under GPRA, departments and agencies must clearly describe the goals and objectives of their programs, identify resources and actions needed to accomplish these goals and objectives, develop a means of measuring progress made, and regularly report on their achievement. One important source of program information on successes and “lessons learned” is the project evaluation conducted under individual grants. In accordance with GPRA requirements, TCPVTIP grantees are asked to include the following objective and performance indicator when evaluating the success of their projects:
While it is generally the practice of the Secretary to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on a regulation before it is implemented, section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act exempts from formal rulemaking requirements, regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority (20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1)). The program authority for what was formerly known as the Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Vocational Institutions Program was substantially revised on October 31, 1998 by section 117 of Pub. L. 105-332. In order to make awards on a timely basis, the Secretary has decided to publish this notice in final form under the authority of section 437(d)(1).
Applicants are required to submit one original signed application and two copies of the application. All forms and assurances must have ink signatures. Please mark applications as “original” or “copy”. To aid with the review of applications, the Department encourages applicants to submit four additional paper copies of the application. The Department will not penalize applicants who do not provide additional copies.
(a) If an applicant wants to apply for a grant under this competition, the applicant must either—
(1) Mail the original and two copies of the application on or before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA #84.245), Washington, DC 20202-4725, or
(2) Hand deliver the original and two copies of the application by 4:30 p.m. (Washington, DC time) on or before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA #84.245), Room #3633, Regional Office Building #3, 7th and D Streets, SW., Washington, DC
(b) An applicant must show one of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary.
(c) If an application is mailed through the U.S. Postal Service, the Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
(1) The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an applicant should check with its local post office.
(2) The Application Control Center will mail a Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgment to each applicant. If an applicant fails to receive the notification of application receipt within 15 days from the date of mailing the application, the applicant should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 708-9494.
(3) The applicant must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 10 of the Application for Federal Assistance (ED Form 424) the CFDA number—and suffix letter, if any—of the competition under which the application is being submitted.
All forms and instructions are included in Appendix A to this notice. Questions and answers pertaining to this program are included, as Appendix B, to assist potential applicants.
To apply for an award under this program competition, your application must be organized in the following order, include the following five parts, and contain the information in the “Content of the Application” section of this notice. The parts and additional materials are as follows:
(1) Application for Federal Education Assistance (ED Form 424 (Rev. 11-12-99)) and instructions.
(2) Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED Form No. 524) and instructions.
(3) Budget Narrative.
(4) Program Narrative.
(5) Additional Assurances and Certifications:
a. Assurances—Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B).
b. Certification regarding Lobbying, Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (ED 80-0013) and instructions.
c. Certification regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion: Lower Tier Covered Transactions (ED Form 80-0014, 9/90) and instructions.
ED Form 80-0014 is intended for the use of grantees and should not be transmitted to the Department.
d. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL), if applicable, and instructions.
e. Notice to All Applicants.
No grant or cooperative agreement may be awarded unless a completed application form has been received.
Paul Geib, Special Programs Branch, Division of National Programs, Office of Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW. (Room 4528, Mary E. Switzer Building), Washington, DC 20202-7242. Telephone (202) 205-9962. Internet address: paul_geib@ed.gov
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-888-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this notice in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed at the beginning of this paragraph. Please note, however, that the Department is not able to reproduce in an alternate format the standard forms included in the notice.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader which is available free at either of the preceding sites. If you have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 2327(a)-(f) and (h).
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1830-0542. Expiration date: September 30, 2003. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 208 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection.
Sections A and B—Budget Summary by Categories
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
The budget narrative should explain, justify, and, if needed, clarify your budget summary. For each line item (personnel, fringe benefits, travel, etc.) in your budget, explain why it is there and how you computed the costs.
Please limit this section to no more than five pages. Be sure that each page of your application is numbered consecutively.
The program narrative will comprise the largest portion of your application. This part is where you spell out the who, what, when, why, and how, of your proposed project.
Although you will not have a form to fill out for your narrative, there is a format. This format is based on the selection criteria. Because your application will be reviewed and rated by a review panel on the basis of the selection criteria, your narrative should follow the order and format of the criteria.
Before preparing your application, you should carefully read the legislation and EDGAR rules governing the program; eligibility requirements; “Content of Application” section of this notice; “Eligible Programs, Services and Activities” section of this notice; priorities; selection criteria; and program requirements for this competition.
Your program narrative should be clear, concise, and to the point. Begin the narrative with a one page abstract or summary of your project. Then describe the project in detail, addressing each selection criterion in order. Be sure to number consecutively ALL pages in your application.
The Secretary strongly suggests that you limit the program narrative to no more than 30 doubled-spaced, typed pages (on one side only), although the Secretary will consider your application if it is longer. Be sure to number consecutively ALL pages in your application.
You may include supporting documentation as appendices to the program narrative. Be sure that this material is concise and pertinent to this program competition.
You are advised that—
(a) The Secretary considers only information contained in the application in ranking applications for funding consideration.
(b) The technical review panel evaluates each application solely on the basis of the eligible programs, services, and activities; selection criteria; and competitive priorities contained in this notice.
(c) Letters of support included as appendices to an application, that are of direct relevance to or contain commitments that pertain to the established selection criteria, such as commitment of resources, will be reviewed by the panel. Letters of support sent separately from the formal application package are not considered in the review by the technical review panels. (34 CFR 75.217)
Potential applicants frequently direct questions to officials of the Department regarding application notices and programmatic and administrative regulations governing various direct grant programs. To assist potential applicants, the Department has assembled the following most commonly asked questions followed by the Department's answers.
A. No. A closing date may be changed only under extraordinary circumstances. Any change must be announced in the
A. Applicants are required to submit one original and two copies of the grant application. To aid with the review of applications, the Department encourages applicants to submit four additional copies of the grant application. The Department will not penalize applicants who do not provide additional copies. The binding of applications is optional.
A. Yes, however, the likelihood of success is not good. A properly prepared application must meet the specifications of the competition to which it is submitted.
A. We are happy to discuss any such questions with you and provide clarification on the unique elements of the various competitions.
A. We are happy to provide general program information. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for staff to participate in the actual writing of an application, but we can respond to specific questions about application requirements, evaluation criteria, and the priorities. Applicants should understand, however, that prior contact with the Department is not required, nor will it in any way influence the success of an application.
A. You can expect to receive notification within 3 to 4 months depending on the number of the applications received and the number of Department competitions with similar closing dates.
A. No. Every year we are called by a number of applicants who have a legitimate reason for needing to know the outcome of the panel review prior to official notification. Some applicants need to make job decisions, some need to notify a local school district, etc. Regardless of the reason, because final funding decisions have not been made at that point, we cannot share information about the results of the panel review with anyone.
A. No. We no longer return unsuccessful applications. Thus, applicants should retain at least one copy of the application.
A. Upon written request, reviewers' comments will be mailed to unsuccessful applicants.
A. Not necessarily. It is often the case that the number of applications scored highly by the reviewers exceeds the dollars available for funding projects under a particular competition. The order of selection, which is based on the scores of all the applications reviewed and other relevant factors, determines the applications that can be funded.
A. During pre-award clarification discussions, technical and budget issues may be raised. These are issues that have been identified during the panel and staff reviews that require clarification. Sometimes issues are stated as “conditions.” These are issues that have been identified as so critical that the award cannot be made unless those conditions are met. Questions may also be raised about the proposed budget. Generally, these issues are raised because an application contains inadequate justification or explanation of a particular budget item, or because the budget item seems unimportant to the successful completion of the project. If you are asked to make changes that you feel could seriously affect the project's success, you may provide reasons for not making the changes or provide alternative suggestions. Similarly, if proposed budget reductions will, in your opinion, seriously affect the project activities, you may explain why and provide additional justification for the proposed expenses. An award cannot be made until all issues under discussion have been resolved.
A. Copies of these materials can usually be found at your local library. If not, they can be obtained from the Government Printing Office by writing to Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Telephone: (202) 708-8228. When requesting copies of regulations or statutes, it is helpful to use the specific name of the public law, number of a statute, or part number of a regulation. The material referenced in this notice should be referred to as follows:
(1) The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998, Public Law 105-332, 20 U.S.C. 2301.
(2) Education Department General Administrative Regulations, 34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 81, 82, 85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
Copies of these materials may also be found on the World Wide Web at
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Justice.
Notice of solicitation.
The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is requesting applications for the Longitudinal Study of Tribal Youth Risk and Resiliency. This solicitation is for a 2-year feasibility study that will precede implementation of a longitudinal study of tribal youth development and delinquency. The longitudinal study will examine risk and protective factors within the cultural and historical context of tribal youth. The longitudinal study will provide a unique database for examining the development of delinquency and problem behavior among tribal youth, and findings will highlight the influence of cultural and historical factors on risk for delinquency.
Applications must be received by June 11, 2001.
All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301-519-5535. Faxed or e-mailed applications will not be accepted. Interested applicants can obtain the
Phelan Wyrick, Program Manager, Research and Program Development Division, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 202-353-9254. [This is not a toll-free number.]
The purpose of the Longitudinal Study of Tribal Youth Risk and Resiliency is to develop and ultimately implement a longitudinal study of youth development and delinquency that examines risk and protective factors within the unique cultural and historical context of tribal youth. Through special attention to cultural and historical factors, this study will greatly enhance the current understanding of individual, family, community, peer, and school factors that influence delinquency and resiliency among tribal youth. Further, this project will contribute to the development of culturally appropriate research methods with tribal populations. The first 2 years of this work will consist of a feasibility study to plan and prepare for the actual longitudinal study. Based on the outcomes of this feasibility study and the availability of funding, OJJDP anticipates supporting the subsequent longitudinal study for up to 5 additional years.
The Fiscal Year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act, November 17, 1999 (Pub. L. 106-113), authorized the Tribal Youth Program (TYP), providing $12.5 million to OJJDP to support and enhance tribal comprehensive delinquency prevention and control activities and juvenile justice system improvement. Ten percent of the funds appropriated for TYP is set aside to support program-related research, evaluation, and statistics. Of that total, $650,000 is being made available for the 2-year feasibility study of the Longitudinal Study of Tribal Youth Risk and Resiliency.
TYP funds support the joint U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative. The purpose of the Initiative is to address the compelling need to improve the administration of criminal and juvenile justice among Federally recognized tribes.
At the beginning of the 21st century, the tribal population faces myriad challenges. Roughly 30 percent of all tribal members and more than 50 percent of those on reservations live below the poverty level (U.S. Census Bureau, 1993). The median age of American Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts is estimated to be under 27 years, compared with the median age for all races, estimated at about 35 years (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Yet tribal youth have few opportunities for social, educational, or vocational development. Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 1999 report
• Rates of violent victimization in every age group are higher among American Indians
• In 1995, American Indians were estimated to have had the highest rate of abuse or neglect of children under age 15 of any racial or ethnic group; and between 1992 and 1995, American Indians had the greatest increase in this rate of any racial or ethnic group.
• American Indians under age 18 are arrested for alcohol-related violations at a rate twice the national average.
These findings only begin to express the difficulties faced by Indian tribes and tribal youth. For example, domestic violence service providers claim that tribal children are victims of sexual assault at levels that are much higher than reported and that many of these assaults are by family members. Further, tribal women report levels of intimate partner violence that are higher than rates for any other ethnic group (Tjaden and Thoennes, 2000). Tribal law enforcement responses to a Federal Bureau of Investigation survey suggest that gangs at varying levels of sophistication are found in virtually all reservations and adjacent service areas. Further, much of the increase in violent crime in these areas over the past decade may be attributable to these gangs (National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations, 2000). One Michigan tribe's Junior Tribal Council, which is composed of youth who are tribal members, recently listed substance abuse, violence, teen pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases among the key issues and concerns of tribal youth. A recent report on justice for tribal youth (Coalition for Juvenile Justice, 2000) draws on the experiences of tribal youth and practitioners to identify substance abuse, depression, and gang involvement as the three major contributors to tribal juvenile delinquency.
Taken together, these reports and research findings paint a picture in which tribal members experience disproportionately high levels of violent victimization, intimate partner violence, child abuse and neglect, youth gang involvement, and the co-occurrence of alcohol use and offending. These difficulties are compounded by a lack of available resources for families, youth, social services, and law enforcement. Youth growing up under these circumstances are exposed to a variety of risk factors that increase their chances of becoming involved in delinquency and violent offending.
It is important to recognize that tribes vary considerably in the extent to which these and other problems occur, and even under difficult circumstances, many tribal youth do not become involved in violent or nonviolent offending. These resilient youth may draw on internal resources; the support of family, friends, and community; and spiritual resources to guide them through difficult childhood and adolescent years. Cultural traditions practiced by some tribes may contribute to this resiliency. For example, tribes that foster close ties with extended family members support a family environment in which youth may have multiple positive adult role models. This is among the most widely acknowledged factors contributing to resiliency.
Understanding of risk and protective factors that are related to the development of juvenile offending has greatly improved in the past decade (Loeber and Farrington, 1998; Hawkins et al., 2000; Thornberry, Huizinga, and Loeber, 1995). Risk factors are generally described as falling into five categories: individual, family, school, peer, and community. The accumulation of risk factors within or across these categories greatly increases the probability that a given youth will offend. Further, some risk factors appear to have greater or lesser influence during different developmental stages of youth (Tatem Kelley et al., 1997; Lipsey and Derzon, 1998).
Protective factors provide a buffering effect against risk factors (Hawkins, Catalano, and Miller, 1992; Thornberry, Huizinga, and Loeber, 1995). Protective factors are somewhat less well understood at this point, but they include individual factors (e.g., high intelligence and positive social orientation), factors related to social bonding (e.g., supportive relationships with family members or other adults), and healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior (e.g., norms that oppose crime and violence). Since protective factors also tend to have a cumulative effect, youth who are exposed to a large number of protective factors show greater resilience to the risk factors in their lives. Despite advances in understanding risk and protective factors, many important questions still remain to be answered.
Questions remain about the application of risk and protective factors to tribal youth and the effects of distinctive cultural and historical influences on the development of risk and protective factors for delinquency. Longitudinal research on both risk and resiliency among tribal youth is sorely needed. For this research to be most useful, it must be grounded in both the scientific and tribal traditions of understanding delinquency.
The goal of this feasibility study is to plan and develop the design for an accelerated longitudinal study of tribal youth risk and resiliency. The longitudinal study will enhance and extend the current understanding of individual, family, community, peer, and school factors that influence delinquency and resiliency, with special attention to the distinct cultural and historical context of tribal youth. Findings will have direct implications for prevention activities with at-risk tribal youth and intervention activities with juvenile offenders. A secondary goal of this effort is to contribute to the development of effective and culturally appropriate research approaches with tribal populations.
The objectives for the feasibility study include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Prepare a comprehensive literature review of research findings related to risk and resiliency among tribal youth.
• Develop and implement a sampling strategy for selecting tribes that will be invited to participate in the longitudinal study.
• Conduct ongoing negotiations and relations with tribes to engage them in the project, secure community support, and coordinate the development of the study design and measures.
• Develop the overall study design in accordance with state-of-the-art longitudinal social science research and tribal values, traditions, and customs as reflected in the study sites. This design will include strategies for sampling and tracking individual study participants.
• Develop and pilot test instruments and measures in accordance with other prominent longitudinal studies of youth and tribal values, traditions, and customs as reflected in the study sites.
• Conduct a tribal- or community-level analysis that establishes the cultural and historical backdrop for youth and includes examination of the current juvenile justice system in each of the study sites.
The first 2 years of this project will focus on a feasibility study that will include planning, coordination, and development activities toward the implementation of an accelerated longitudinal study in subsequent years. Based on the outcomes of the first 2 years and the availability of funding, OJJDP anticipates supporting the longitudinal study for up to 5 years beyond the initial feasibility study. OJJDP will continue to serve as the lead agency throughout this project; however, OJJDP will work with the grantee to seek additional public and private funding sources to help support this study beyond the first 2 years.
The study will assume a developmental approach involving successive waves of interviews with multiple cohorts of tribal youth and their family members consistent with an accelerated longitudinal design. Accelerated longitudinal designs collect data from multiple age cohorts simultaneously with the advantage of providing coverage over a larger portion of the life span than if only one cohort were included. For example, if two cohorts were tracked for 5 years beginning at age 5 and age 10, the 5-year study would cover developmental issues encountered over a 10 year span (i.e., at ages 5 through 15). This developmental approach will be linked to a broader tribal- or community-level analysis that will focus on the cultural and historical backdrop for youth in each of the study sites. This analysis must include examination of the current juvenile justice system in each of the study sites.
Many of the activities in the first 2 years can be broken down into the following categories: elaborating the scope and focus of inquiry, developing the sampling strategy, coordinating with tribes, planning for data collection, conducting the site-level analysis, and establishing a project Advisory Group.
The social sciences offer multiple theories that may guide inquiry into youth risk and resiliency. Indian tribes also maintain cultural beliefs, values, and theories that suggest explanations of the causes and contributing factors to
The sampling strategy for this study must address the selection of three federally recognized tribal sites. The design will also have to address the selection of approximately 1,000 individual tribal youth in each site to participate in the successive waves of data collection. No three tribes can possibly constitute a nationally representative sample of all tribes, and the requirement of gaining access to approximately 1,000 youth in each study site will skew the pool of eligible sites toward the larger tribes. With such considerations in mind, applicants will be responsible for presenting a logical and practical framework for a sampling design that will be further developed and implemented during the early phases of the feasibility study. Additional considerations in sampling of sites may include, but are not limited to, regional variations, linguistic variations, size of crime problem, urban versus rural sites, reservation versus nonreservation sites, type of justice system (e.g., Western, tribal, or dual), and logistical concerns such as expense and probability of study completion.
The sampling of individual youth within each site should be consistent with an accelerated longitudinal design as described above. Under this design, multiple tribal youth cohorts will be selected for participation. Applicants should consider including a perinatal cohort (age 0) at the first wave of data collection and including youth ages 5 to 6 years, 10 to 11 years, and 15 to 16 years in the remaining cohorts. The inclusion of a perinatal cohort may introduce the need for alternative measures, such as videotaping of parent-child interactions in the early years, that may cause greater concern to tribes and parents than interview methods. Such issues should be discussed in the project design section of the application and negotiated with the tribes that are selected during the conduct of the feasibility study and the development of the project design.
All too frequently, research with tribal populations has been conducted with little regard for local culture and little respect for research participants or tribal sovereignty. This has led to well-founded skepticism among some tribal members towards researchers (see Trimble, 1977; Baldwin, 1999). This study must be conducted in close coordination with the participating tribes. Applicants will have to demonstrate the ability to coordinate effectively with tribes through experience on previous or ongoing projects. Letters of reference from tribal leaders are encouraged. During the 2-year feasibility study, researchers will need to confirm tribal commitment to the project and negotiate strategies for tribal participation. Negotiations should establish procedures for tribal review and comment on study design, data collection methods, data collection instruments, preliminary and final reports, protection of human subjects and of tribal confidentiality, and other issues of concern to the tribes (see Beuvais, 1999). Depending on local circumstances and traditions, obtaining tribal approval and commitment may go beyond working with officials and governing bodies and extend to the inclusion of elders, spiritual leaders, and other community stakeholders. With regard to elected leadership, applicants should anticipate the possibility of midproject changes in administrations and plan for ongoing efforts to maintain tribal support.
During the implementation of this study, it will be necessary for researchers to hire local tribal staff members for activities related to data collection, data management, and administration. Applicants are advised to hire local tribal staff during the feasibility study as well. Gainful employment and skill development among tribal members are possible benefits that tribes may derive from participation in this study. Other possible benefits to the tribes should be discussed in the application and in negotiations with tribes during the feasibility study. Examples of such benefits include improved access to training and technical assistance resources, regular reports on the status of tribal youth in the study sample, and educational and vocational opportunities for students, staff, and faculty at tribal colleges.
Beyond developing a strategy for sampling individual study participants, the grantee must develop detailed plans for tracking and interviewing youth over successive waves of data collection during the study. Plans must be made for recruiting and training tribal interviewers, transporting interviewers to remote locations, and maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of data as they are collected, coded, and entered into a database. Valuable guidance on such operational aspects of conducting longitudinal studies can be found in Stouthamer-Loeber, van Kammen, and Loeber (1992).
The literature review discussed previously should serve as a starting point for the design of instruments and measures to be used during the study. However, instrument development should be carefully planned to yield culturally appropriate measures that reflect both social science theory and tribal traditions of understanding delinquency and resiliency in the three study sites. This will require extensive coordination with the tribal stakeholders and careful pilot testing of instruments.
It will be necessary to examine community- or tribal-level factors that set the context for delinquency and resiliency in each of the study sites. This analysis will include collection of historical and cultural data of relevance to youth delinquency and resiliency and an examination of the current juvenile justice system in each site. Some of these data will be available through archival sources; however, it will also be necessary to collect oral accounts from elders, community leaders, spiritual leaders, juvenile justice professionals, and tribal youth in the juvenile justice system. This analysis will be conducted during the 2-year feasibility study and the findings should be integrated, where appropriate, into the study design and measures during implementation of the longitudinal study.
An Advisory Group will provide additional oversight and guidance throughout the feasibility study and the subsequent implementation of the longitudinal study. This group should include tribal members with expertise in juvenile justice issues or social science (preferably longitudinal) research.
The Advisory Group should include at least one nationally recognized expert in longitudinal social science research related to juvenile justice. Finally, when the three sites have been selected and confirmed, one tribal leader from each site will be asked to serve on the Advisory Group. It is not necessary to include letters of commitment from potential Advisory Group members in this application, but a list of potential candidates must be included in the project design.
The grantee will submit progress reports to OJJDP at 6, 12, and 18 months into the project. These reports will describe the status of selection of sites, negotiation with tribes, development of the study design and instruments, the site-level analysis of cultural and historical factors that may influence delinquency and resiliency, project staffing, and any other issues that are relevant to the completion of the study.
By the end of the first 12 months of the feasibility study, the comprehensive literature review of risk and protective factors for tribal youth must be complete, with a summary version of this review prepared for publication as an OJJDP Bulletin. By the end of the 20th month of the feasibility study, the final planning report must be complete and ready for review by OJJDP and the Advisory Group. In this report, the grantee must clearly state theoretical and methodological commitments that will guide the inquiry. The study design and research instruments must be fully developed and pilot testing must be complete. The basic analysis strategy must be described. The analysis of cultural and historical factors that may influence delinquency and resiliency in each site must be complete, including an examination of the current juvenile justice system in place at each site. The remaining 4 months of this project period will be spent finalizing and fine tuning the plans laid out in the final report with the three sites, the Advisory Group, and OJJDP.
OJJDP invites applications from public and private agencies, organizations, institutions, tribal communities, and individuals, or any combination of the above. Private, for-profit organizations must agree to waive any profit or fee. In the case of joint applications, one applicant must be clearly indicated as primary (for correspondence and award purposes) and the other(s) listed as coapplicant(s). OJJDP encourages collaborative relationships among researchers, practitioners, and tribal entities.
Applications will be evaluated and rated by a peer review panel according to the criteria outlined below. In addition, the extent to which the project narrative makes clear and logical connections among the components listed below will be considered in assessing a project's merits.
Applicants must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the unique challenges that face tribal youth, families, and communities. This discussion should reflect an understanding of the risk and protective factors faced by this population. A clear case must be made for the value of conducting longitudinal research to enhance and extend the current understanding of individual, family, community, peer, and school factors that influence delinquency and resiliency in tribal youth. The case also must be made for including a focus on the cultural and historical context of these youth in the longitudinal research. The discussion must reflect a thorough understanding of issues related to conducting research with Indian tribes, including specific challenges and opportunities. This section must include a discussion of the current status and critical areas for further development of effective and culturally appropriate research approaches and instruments for use with tribal youth.
Applications must include clearly stated goals and objectives. The goals and objectives stated in this announcement should serve as a starting point, but applicants must expand on these to reflect planning activities outlined in the project design. Objectives must include clearly defined, realistic, and measurable tasks and outcomes that will enable the applicant to achieve the goals of the project.
Applicants must present a well-detailed proposed feasibility study that calls for and ensures broad involvement of tribal stakeholders at each of the sites. Applicants should address the requirements and tasks listed in the “Project Strategy” section of this announcement and any other significant issues related to conducting this longitudinal study. This section must include plans for developing a logical sampling design for selecting sites, a comprehensive literature review, an Advisory Group (with a list of potential candidates), and the study design and measures. It must also include plans for negotiating and coordinating with tribes; eliciting grounded theory reflecting values, traditions, and beliefs regarding delinquency in the three tribal sites; and conducting a tribal- or community-level analysis that establishes the cultural and historical backdrop for youth and includes examination of the current juvenile justice system in each of the study sites.
The application must include a timeline that indicates when specific tasks will be started and completed and when products will be submitted. The timeline must be referenced as appropriate in the narrative but should be placed in appendix A of the application. The timeline should allow for tribal review of procedures to protect the rights and privacy of research participants (see below).
Applicants must demonstrate that project staff and consultants possess experience, knowledge, and ability related to conducting longitudinal research, studying juvenile justice issues, and working collaboratively with tribal leaders, juvenile justice system professionals, and community members. Applicants are strongly encouraged to include qualified tribal researchers and juvenile justice professionals on their staff. This section must include the names of responsible individuals and key consultants, their time commitments, and their major tasks. In particular, applicants must ensure that the tasks delineated in the project timeline (see “Project Design” above) are adequately staffed. Résumés for key staff members and consultants should be included in appendix B.
Applicants must demonstrate organizational capacity and the existence of a management structure that will support the longitudinal research with tribal populations and achievement of project goals and objectives in an efficient and cost-effective manner. Applicants should include a description of any similar projects undertaken previously. Letters of commitment from consultants or
Applicants must provide a proposed budget that is complete, detailed, reasonable, allowable, and cost-effective in relation to the activities to be undertaken. All budgeted costs should be directly related to the achievement of project goals and objectives. A brief budget narrative should be included in this section. It will be necessary to estimate some travel costs because the sites are not yet selected. Estimates should be consistent with the proposed framework for developing the site sampling strategy. Applicants should also budget for at least one meeting in Washington, DC, between senior project staff and OJJDP staff during each of the first 2 years.
Applications must include a program narrative of no more than 40 double-spaced pages. The page limit does not include the budget narrative, appendixes, application forms, or assurances. Applicants shall identify the author(s) responsible for each narrative section. Appendix A shall contain the project's timeline with dates for initiation and completion of critical project tasks. Appendix B shall contain the résumés for the principal investigator and key staff members and consultants. Appendix C shall include all necessary letters of cooperation or support.
The narrative portion of the application must be submitted on 8
The feasibility study project will be funded for an initial 2-year budget and project period. Funding for conducting the longitudinal study beyond the initial budget period depends on the outcomes of the feasibility study, grantee performance, availability of funds, and other criteria established at the time of award.
Up to $650,000 is available for the initial 2-year budget and project period.
U. S. Department of Justice regulations require that projects involving research or statistics must maintain the confidentiality of information identifiable to a private person and that human research subjects must be protected from unreasonable risks and properly informed of the potential harms and benefits from their participation in research. Applicants must comply with the confidentiality requirements of 42 U.S.C. section 3789g and 28 CFR Part 22 by submitting a Privacy Certificate in accordance with 28 CFR section 22.23 as part of the application package. (See appendix B, “Privacy Certificate Guidelines and Statement,” in the
If the project involves research using human subjects, the applicant must comply with Department of Justice regulations at 28 CFR Part 46. This part generally requires that an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and approve such projects unless the project is determined to be exempt from the regulatory requirements. IRB review is not required prior to submission of the application. However, if an award is made and the project involves research using human subjects, OJJDP will place a special condition on the award requiring that the project be approved by an appropriate IRB before Federal funds can be expended on activities involving human research subjects. Applicants should include plans for IRB review, where applicable, in the project timeline submitted with the proposal.
As sovereign nations, Indian tribes may have specific requirements for confidentiality and approval of research and evaluation projects. Tribal policies and procedures for reviewing and approving research apply to this program and must be met before Federal funds can be expended on activities involving human research subjects. Tribal review and approval should be considered in the project timeline submitted with the proposal.
The CFDA number, required on Standard Form 424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” is 16.731. Standard Form 424 is included in the
To encourage better coordination among Federal agencies in addressing State and local needs, the U.S. Department of Justice is requesting applicants to provide information on the following: (1) Active Federal grant awards supporting this project or related efforts, including other awards from the Department of Justice; (2) any pending applications for Federal funds for this or related efforts; and (3) plans for coordinating any funds described in items (1) and (2) with the funding requested in this application. For each Federal award, applicants must include the program or project title, the Federal granting agency, the amount of the award, and a brief description of its purpose.
The term “related efforts” is defined for these purposes as one of the following:
• Efforts for the same purpose (i.e., the proposed project would supplement, expand, complement, or continue activities funded with other Federal grants).
• Another phase or component of the same program or project (e.g., to implement a planning effort funded by other Federal monies or to provide a substance abuse treatment or educational component within an existing juvenile justice project).
• Services of some kind (e.g., technical assistance, research, or evaluation) to the program or project described in the application.
All application packages should be mailed or delivered to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, c/o Juvenile Justice Resource Center, 2277 Research Boulevard, Mail Stop 2K, Rockville, MD 20850; 301-519-5535.
In the lower left-hand corner of the envelope, the applicant must clearly write “Longitudinal Study of Tribal Youth Risk and Resiliency.”
Applicants are responsible for ensuring that the original and five copies of the application package are received by 5 p.m. ET on June 11, 2001.
For further information, contact Phelan Wyrick, Program Manager, Research and Program Development Division, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Department of Education.
Notice of Final Waiver.
We waive the requirements in EDGAR at 34 CFR 75.261(a) that generally prohibit project extensions that involve the obligation of additional Federal funds as applied to the Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) funded in Fiscal Year (FY) 1999. As a result of this waiver, these Centers are authorized to carry out additional activities to support fifth year funding. We will issue one-year continuation awards in FY 2003 to the fifteen (15) Parent Training and Information Centers project funded in FY 1999 in order to ensure the most efficient use of Federal funds. Only those grantees who currently hold the FY 1999 four year grant awards under the Parent Training and Information Centers projects would be eligible to apply for the funds.
This waiver takes effect on April 27, 2001.
For further information on the waiver under the Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities Program contact Debra Sturdivant or Donna Fluke, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3527, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 205-8038 and 205-9161, respectively. FAX: (202) 205-8105. Internet:
If you use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.
On June 9, 1999, we issued a Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards under the Parent Training and Information Centers Program for Fiscal Year 1999. In this notice, the Department announced that it would make fifteen awards of up to 48 months (four-year cycle awards) under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to support the establishment of Parent Training and Information Centers that provide training and information to parents of children with disabilities to help improve results for their children. Subsequently the Department determined that these awards should be extended for an additional year.
The fifteen Centers affected by this notice include thirteen State awards and two other awards, one that focuses on the needs of Native American families, and one that focuses on military families. The grant period for these centers extends for four years until May 31, 2003.
The IDEA Amendments of 1997 strengthened the role of parents and increased their involvement in decisions about their children's education. Beginning with the awards made under this program in FY 2000, we have determined that making awards for five-year periods reduces the frequency of disruption in services resulting from changes in grantees. On this basis, we believe that it makes the most programmatic sense to issue continuation awards to the existing fiscal year 1999 grantees in order to make their award cycle consistent with the fiscal year 2000 five-year cycle awards. However, to do so, we found it necessary to waive the requirement in 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), which prohibits project period extensions that involve the obligation of additional Federal funds. We are issuing this waiver at this time in order to give the affected grantees early notice of the availability of a fifth year of funding.
On November 17, 2000, we published a notice of proposed waiver for this program in the
Based on the response to the notice of proposed waiver, we waive the requirements of 34 CFR 75.261 to the 15 Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) receiving four-year awards beginning in FY 1999.
This waiver has been examined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and has been found to contain no information collection requirements.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the previous site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is published in the
Department of Education.
Notice of waiver.
Effective February 28, 2001, the Secretary waived the requirements in Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) at 34 CFR 75.261(a) that generally prohibit project extensions involving the obligation of additional Federal funds to enable twelve (12) Parent Training and Information Centers (PTIs) to receive funding through the end of fiscal year 2001. This action allows services provided by these grantees to continue uninterrupted until the grants are recompeted with the starting date of October 1, 2001. The Secretary intends to have October 1 to be the start date for all PTI project periods.
February 28, 2001.
For further information on the waiver under the Training and Information for Parents of Children with Disabilities Program contact Debra Sturdivant or Donna Fluke, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3527, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2641. Telephone: (202) 205-8038 and 205-9161, respectively. FAX: (202) 205-8105. Internet:
If you use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
The following PTI grants expire before the end of fiscal year 2001:
In order to foster more efficient use of the Federal funds committed to the PTI program, the Secretary intends to start the project period for all PTI grants on October 1 of each year. In attaining this objective and avoiding any lapse in service to the intended beneficiaries, the Secretary must extend all of the above-referenced projects until September 30 so that the new project periods can begin October 1. However, to do so, the Secretary waived the requirement in 34 CFR 75.261(c)(2), which prohibits project period extensions that involve the obligation of additional Federal funds.
Also, because one of the project periods ended as early as February 28, the Secretary did not have sufficient time to obtain public comment on his intent to continue funding for all of these grants until the end of the fiscal year. It would be contrary to the public interest to have any service lapses for the beneficiaries currently being served by the affected PTI grants.
In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), it is the practice of the Secretary to offer interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, the waiver of the requirements in section 75.261 applicable to extension of project periods for the grants referred to above on a one-time only basis is procedural and does not establish new substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), proposed rulemaking is not required. In addition, for these reasons and those stated elsewhere in this Supplementary Information section, the Secretary has determined that proposed rulemaking on this waiver is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Thus, proposed rulemaking also is not required under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
We certify that the waiver and the activities required to extend the projects to the end of the fiscal year would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The only small entities that would be affected by this proposal are the 12 PTI Centers currently receiving Federal funds whose awards expire before the end of the fiscal year.
This proposal has been examined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and has been found to contain no information collection requirements.
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened Federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance. In accordance with the order, we intend that this document provide early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for this program.
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
The official version of this document is published in the