Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Air Force Department
Army Department
Navy Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Health Care Financing Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Employment Standards Administration
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the pine shoot beetle regulations by adding 28 counties in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin to the list of quarantined areas. As a result of that action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the spread of the pine shoot beetle, a pest of pine products, into noninfested areas of the United States.
The interim rule became effective on June 13, 2000.
Mr. Philip Bell, Regional Program Manager, PPQ, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606-5202, (919) 716-5582; or Mr. Jonathan M. Jones, Operations Officer, Invasive Species and Pest Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301) 734-8247.
In an interim rule effective June 13, 2000, and published in the
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before August 18, 2000. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12372, and 12988 and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.
This action affirms an interim rule that amended the PSB regulations by adding 28 counties in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin to the list of quarantined areas. As a result of that action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the artificial spread of PSB to noninfested areas of the United States.
The following analysis addresses the economic effect of the interim rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The interim rule affects entities engaged in the interstate movement of regulated articles from and through the 28 counties in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin that were added to the list of quarantined areas by the interim rule. Affected entities may include nursery stock growers, Christmas tree farms, logging operations, and others who sell, process, or move regulated articles. As a result of the interim rule, any such entities moving regulated articles interstate from one of those 28 counties must first inspect and/or treat the regulated articles in order to obtain a certificate or limited permit authorizing the movement.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards to determine whether an entity would be considered small. We have determined that there are 765 nurseries, Christmas tree farms, logging operations, and other entities who sell, process, or move regulated articles in the 28 counties added to the list of quarantined areas by the interim rule. According to SBA standards, the vast majority of the entities may be considered small.
We have determined that the nurseries, Christmas tree growers, and logging operations in most of the 28 counties that are now listed as quarantined areas will not be significantly affected by the interim rule, either because pine species comprise a very minor share of their products or because their shipments do not leave the quarantined areas.
However, some nurseries and Christmas tree growers affected by the interim rule have markets that are predominantly out-of-county and out-of-State. These affected entities can maintain their markets outside the quarantined areas by arranging for the issuance of certificates or limited permits based on inspection or treatment of the regulated articles. Inspections, in some cases, are already occurring for other purposes; therefore, inspecting for PSB will add minimal cost. Also, any person engaged in growing, handling, or moving regulated articles may enter into a compliance agreement with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service whereby that person, rather than an inspector, may issue a certificate or limited permit for the interstate movement of eligible regulated articles. Costs and potential inconveniences are most likely for producers of live pine nursery stock, since inspection is required for each live plant before it may move interstate from a quarantined area. However, many producers must already have their products inspected for other pests, and adding another inspection will likely be a relatively small burden.
In contrast to the losses associated with the damage caused by PSB, the potential costs and inconvenience associated with inspections and treatment are minimal. The effect on those few small entities that do move regulated articles out-of-county and interstate is minimized by the availability of treatments and
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Title IV, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701-7702; 7 U.S.C. 166; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the imported fire ant regulations by adding additional areas in Tennessee to the list of quarantined areas. As a result of that action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted. The interim rule was necessary to prevent the artificial spread of the imported fire ant to noninfested areas of the United States. In the interim rule, we also made nonsubstantive changes to the descriptions of some of the quarantined areas in Tennessee to make them easier to understand.
The interim rule became effective on November 6, 2000.
Mr. Ronald Milberg, Operations Officer, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5255.
In an interim rule effective and published in the
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before January 5, 2001. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that was published at 65 FR 66487-66489 on November 6, 2000.
Title IV, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 U.S.C. 166; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments; correction.
We are correcting an error in the rule portion of an interim rule that quarantined a part of Cameron County, TX, because of the West Indian fruit fly and restricted the interstate movement of regulated articles from the quarantined area. The interim rule was published in the
January 12, 2001.
Mr. Robert G. Spaide, Assistant Director, Invasive Species and Pest Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8247.
On January 22, 2001, we published in the
In the rule portion of the interim rule, § 301.98-1, in the definition for
(Minimum Daily Temp + Maximum Daily Temp)/2)−54°=Day Degrees. The formula should have read:
(Minimum Daily Temp + Maximum Daily Temp)/2)−59°=Day Degrees. This document corrects that error.
In FR Doc. 01-1618, published on January 22, 2001 (66 FR 6429-6436), make the following correction: On page 6434, in the first column, in § 301.98-1, the definition for
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending our animal import regulations by requiring cattle to undergo additional testing for tuberculosis prior to exportation to the United States, except cattle imported for immediate slaughter. The additional testing requirements will help us to better ensure that imported cattle are free of tuberculosis, thereby protecting against the spread of tuberculosis within the United States.
This interim rule is effective May 21, 2001. We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all comments that we receive by June 19, 2001.
Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 00-102-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 00-102-1.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. Glen I. Garris, Supervisory Staff Officer, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.
Bovine tuberculosis is a contagious, infectious, and communicable disease caused by
At the beginning of this century, bovine tuberculosis caused more losses of livestock than all other livestock diseases combined. This prompted the establishment of the National Cooperative State/Federal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program for bovine tuberculosis in livestock.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) recently revised its domestic bovine tuberculosis regulations on the interstate movement of certain cattle, bison, and captive cervids. These regulations are designed to protect against the spread of tuberculosis within the United States and to aid in our domestic tuberculosis eradication effort. However, in order for the domestic eradication program to be successful, APHIS must take appropriate measures to ensure that cattle imported into the United States are free of tuberculosis.
APHIS has been receiving requests to allow the importation of large numbers of cattle from countries known to be affected with tuberculosis. The prevalence of tuberculosis in many countries that export cattle to the United States presents a significant threat to the success of our domestic tuberculosis eradication program. In order to address the risk posed by imported cattle, APHIS is amending its regulations to generally require that cattle be tested twice with negative results for tuberculosis prior to importation into the United States, except for cattle imported for immediate slaughter.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals and birds into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. Subpart D of part 93 (referred to below as the regulations) governs the importation of ruminants.
Prior to this interim rule, § 93.406 of the regulations contained tuberculosis testing and certification requirements for cattle imported into the United States from all areas of the world except Canada and Mexico. Sections 93.418 and 93.427 contained tuberculosis testing and certification requirements for cattle from Canada and Mexico, respectively.
Under the regulations in § 93.406(a) prior to this interim rule, cattle that were imported from all areas of the world except Canada and Mexico, and except cattle imported for immediate slaughter, were required to be tested for tuberculosis with negative results within 30 days of the date of their exportation to the United States. To verify that cattle met these testing requirements, the regulations required that imported cattle be accompanied by a certificate of a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin showing that the cattle were tested for tuberculosis as described above. The certificate had to give the dates and places of testing, names of the consignor and consignee, and a description of the cattle, with breed, ages, and markings.
Further, under § 93.406(c), cattle that were tested as prescribed above and that were subject to quarantine at the port of entry as provided in § 93.411,
Under the regulations in § 93.418(b) prior to this interim rule, cattle imported from Canada, except cattle imported for slaughter in accordance with § 93.420 of the regulations, were required to be accompanied by a certificate issued or endorsed by a salaried veterinarian of the Canadian Government showing one of the following:
• The cattle were from a tuberculosis-free herd in Canada; or
• The date and place the cattle were last tested for tuberculosis; that the cattle were found negative for tuberculosis on such test; and that such test was performed within 60 days preceding the arrival of the cattle at the port of entry; or
• That the cattle were at least 5 days but not more than 4 weeks of age and, therefore, were exempt from the tuberculosis testing requirement; or
• For a calf imported with its dam, the date and place the calf's dam was
If cattle met one of the above conditions, they were eligible for entry into the United States without quarantine and were not required to be held at the border for additional testing. Cattle that did not meet any of these conditions were refused entry into the United States.
Under the regulations in § 93.427(c) prior to this interim rule, cattle imported from Mexico, except cattle imported for immediate slaughter under § 93.429 of the regulations, had to be accompanied by a satisfactory certificate of a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of Mexico, or a certificate issued by a veterinarian accredited by the National Government of Mexico and endorsed by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of the National Government of Mexico, thereby representing that the veterinarian issuing the certificate was authorized to do so, showing:
• That a review of the available herd history, including any tuberculin test results, traceback slaughter reports and post-mortem record, and any other available records or information did not indicate evidence of tuberculosis or exposure to tuberculosis during the preceding 60 days;
•
• For steers, except those certified in accordance with § 93.429, that each animal had been tested with negative results either by a salaried veterinarian of the National Government of Mexico or by a veterinarian accredited by the National Government of Mexico, not more than 60 days before the date the animals were offered for entry into the United States: Provided, that for steers not so tested and certified, the importer could elect to have the tuberculin test completed at the port of entry under the supervision of the port veterinarian; and
• The date and place of inspection, the date and place and results of the tuberculin test if applicable, the name of the herd owner, the name of the consignor and consignee, and an individual description of each animal including breed, age, sex, and tattoo and official Mexican Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (SARH) blue eartag numbers.
However, cattle, including steers, that originated in herds declared to be tuberculosis-accredited by the National Government of Mexico in accordance with that region's standards did not have to comply with the above provisions if they were moved directly to the U.S. port of entry from their herd of origin without having been commingled with cattle from any herd not so accredited enroute to the port of entry. They had to be accompanied by a health certificate issued in accordance with § 93.405(a) stating that the cattle originated in a tuberculosis-accredited herd and identifying the animals by official Mexican Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (SARH) blue eartag and tattoo numbers.
Further, cattle from a herd or herds in which one or more reactors to the tuberculin test had been disclosed were not eligible for importation until the herd or herds reached full tuberculosis-free status under Mexican Government regulations.
All bulls and female cattle accompanied by the certificate described above were to be detained at the port of entry under the supervision of the port veterinarian until tested for tuberculosis with negative results, provided that if any reactor was disclosed in any lot when so tested at the port of entry, the entire lot was refused entry and the entire lot or any portion of it was not eligible for importation until the lot had reached full tuberculosis-free status under Mexican Government regulations and the animals offered for entry had met the other applicable requirements of § 93.427.
In this document, we are amending the regulations described above by requiring all cattle imported into the United States, except cattle imported for immediate slaughter, and except cattle from Canada,
Steers and spayed heifers must originate from a herd that tested negative to a whole herd test for tuberculosis within 1 year prior to the date of exportation to the United States. For the purposes of this rule, a herd is defined as a group of one or more animals maintained for at least 4 months on common ground or two or more groups of animals under common ownership or supervision on two or more premises that are geographically separated, but among which there is an interchange or movement of animals. We are requiring that animals be maintained as such for 4 months in order to ensure that the animals are tested as a unit, and to allow time for signs of disease, if present, to become apparent.
For a group of one or more animals to qualify as a herd for the purposes of § 93.406, animals may be moved directly into the herd during or after the 4-month qualifying period only if they (1) originated from a tuberculosis-free herd; or (2) originated from a tuberculosis-accredited herd or a herd that tested negative to a whole herd test, and the individual cattle to be added to the herd also tested negative to any additional individual tests for tuberculosis required by the Administrator.
A “whole herd test” is defined as an official tuberculin test of all cattle in a herd that are 6 months of age or older, and of all cattle in the herd that are less than 6 months of age and were not born into the herd, except those cattle that are less than 6 months of age and (1) were born in and originated from a tuberculosis-free herd; or (2) were born in and originated from a tuberculosis-accredited herd or originated from a herd that has tested negative to a whole herd test, and the individual cattle have tested negative to any additional individual tests for tuberculosis required by the Administrator.
Further, the animals must have each tested negative to an additional official tuberculin test conducted within 60 days prior to the date of exportation to the United States. For the purposes of this rule, an “official tuberculin test” is defined as a test for bovine tuberculosis that is approved by the APHIS Administrator as equivalent to the international standard test described in the Manual of Standards for Diagnostic Tests and Vaccines, Office International des Epozooties, and that is applied and
Cattle that have been tested for tuberculosis in accordance with these requirements will not be subject to any additional tests for tuberculosis during quarantine, if quarantine is required under § 93.411. Further, such cattle from Mexico will not be detained at land border ports with Mexico for further testing.
Such cattle must originate from a herd that has been certified by the government of the region of origin as an accredited herd within 1 year prior to the date of exportation to the United States.
For the purposes of this rule, an accredited herd is defined as one that has passed at least two consecutive annual official tuberculin tests and has no evidence of bovine tuberculosis. All animals in an accredited herd must be free from tuberculosis.
Such cattle, if required to be quarantined under the regulations in § 93.411, must also be tested for tuberculosis with negative results during the last 10 days of quarantine. Further, such cattle from Mexico must be detained at the port of entry under the supervision of the port veterinarian until tested for tuberculosis with negative results.
Such cattle must have originated from a herd that has tested negative to a whole herd test as described above under the heading “Steers and Spayed Heifers” within 1 year prior to the date of exportation to the United States. Further, the animals must each have tested negative to one additional official tuberculin test conducted no more than 6 months and no less than 60 days prior to the date of exportation to the United States, except that the additional test is not required if the animals are exported within 6 months of the whole herd test.
Such cattle, if required to be quarantined under the regulations in § 93.411, must also be tested for tuberculosis with negative results during the last 10 days of quarantine. Further, such cattle from Mexico must be detained at the port of entry under the supervision of the port veterinarian until tested for tuberculosis with negative results.
Under this interim rule, cattle from a herd or herds in Mexico in which one or more reactors to the tuberculin test have been disclosed are not eligible for importation until the herd to which the animals in the lot belong achieves accredited herd status as defined in § 93.400 of the regulations, and provided that the animals offered for entry have met the other applicable requirements of this section.
Further, as stated above, sexually intact cattle from Mexico must be detained at the port of entry under the supervision of the port veterinarian until tested for tuberculosis with negative results. Under this interim rule, in the event that any reactor is disclosed in any lot when tested at the port of entry, the entire lot will be refused entry and the entire lot or any portion thereof will not be eligible for importation until the herd to which the animals in the lot belong achieves accredited herd status as defined in § 93.400 of the regulations, and provided that the animals offered for entry have met the other applicable requirements of this section.
Under this interim rule, cattle from Canada are eligible for importation into the United States if accompanied by a certificate stating that the animals have been tested for tuberculosis in accordance with the new requirements described above. They also remain eligible for importation under the requirements in § 93.418, which is not amended by this interim rule.
Immediate action is necessary to protect against the spread of tuberculosis within the United States. The prevalence of tuberculosis in many countries that export cattle to the United States, combined with the potential importation of increasingly large numbers of cattle from certain of these countries, presents a significant threat to the success of the tuberculosis eradication program in the United States, unless action is taken to reduce the risk of tuberculosis-affected cattle being imported into this country. In order to address the risk posed by imported cattle, APHIS is amending its regulations to require additional testing of cattle for tuberculosis prior to importation into the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator has determined that prior notice and opportunity for public comment are contrary to the public interest.
We will consider comments that are received within 60 days of publication of this rule in the
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This emergency situation makes timely compliance with section 604 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 93 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105, 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
(1) Originated from a tuberculosis-free herd; or
(2) Originated from an accredited herd or a herd that tested negative to a whole herd test, and the individual cattle to be added to the herd also tested negative to any additional individual tests for tuberculosis required by the Administrator.
(1) Were born in and originated from a tuberculosis-free herd; or
(2) Were born in and originated from an accredited herd or originated from a herd that has tested negative to a whole herd test, and the individual cattle have tested negative to any additional individual tests for tuberculosis required by the Administrator.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(ii) For sexually intact cattle that are from an accredited herd, the herd was certified as an accredited herd for tuberculosis within 1 year prior to the date of exportation to the United States; or
(iii) For sexually intact cattle that are not from an accredited herd, the cattle originated from a herd that tested negative to a whole herd test for tuberculosis within 1 year prior to the date of exportation to the United States, and the animals each tested negative to one additional official tuberculin test conducted no more than 6 months and no less than 60 days prior to the date of exportation to the United States, except that the additional test is not required if the animals are exported within 6 months of the whole herd test.
(c)
c. By revising newly designated paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) Cattle from a herd or herds in which one or more reactors to the tuberculin test have been disclosed shall not be eligible for importation until the herd to which the animals in the lot belong achieve accredited herd status as defined in § 93.400, and provided that the animals offered for entry have met the other applicable requirements of this section.
(3) All sexually intact cattle accompanied by the certificate required by § 93.405(a) will be detained at the port of entry under the supervision of the port veterinarian until tested for tuberculosis with negative results: Provided, That if any reactor is disclosed in any lot when so tested at the port of entry, the entire lot will be refused entry and the entire lot or any portion of it will not be eligible for importation until the herd to which the animals in the lot belong achieve accredited herd status as defined in § 93.400, and provided that the animals offered for entry have met the other applicable requirements of this section.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).
Final rule; postponement of effective date and reconsideration.
In accordance with the memorandum of January 20, 2001, from the Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff, entitled “Regulatory Review Plan,” published in the
The effective date of the rule amending 10 CFR Part 430 published at 66 FR 7170, January 22, 2001, is further postponed from April 23, 2001, pending the outcome of petitions for administrative reconsideration and judicial review and further
Jill Holtzman, Office of General Counsel, (202) 586-3410, jill.holtzman@hq.doe.gov; Dr. Michael E. McCabe, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, (202) 586-0371, ME.McCabe@ee.doe.gov; or Eugene Margolis, Office of General Counsel, (202) 586-9526, eugene.margolis@hq.doe.gov
Pursuant to section 325 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295), on January 22, 2001, DOE published a notice of final rulemaking, setting forth energy conservation standards for central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps that are not yet effective and will not be enforceable against manufacturers until January 23, 2006 (66 FR 7170). The existing standards require a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating (SEER) of 10 for split systems with a corresponding Heating System Performance Rating (HSPF) of 6.8 and a SEER of 9.7 for single package systems with a corresponding HSPF of 6.6 (42 U.S.C. 6295(d)(1)). The January 22, 2001, final rule would require a SEER of 13 for all systems with a corresponding HSPF of 7.7.
The
Subsequently, ARI petitioned DOE for reconsideration of the January 22, 2001, final rule, and a group of environmental advocacy organizations have responded with a statement in opposition to reconsideration. In its petition, ARI acknowledges that the rulemaking record will support a 20 percent increase of the minimum required energy efficiency levels in the existing standards to a SEER of 12 with a corresponding HSPF of 7.3. However, ARI contends that DOE unfairly and erroneously raised the standard levels by 30 percent above the existing standards to a SEER of 13 with a corresponding HSPF of 7.7. On March 19, 2001, ARI also petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for judicial review of the final rule.
Under the informal rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), an agency by rule may alter the “effective date” of a previously published final rule (5 U.S.C. 551(4), 551(5), 553). The judicial review provisions of the APA also provide for a change of “effective date” as follows: “When an agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review. . . .” (5 U.S.C. 705). Once the effective date passes, the standards set out in the January 22, 2001 final rule would become part of the Code of Federal Regulations as an effective final rule, and manufacturers would have to begin the process of coming into compliance by January 23, 2006. That process involves both planning and capital expenditures.
DOE is of the view that ARI has raised some substantial questions about the legal sustainability of the January 22, 2001, final rule. Consistent with Executive Order 12866 and consultations with the Office of Management and Budget, DOE intends within the next 60 days to issue a further notice of proposed rulemaking to revise the standard levels set out in the January 22, 2001, final rule and examine the extent to which current minimum required energy efficiency levels are to be increased in 2006. In that notice, DOE intends to propose a 12 SEER with a corresponding 7.4 HSPF. DOE will also invite public comment on its explanation of the statutory authority to make such a proposal upon reconsideration. During the pendency of ARI's petition for judicial review and the related petition for administrative reconsideration, justice requires that DOE postpone the effective date of the January 22, 2001, final rule, in order to avoid imposing on manufacturers an obligation to undertake planning and capital expenditures to come into compliance by January 23, 2006, with a rule DOE is reconsidering.
To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, it is exempt from notice and comment procedures based on the good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). Seeking public comment and delaying the effect of today's action are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest for several reasons. Postponement of the imminent effective date of April 23, 2001, avoids confusion among manufacturers as to whether to begin the process of coming into compliance. It avoids expenditures by manufacturers in reliance on a rule with respect to which there is a significant likelihood of modification. It also facilitates reconsideration of a final rule that, if allowed to take effect, might well result in a court order remanding the rule under instructions for further action thereby producing delay in realizing the anticipated energy and cost savings.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to all Raytheon Aircraft Company (Raytheon) Beech Models 35-C33A, E33A, E33C, F33A, F33C, S35, V35, V35A, V35B, 36, and A36 airplanes that incorporate a certain Teledyne Continental engine configuration. This AD requires you to repetitively replace the existing Aeroquip V-band exhaust clamp. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent the tailpipe from detaching from the turbocharger due to failure of the V-band exhaust clamp. Clamp failure could result in the release of high temperature gases inside the engine compartment with the potential for a consequent fire in the engine compartment.
This AD becomes effective on June 7, 2001.
You may get the service documents referenced in this AD from Tornado Alley Turbo, Inc., 300 Airport Road, Ada, Oklahoma 74820; telephone: toll free 1-877-359-8284, or (580) 332-3510; facsimile: (580) 332-4577. You may examine this information at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-CE-63-AD, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
Mr. Peter W. Hakala, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Special Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0190; telephone: (817) 222-5145; facsimile: (817) 222-5785.
We are changing the final rule AD action accordingly.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
(a)
(1) Are certificated in any category;
(2) Incorporate a Teledyne Continental engine equipped with a turbonormalizing system; and
(3) Have Tornado Alley Turbo, Inc. Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA5223NM and STC SE5222NM incorporated.
Cessna 185 series airplanes could have the subject clamp installed through the incorporation of Tornado Alley Turbo, Inc. STC SE00214DE and STC SE00215DE. The FAA has determined that the cracks at the weld spots in the V-band clamps are occurring because of the specific configuration of the Raytheon airplanes. We have received no reports of service problems with the affected V-band clamps installed on Cessna 185 series airplanes.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Your alternative method of compliance provides an equivalent level of safety; and
(2) The Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Special Certification Office, approves your alternative. Submit your request through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Special Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Boulevard, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0190.
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)
(1) In order for this permit to be granted, the airplane must pass the push/pull test specified in Tornado Alley Turbo, Inc.,
(2) Anyone who holds at least a private pilot certificate, as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7), may accomplish the push/pull test referenced in paragraph (g)(1) of this. You must make an entry into the aircraft records that shows compliance with this portion of the AD, in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9).
(h)
(i)
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment supersedes an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -700C series airplanes, that currently requires initial and repetitive inspections of the elevator tab assembly to detect any damage or discrepancy; and corrective actions, if necessary. This amendment clarifies the applicability and certain requirements of the AD. This amendment is prompted by requests for such clarification. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent excessive in-flight vibrations of the elevator tab, which could lead to loss of the elevator tab and reduced controllability of the airplane.
Effective May 7, 2001.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 20, 2001 (66 FR 13229, March 5, 2001).
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before June 19, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-48-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-iarcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-48-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2028; fax (425) 227-1181.
On February 21, 2001, the FAA issued AD 2001-04-08, amendment 39-12127 (66 FR 13229, March 5, 2001), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -700C series airplanes, to require initial and repetitive inspections of the elevator tab assembly to detect any damage or discrepancy; and corrective actions, if necessary. That action was prompted by numerous reports of excessive in-flight vibrations of the elevator tab on Model 737-600, -700, and -800 series airplanes. The actions required by that AD are intended to prevent excessive in-flight vibrations of the elevator tab, which could lead to loss of the elevator tab and reduced controllability of the airplane.
Since the issuance of that AD, the FAA has received a request for clarification of the applicability of the existing AD, which points to airplanes listed in Revision 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1072. We find that, as written, the applicability of the AD could be misinterpreted to mean that future production airplanes or Model 737-700C series airplanes are not affected because the service bulletin does not specifically mention those airplanes. Since we intended that the requirements of that AD apply to all Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -700C series airplanes, including future production airplanes, the applicability of this AD has been revised to read as follows: “All Model 737-600, -700, -800, and -700C series airplanes, certificated in any category.”
In addition, we received a request for clarification as to whether operators are required to report results of inspection findings. This question arises because paragraphs (a) through (d) of the existing AD include a reference to “Appendix A” of the alert service bulletin. That Appendix consists of a form on which inspection findings are documented and submitted. We agree that clarification is necessary. The reference to Appendix A of the alert service bulletin should not have been included as part of the alert service bulletin citation, and has been removed from this AD. This AD does not require that operators report results of inspection findings to the FAA.
We also have determined that the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) of the existing AD require clarification. We intended that repetitive inspections be done on all airplanes, whether or not any damage or discrepancy is found when doing the inspection required by paragraph (c) or when doing the corrective actions per paragraph (c)(2) of the AD. These repetitive inspections were specified in Table 1 of the preamble of the existing AD. We have changed paragraph (c)(2) to clarify this requirement.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of this same type design, this AD supersedes AD 2001-04-08 to continue to require initial and repetitive inspections of the elevator tab assembly to detect any damage or discrepancy; and corrective
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified under the caption
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the AD is being requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this AD will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2001-NM-48-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (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 the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent excessive in-flight vibrations of the elevator tab, which could lead to loss of the elevator tab and reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days or 100 flight cycles after March 20, 2001 (the effective date of AD 2001-04-08, amendment 39-12127), whichever occurs later: Inspect the elevator tab, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions for Work Package I of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1072, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2001, to detect any damage or discrepancy per the service bulletin.
(1) If no damage or discrepancy (including loose or missing parts, or excessive wear) is found, repeat the inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 flight cycles.
(2) Except as provided by paragraph (d) of this AD, if any damage or discrepancy is found, before further flight, do the corrective actions (including follow-on inspections; replacing, reworking, repairing, and lubricating parts; applying inspection putty; cleaning; and aligning and torqueing components) specified in Figure 1 of the service bulletin, as applicable. Repeat the inspections required by paragraph (a) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 250 flight cycles.
(b) Within 90 days after March 20, 2001, or before the accumulation of 750 total flight cycles after airplane delivery, whichever occurs later: Do the one-time free-play inspections of the elevator tab, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions for Work Package II of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1072, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2001, to detect any damage or discrepancy per the service bulletin.
(1) If no damage or discrepancy is found, no further action is required by this paragraph.
(2) If any damage or discrepancy is found, before further flight, do the corrective actions specified in Figures 2 and 3 of the service bulletin, as applicable.
(c) Within 1,500 flight hours or 750 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier, after doing Work Package II: Inspect the elevator tab, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions for Work Package III of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1072, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2001, to detect any damage or discrepancy per the service bulletin.
(1) If no damage or discrepancy is found, repeat the inspections required by paragraph (c) of this AD thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight hours or 750 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier.
(2) If any damage or discrepancy is found, before further flight, do the applicable corrective actions specified in Figure 2, as specified by the Accomplishment Instructions for Work Package III, of the service bulletin. Thereafter, repeat the inspections required by paragraph (c) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 1,500 flight hours or 750 flight cycles, whichever occurs earlier.
(d) Repair any damage or discrepancy of the elevator tab assembly that is outside the limits specified by the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1072, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2001, per a method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, or per data meeting the type certification basis of the airplane approved by a Boeing Company Designated Engineering Representative (DER) who has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make such findings. For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
(e) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(f) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(g) Except as provided by paragraph (d) of this AD, the actions shall be done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1072, Revision 1, dated January 11, 2001. This incorporation by reference was approved previously by the Director of the Federal Register as of March 20, 2001 (66 FR 13229, March 5, 2001). Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on May 7, 2001.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is announcing the redesignation of the lead nonattainment area in eastern Douglas County, Nebraska, to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is also approving a revision to the Nebraska State Implementation Plan (SIP) for maintenance of the lead standard in the eastern Douglas County area.
This direct final rule will be effective June 19, 2001 unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 21, 2001. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Comments may be mailed to Kim Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Copies of documents relative to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the above listed Region 7 location. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at least 24 hours in advance.
Kim Johnson at 913-551-7975.
Throughout this document whenever “we, us, or our” is used, we mean EPA. This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to develop air pollution regulations and control strategies to ensure that state air quality meets the national ambient air quality standards established by EPA. These ambient standards are established under section 109 of the CAA, and they currently address six criteria pollutants. These pollutants are: carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
Each state must submit these regulations and control strategies to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP.
Each Federally approved SIP protects air quality primarily by addressing air pollution at its point of origin. These SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable documents and supporting information such as emission inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations.
In order for state regulations to be incorporated into the Federally enforceable SIP, states must formally adopt the regulations and control strategies consistent with state and Federal requirements. This process generally includes a public notice, public hearing, public comment period, and a formal adoption by a state-authorized rulemaking body.
Once a state rule, regulation, or control strategy is adopted, the state submits it to us for inclusion into the SIP. We must provide public notice and seek additional public comment regarding the proposed Federal action on the state submission. If adverse comments are received, they must be addressed prior to any final Federal action by us.
All state regulations and supporting information approved by EPA under section 110 of the CAA are incorporated into the Federally approved SIP. Records of such SIP actions are maintained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52, entitled “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans.” The actual state regulations which are approved are not reproduced in their entirety in the CFR outright but are “incorporated by reference,” which means that we have approved a given state regulation with a specific effective date.
Enforcement of the state regulation before and after it is incorporated into the Federally approved SIP is primarily a state responsibility. However, after the regulation is Federally approved, we are authorized to take enforcement action against violators. Citizens are also offered legal recourse to address violations as described in section 304 of the CAA.
Under section 307(d) of the CAA, we are required to promulgate designations of areas identifying their status with respect to attainment of the ambient standards described previously. We are required to determine whether each area is attaining the standard, not attaining the standard, or cannot be designated based on available information. Once an area is designated as nonattainment for a standard, it cannot be redesignated to attainment until the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA are met. These requirements are discussed below, and include a revision to the SIP to show how the state, in which the area is located, plans to maintain the standards in the future in the area to be redesignated to attainment.
We are redesignating the nonattainment area in eastern Douglas County, Nebraska, to attainment for lead and taking final action to approve the maintenance plan submitted by Nebraska to revise its lead SIP.
The basis for our approval of the rule is described in this notice, and in more detail in the technical support document (TSD) prepared for this action. The TSD is available at the address identified above.
The purpose of the submittal is to meet the criteria under section 107(d)(3) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) for redesignation of the nonattainment area in eastern Douglas County to attainment for the lead standard.
The area was designated as nonattainment for lead on January 6, 1992. The boundaries of the nonattainment area, located in the City of Omaha, are as follows:
Jones Street on the south;
Eleventh Street on the west;
Avenue H and the Nebraska-Iowa border on the north; and
the Missouri River on the east.
The Asarco—Omaha facility, which was located in the middle of the nonattainment area as described above, was the only major source of lead in this area after 1982. The Asarco—Omaha facility ceased operations on December 31, 1997 and began the process of demolition with agreement under the Nebraska Remedial Action Plan Monitoring Act (RAPMA) program. Demolition activity was completed in late 1999. The area was stabilized with a six-inch clean soil cap to prevent erosion.
Section 107(d)(3) of the CAAA establishes the five requirements to be met before we can designate an area from nonattainment area to attainment. These are:
A. The area has attained the NAAQS;
B. The area has a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the act;
C. We have determined that the improvement in air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emissions reductions;
D. We have determined that the maintenance plan for the area has met the requirements of section 175A of the Act and;
E. The state has met all requirements applicable to the area under section 110 and part D.
The state submittal provided ambient air monitor data showing that this area has consistently shown compliance with the NAAQS for lead since the third quarter of 1997. The NAAQS for lead is 1.5 micrograms per cubic meter (1.5 μg/m
EPA initially fully approved the Nebraska lead SIP for Omaha in 1987. That approval was under the applicable requirements of section 110 of the Act. As a result of continuing monitored violations in the area, and in response to additional requirements added by the 1990 Amendments to the Act, Nebraska submitted a part D nonattainment SIP for the Asarco facility on December 22, 1993, in the form of an enforceable Compliance Order. On this same day, Asarco filed an administrative appeal of the Order which stayed enforcement of the Order until a decision was issued by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (NDEQ) administrator on June 2, 1995. An amended Order was then submitted to EPA on June 21, 1995. This Order was determined to be complete by EPA on July 13, 1995.
On November 15, 1995, Asarco submitted a revised control strategy, based on rollback of production and facility reconfiguration. The NDEQ revised the Compliance Order and submitted it to EPA on August 28, 1996. The Order included limitations to meet the requirements of Part D for attainment of the NAAQS, and contingency measures to be implemented in case of failure to achieve reasonable further progress toward attainment, or to attain the lead standard by the applicable attainment date. EPA approved this revision on March 20, 1997 (52 FR 1420).
With the shutdown of the Asarco facility on December 31, 1997, and subsequent demolition, the provisions of the 1996 lead SIP revision are no longer applicable. The current SIP submittal reflects the shutdown and demolition of the Asarco facility.
The permanent closure and demolition activities at the Asarco facility are complete. The attainment of the lead standard is directly related to the permanent cessation of the lead emissions from closing and demolishing this facility and reclaiming the site.
Section 175A of the Act requires that the plan include measures as necessary to ensure maintenance of the standard for at least ten years after redesignation, including contingency measures meeting the requirements of section 175A(d). Due to the fact that the only significant source of lead in this nonattainment area has been permanently closed and demolished, and the 1996 lead SIP identified no other lead sources for which regulation was necessary for attainment, the maintenance plan for the area is limited. The state is committed to continuing a limited monitoring network to measure ambient lead concentrations in the area. In addition, any new lead source which may be interested in constructing in this
EPA has determined that the complete elimination of the lead emissions which caused the nonattainment problem in the area justifies the minimal maintenance plan, and that additional measures, including contingency measures, are unavailable for the area.
The state has met these requirements by submitting and implementing the nonattainment plan to bring the area back into attainment and by continuing to monitor the ambient air quality during and after demolition and reclamation of the area.
The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the technical support document which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations. The state submittal also meets the criteria for redesignation to attainment in section 107(d)(3) of the CAA, as explained above and in the TSD.
We are taking final action to approve the revision to the Nebraska lead SIP as an amendment to the SIP and redesignate the nonattainment area in eastern Douglas County, Nebraska, to attainment for lead.
We are processing this action as a final action because the area has been attaining the lead standard since 1997 based on monitored data, and because the major lead source in the nonattainment area has been demolished and the area surrounding the source has been reclaimed. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. In addition, a redesignation to attainment does not impose additional requirements. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing SIP submissions and requests for redesignation, our role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), we have no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, we have taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 19, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C. 7401
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Final rule; delay of effective date.
On November 5, 1998, NHTSA published a final rule that amended Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221,
The final rule published November 5, 1998 (63 FR 59732) and delayed March 6, 2000 (65 FR 11751) is further delayed until June 1, 2002. This rule delaying the effective date is effective May 5, 2001. Any petitions for reconsideration of this final rule must be received by NHTSA no later than June 4, 2001.
Petitions for reconsideration should refer to the docket number for this action and be submitted to: Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh St., SW, Washington, DC 20590.
For technical issues you may call: Mr. Charles Hott, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, at (202) 366-0247. Mr. Hott's FAX number is: (202) 493-2739.
For legal issues, you may call Ms. Dorothy Nakama, Office of the Chief Counsel, at (202) 366-2992. Her FAX number is: (202) 366-3820.
You may send mail to both of these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
The purpose of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221,
In a final rule published on November 5, 1998 (63 FR 59732), NHTSA enhanced the applicability of Standard No. 221 and made a number of other changes. At present, Standard No. 221 applies only to school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) more than 4536 kg (10,000 pounds). The standard also specifies strength requirements for each “body panel joint,” currently defined as the area of contact or close proximity between the edges of a body panel and another body component, excluding spaces designed for ventilation or another functional
The November 5, 1998 final rule extended the applicability of Standard No. 221 to school buses with a GVWR of 4536 kg (10,000 pounds) or less
The final rule also simplified the definition of “maintenance access panel” and adopted a definition of “passenger compartment” based on the definition in Standard No. 217,
NHTSA specified that the final rule would take effect 18 months after
NHTSA received petitions for reconsideration of the final rule from AmTran Corporation, Blue Bird Body Company, and Thomas Built Buses. The petitioners asked for reconsideration of decisions regarding issues such as whether the standard would apply to joints from which a test sample cannot be made; the number of fasteners for curved and complex joints; whether the term “automotive” type joints should be defined; whether the term “bus body” should exclude structures forward of the passenger compartment; and the degrees of tolerance that should be permitted in a test machine's grip.
The manufacturers stated the greatest cost effect would result from the final rule's rescinding a November 28, 1978 interpretation letter that addressed the issue of how to compute the area of a sample of a body panel when testing for Standard No. 221 compliance. In the letter, NHTSA stated that in its compliance testing, it would determine the net cross-sectional area of a body panel sample by multiplying the width of the sample by its thickness and then subtracting the area of each “discreet fastener hole.” Rescinding the letter means that when testing for compliance with Standard No. 221, NHTSA would no longer subtract the area of each discreet fastener hole when determining the net cross-sectional area of the sample. The practical effect of that change is that school bus manufacturers would have to use more fasteners in order to meet the standard. The final rule included a new provision, S6.2(c), making it clear that the cross-sectional area of material removed to facilitate the installation of fasteners shall be considered in determining the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel.
All three petitioners asked that S6.2(c) be removed, and the November 28, 1978 interpretation letter be reinstated. Blue Bird stated that the interpretation letter has been the basis for determining minimum allowable tensile strength for FMVSS certification and NHTSA compliance purposes since it was issued. Blue Bird informed the agency that approximately half of the joint designs used in manufacturing Blue Bird school buses use discrete fasteners, the majority of which will require redesign and retesting. Other school bus manufacturers may use non-discrete fasteners such as welds and adhesives, which may also have to be redesigned and retested. If the November 28, 1978 interpretation letter is not reinstated and if S6.2(c) takes effect, Blue Bird estimated that there will be an increase of 12 to 25 percent in the number of required fasteners. Blue Bird indicated that the new method of calculating joint strength would result in hard tooling (i.e., dies, which are tools for manufacturing materials) with long lead times, and increased material and labor costs. Blue Bird did not provide dollar estimates of the increased costs.
Thomas Built stated that most of its cost increases would be incurred when providing the extra fasteners needed when the change in the joint strength calculation procedure (in S6.2(c)) becomes effective. Thomas estimated that the increase in costs for a school bus to meet the final rule's maintenance access panel changes only, (including labor, fasteners, tooling and fixtures), would be $157. The cost per school bus of meeting maintenance access panel changes and S6.2(c) would be $352. Thomas also estimated that the total cost to modify its plant (which would be necessary to meet the new final rule) would be $313,000 if the maintenance access panel changes only take effect and $1,388,000 if the maintenance access panel changes and S6.2(c) take effect.
In a letter dated September 28, 1999, Blue Bird asked that NHTSA defer its November 5, 1998, final rule to “a minimum of 18 months following publication of an amended final rule, or to May 5, 2002, whichever is later.” Blue Bird cited the expense involved in pursuing redesign, testing, tooling and manufacturing changes that would result when the final rule takes effect. Blue Bird noted that these retooling and other changes would not be necessary if the changes requested by the petitioners are made to the November 5, 1998 final rule. Blue Bird asked that if granted, the petition for extension of the compliance date be issued as soon as possible. Blue Bird said that it and other school bus manufacturers already have had to make preparations with tooling and die manufacturers to produce machining that would enable the production (in May 2000) of school buses that meet the November 5, 1998 final rule.
In a
We are in the process of completing review of the petitions for reconsideration of the November 1998 final rule. One possible outcome of that review would be a decision to grant the petitioners' request to remove S6.2(c) and reinstate the November 28, 1978, interpretation letter permitting subtraction of holes in calculating joint strength. If we were to remove S6.2(c) and reinstate the letter, the expensive die and tooling changes cited by school bus manufacturers in their petitions for reconsideration would be unnecessary. Therefore, while we are deciding whether to grant the petitions for reconsideration, we are preserving the status quo by delaying the effective date for the November 1998 final rule until
Because the effective date for the November 1998 final rule (May 5, 2001) is fast approaching, NHTSA finds that this action delaying the effective date must take effect on May 5, 2001, which is less than 30 days after publication of this document. As a result, school bus manufacturers will not be required to comply with the November 1998 final rule requirements for a brief period in May 2001, as they would if a 30-day, delayed effective date were used.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), provides for making determinations whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and to the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines a “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
We have considered the impact of this rulemaking action under Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures. This rulemaking document was not reviewed under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review.” Further, we have determined that this action is not “significant” within the meaning of the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979).
In its Final Regulatory Evaluation for the November 5, 1998 final rule, NHTSA estimated that the total cost for implementing the final rule would be approximately $8,500,000 per year. This rule delays the compliance date of that final rule to June 1, 2002. Thus, it delays the incurring of those costs. Until June 1, 2002, manufacturers will continue to meet the same requirements (and incur the same costs) resulting from the existing rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In the November 5, 1998 final rule, the agency certified that that rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, I certify that this final rule, which delays the compliance date of that earlier final rule, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As noted in the November 5, 1998 final rule, the SBA defines a motor vehicle retailer with less than $11,500,000 in annual receipts as a small business. There are approximately 465 school bus dealers and distributors in the United States. The average sales of school buses from 1995 to 1999 was about 40,000 per year, representing an average of less than 100 buses per dealer. In order to reach the threshold of $11,500,000 in annual sales receipts, the average dealer would have to sell a much larger number (270) of large school buses annually, assuming a cost of $45,280 per unit. Thus, most school bus dealers are probably small businesses. Because of the negligible cost impact on manufacturers, the agency also anticipates little measurable impact on retailers' revenue levels, profitability, or employment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
We have analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. We have determined that implementation of this action will not have any significant impact on the quality of the human environment.
Executive Order 13132 requires us to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation with Federalism implications and that preempts State law unless we consult with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. The reason is that this final rules applies to manufacturers of school buses and to school buses, and not to the States or local governments. Thus, the requirements of Section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
This final rule does not have any retroactive effect. Under 49 U.S.C. 30103(b), whenever a Federal motor vehicle safety standard is in effect, a state or political subdivision may prescribe or continue in effect a standard applicable to the same aspect of performance of a motor vehicle only if the standard is identical to the Federal standard. However, the United States Government, a state or political subdivision of a state may prescribe a standard for a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment obtained for its own use that imposes a higher performance requirement than that required by the Federal standard. 49 U.S.C. 30161 sets forth a procedure for judicial review of final rules establishing, amending or revoking Federal motor vehicle safety standards. A petition for reconsideration or other administrative proceedings is not required before parties may file suit in court.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). Before promulgating a NHTSA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires us to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows us to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if we publish with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
This final rule will not result in costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. Thus, this final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Executive Order 13045 (62
This rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866. It does not involve decisions based on health risks that disproportionately affect children.
49 U.S.C. 322, 30111, 30115, 30117, and 30166; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Cancellation of Federal moratorium.
NMFS announces the cancellation of the Federal moratorium on fishing for American lobsters in the State of Rhode Island waters. NMFS canceled the moratorium, as required by the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Act), based on the determination that Rhode Island is now in compliance with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (Commission) Interstate Fishery Management Plan (ISFMP) for American lobsters.
Effective April 17, 2001.
Richard H. Schaefer, Chief, Staff Office for Intergovernmental and Recreational Fisheries, NMFS, 301-427-2014.
On December 17, 2000, NMFS determined that Rhode Island was not in compliance with Amendment 3 to the Commission’s ISFMP for American lobster and that the measure Rhode Island failed to implement and enforce is necessary for the conservation of the American lobster fishery. Rhode Island was notified by letter on December 18, 2000, of this determination, and that NMFS required additional time to analyze the timing and impacts of the moratorium’s implementation before publishing a declaration of a moratorium, as required by law. The Act allows the effective date of the moratorium to be delayed for up to 6 months from the date on which the moratorium is declared.
On March 6, 2001 (66 FR 13443), NMFS declared a Federal moratorium on fishing for American lobsters in Rhode Island waters effective May 1, 2001, if Rhode Island has not complied with the Commission’s ISFMP for American lobster by that date. Details were provided in the March 6, 2001,
The Act specifies that, if, after a moratorium is declared with respect to a State, the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) is notified by the Commission that it is withdrawing the determination of noncompliance, the Secretary shall immediately determine whether the State is in compliance with the applicable plan. If the State is determined to be in compliance, the moratorium shall be terminated. The Secretary’s decision-making authority under the Act has been delegated to NMFS.
On April 6, 2001, the Secretary received a letter from the Commission prepared pursuant to the Act. The Commission's letter stated that Rhode Island has taken corrective action to comply with Amendment 3 to the Commission’s ISFMP for American lobsters by implementing and enforcing the nontrap gear limit of no more than 100 lobsters per day (based on a 24-hour period) up to a maximum of 500 lobsters per trip, for trips 5 days or longer as required by Amendment 3. The Commission found Rhode Island in compliance with the ISFMP for American lobster and withdrew its determination of noncompliance.
Based on the Commission's April 6, 2001, letter, and a review of the ISFMP and Rhode Island’s revised regulations, NMFS determined that Rhode Island is now in compliance with Amendment 3 to the Commission's ISFMP for American lobster. Therefore, the moratorium on fishing for American lobsters in Rhode Island waters is canceled.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the Karnal bunt regulations by adding new areas to the list of areas regulated because of Karnal bunt, a fungal disease of wheat, due to the detection of bunted kernels in grain grown in these areas. We are also proposing to remove certain fields from regulation because wheat is no longer grown in those fields or because fields previously classified as regulated areas have produced grain that has tested negative for Karnal bunt. These actions would help prevent the spread of Karnal bunt into noninfested areas of the United States and remove from regulation certain fields where restrictions no longer appear to be warranted.
We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all comments that we receive by June 19, 2001.
Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 00-088-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. Vedpal S. Malik, National Karnal Bunt Coordinator, PPQ, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-6774.
Karnal bunt is a fungal disease of wheat (
The regulations regarding Karnal bunt are set forth in 7 CFR 301.89-1 through 301.89-16 (referred to below as the regulations).
The regulations in § 301.89-3(e) provide that we will classify a field or area as a regulated area when it is:
• A field planted with seed from a lot found to contain a bunted wheat kernel;
• A distinct definable area that contains at least one field that was found during a survey to contain a bunted wheat kernel. The distinct definable area may include an area where Karnal bunt is not known to exist but where intensive surveys are required because of the area's proximity to a field found during survey to contain a bunted kernel; or
• A distinct definable area that contains at least one field that was found during survey to contain spores consistent with Karnal bunt and has been determined to be associated with grain at a handling facility containing a bunted wheat kernel. The distinct definable area may include an area where Karnal bunt is not known to exist but where intensive surveys are required because of that area's proximity to a field that has been associated with grain at a handling facility containing a bunted kernel.
The boundaries of distinct definable areas are determined using the criteria in paragraphs (b) through (d) of § 301.89-3, which provide for the regulation of less than an entire State, the inclusion of noninfected acreage in a regulated area, and the temporary designation of nonregulated areas as regulated areas. Paragraph (c) of § 301.89-3 states that the Administrator may include noninfected acreage within a regulated area due to its proximity to an infestation or inseparability from the infected locality for regulatory purposes, as determined by:
• Projections of the spread of Karnal bunt along the periphery of the infestation;
• The availability of natural habitats and host materials within the noninfected acreage that are suitable for establishment and survival of Karnal bunt; and
• The necessity of including noninfected acreage within the regulated area in order to establish readily identifiable boundaries.
The regulations at § 301.89-3(f) set the boundaries for regulated areas in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. Certain regulated areas in Arizona, California, and Texas include noninfected acreage that functions as a buffer zone to guard against the spread of Karnal bunt.
When we include noninfected acreage in a regulated area for one or more of the reasons previously listed, the noninfected acreage, along with the rest of the acreage in the regulated area, is intensively surveyed. Negative results from surveys of the noninfected acreage provide assurance that all infected acreage is within the regulated area. In effect, the noninfected acreage serves as a buffer zone between fields or areas associated with a bunted kernel and areas outside of the regulated area.
In this document, we are proposing to extend the size of the regulated area in
We are also proposing to remove certain areas from regulation. Specifically, we are proposing to remove one field in Maricopa County, AZ, from regulation because it is being used for the construction of houses, and it will no longer be used to grow wheat. Additionally, we propose to remove 9 fields in Yuma County, AZ, 5 fields in Dona Ana County, NM, 10 fields in Luna County, NM, and 1 field in Sierra County, NM, from regulation because grain harvested from those fields during the year 2000 harvesting season tested negative for Karnal bunt. These fields have been regulated because they were planted, in 1996, with seed that was suspected to be contaminated with Karnal bunt. This change would remove restrictions that no longer appear warranted on about 820 acres.
We are also proposing to make nonsubstantive editorial changes to the format of the regulations. Specifically, we are proposing to add paragraph designations to the list of quarantined areas to make them easier to read.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Upon the initial detection of Karnal bunt in Arizona in March of 1996, a Federal quarantine and emergency actions were imposed to prevent the interstate spread of the disease to other wheat producing areas in the United States. The quarantine has remained in effect, although it has since been modified in terms of its physical boundaries and restrictions on the production and movement of regulated articles.
This proposed rule would remove from regulation 9 fields in Arizona and 16 fields in New Mexico, reducing the size of the regulated area in both States. The regulated agricultural acreage would decrease by about 290 acres in Arizona and 530 acres in New Mexico.
We estimate that one wheat producer in Arizona and six wheat producers in New Mexico would be affected by this aspect of the proposed rule. Under the regulations, wheat, durum wheat, and triticale may only be moved from regulated areas to nonregulated areas if it tests negative for bunted kernels. Additionally, commercial wheat seed may not be moved from regulated to nonregulated areas. Producers whose fields would be removed from regulation would benefit because they would be able to move wheat and other regulated articles from these fields without restriction.
These benefits, however, are likely to be minimal. Considering that the testing of grain for Karnal bunt is already a free service for all producers in regulated areas, the elimination of testing requirements would remove an inconvenience only, not a financial burden. Further, little or no commercial wheat seed is, or is expected to be, grown in the affected fields.
Similarly, this aspect of the proposal would not serve to significantly reduce the need for equipment cleaning by producers or by custom combine harvesters who routinely move their machines into and out of regulated areas to harvest wheat for multiple producers. In the past, there has been little need for such cleaning because crops harvested in the affected fields have not produced bunted kernels, and equipment must be cleaned only if it has been used to harvest host crops that test positive for Karnal bunt.
One field in Arizona would be removed from regulation because it is currently being used for the construction of houses. In this case, no wheat producers or custom harvesters would be affected because the field is not being used for agricultural purposes.
This proposed rule would increase the size of the regulated area in Arizona by about 23,100 acres, which includes approximately 600 fields. We estimate that about 15 wheat producers and 6 custom combine harvesters would be affected by this aspect of the proposal. However, the effect on each is not likely to be significant. As previously stated, the required grain testing is performed free of charge for producers in regulated areas. Also, little or no commercial wheat seed is, or is expected to be, grown in the affected fields. Finally, mechanized harvesting equipment does not have to be cleaned and disinfected prior to movement from a regulated area unless it has been used to harvest crops that test positive for Karnal bunt.
Overall, if this proposed rule is adopted, the regulated agricultural acreage in Arizona would increase by about 22,810 acres to approximately 281,000 acres. In New Mexico, regulated agricultural acreage would decrease by approximately 530 acres to about 3,300 acres.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the economic effects of their rules on small businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions. In this case, entities that would be most affected by the proposed rule are wheat producers and custom combine harvesters. The size of these entities is unknown. It is reasonable to assume, however, that most are small in size according to the U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) criteria. This assumption is based on composite data for providers of the same and similar services. For example, in 1997, of the 6,135 wheat and other farms in Arizona, 89 percent had annual sales of less than $0.5 million, the SBA's threshold for a small wheat farm. Similarly, in 1997, there were 366 U.S. firms involved in mechanical harvesting and related activities, including combining of crops. Of these firms, 93 percent had less than $5.0 million in annual sales, which is the SBA's threshold for a small entity for businesses of that type.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings
This proposed rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 301 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 301 would continue to read as follows:
Title IV, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 U.S.C. 166; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293, and Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400.
2. In § 301.89-3, paragraph (f) would be revised to read as follows:
(f) The following areas or fields are designated as regulated areas (maps of the regulated areas may be obtained by contacting the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine, 4700 River Road, Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236):
(2) Beginning at the southeast corner of sec. 6, T. 7 N., R. 20 W.; then west to the southeast corner of sec. 35, T. 7 N., R. 21 W.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 2, T. 6 N., R. 21 W; then west to the southeast corner of sec. 3, T. 6 N., R. 21 W.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 15, T. 6 N., R. 21 W.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 13, T. 6 N., R. 22 W., then north to the northwest corner of sec. 25, T. 7 N., R. 22 W.; then east to the southwest corner of sec. 19, T. 7 N., R. 21 W.; then north to the Colorado River; then northeast along the Colorado River to the north edge of sec. 32, T. 8 N., R. 21 W.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 31, T. 8 N., R. 20 W.; then south to the point of beginning.
(2) Beginning at the southeast corner of sec. 34, T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; then west to the northeast corner of sec. 5, T. 1 S., R. 2 W.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 8, T. 1 S., R. 2 W.; then west to the southeast corner of sec. 11, T. 1 S., R. 4 W.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 14, T. 1 S, R. 4 W.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 14, T. 1 S., R. 5 W.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 14, T. 1 N., R. 5 W.; then east to the northwest corner of sec. 17, T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 8, T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 10, T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; then south to the point of beginning.
(3) Beginning at the southeast corner of sec. 28, T. 1 S., R. 2 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 30, T. 1 S., R. 2 E.; then north to the southwest corner of sec. 18, T. 1 S., R. 2 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 14, T. 1 S., R. 1 E.; then north to the southwest corner of sec. 2, T. 1 S., R. 1 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 4, T. 1 S., R. 1 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 4, T. 1 S., R. 1 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 36, T. 1 N., R. 2 W.; then north to the southwest corner of sec. 25, T. 2 N., R. 2 W.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 27, T. 2 N., R. 2 W.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 3, T. 3 N., R. 2 W.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 1, T. 3 N., R. 1 W.; then south to the northwest corner of sec. 19, T. 3 N., R. 1 E.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 23, T. 3 N., R. 1 E.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 35, T. 3 N., R. 1 E.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 1, T. 2 N., R. 1 E.; then south to the northwest corner of sec. 18, T. 1 N., R. 2 E.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 13, T. 1 N., R. 2 E.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 12, T. 1 S., R. 2 E.; then west to the southeast corner of sec. 9, T. 1 S., R. 2 E.; then south to the point of beginning.
(4) Beginning at the southeast corner of sec. 34, T. 2 N., R. 5 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 31, T. 2 N., R. 5 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 7, T. 2 N., R. 5 E.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 10, T. 2 N., R. 5 E.; then south to the point of beginning.
(5) Beginning at the intersection of the Maricopa/Pinal County line and the southwest corner of sec. 31, T. 2 S., R. 5 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 31, T. 2 S., R. 5 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 25, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then north to the southwest corner of sec. 13, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 15, T. 2 S., R. 4 E; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 3, T. 2 S., R. 4 E.; then east to the southwest corner of sec. 35, T. 1 S., R. 4 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 35, T. 1 S., R. 4 E.; then east to the northwest corner of sec. 34, T. 1 S., R. 5 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 22, T. 1 S., R. 5 E.; then east to the northwest corner of sec. 20, T. 1 S., R. 6 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 8, T. 1 S., R. 6 E.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 7, T. 1 S., R. 7 E.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 31, T. 1 S., R. 7 E.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 5, T. 2 S., R. 7 E.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 5, T. 2 S., R. 7 E.; then east to the Maricopa/Pinal County line; then south and west along the Maricopa/Pinal County line to the point of beginning.
(6) The following individual fields in Maricopa County are regulated areas:
(2) Beginning at the point of intersection of the Maricopa/Pinal County line and the northeast corner of sec. 5, T. 3 S., R. 6 E.; then south to the southeast corner of sec. 32, T. 3 S., R. 6 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 34, T. 3 S., R. 5 E.; then north to the southwest corner of sec. 3, T. 3 S., R. 5 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 6, T. 3 S., R. 5 E.; then north to the Maricopa/Pinal County line; then east along the Maricopa/Pinal County line to the point of beginning.
(3) Beginning at the southeast corner of sec. 5, T. 6 S., R. 4 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 5, T. 6 S., R. 3 E.; then north to the southwest corner of sec. 28, T. 5 S., R. 3 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 25, T. 5 S., R. 2 E.; then north to the southwest corner of sec. 24, T. 5 S., R. 2 E.; then west to the southwest corner of sec. 23, T. 5 S., R. 2 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 35, T. 4 S., R. 2 E.; then east to the northwest corner of sec. 36, T. 4 S., R. 2 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 25, T. 4 S., R. 2 E.; then east to the northwest corner of sec. 29, T. 4 S., R. 3 E.; then north to the northwest corner of sec. 20, T. 4 S., R. 3 E.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 21, T. 4 S., R. 4 E.; then south to the northeast corner of sec. 4, T. 5 S., R. 4 E.; then east to the northeast corner of sec. 3, T. 5 S., R. 4 E., then south to the southeast corner of sec. 22, T. 5 S., R. 4 E.; then west to the southeast corner of sec. 21, T. 5 S., R. 4 E.; then south to the point of beginning.
(4) The following individual fields in Pinal County are regulated areas:
(2) Beginning at the San Saba/McCulloch County line and the line of latitude 31.283487 N.; then east along the line of latitude 31.283487 N. to the line of longitude −99.063487 W.; then south along the line of longitude −99.063487 W. to the line of latitude 31.232299 N.; then west along the line of latitude 31.232299 N. to the San Saba/McCulloch County line; then north along the San Saba/McCulloch County line to the point of beginning.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations for importing plants and plant products by requiring artificially dwarfed plants that are imported into the United States to have been grown under certain conditions in nurseries registered with the government of the country where the plants were grown. We are proposing this action to protect against the introduction of longhorned beetles and other dangerous plant pests into the United States.
We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all comments that we receive by June 19, 2001.
Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 00-042-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 00-042-1.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. Inder P. Gadh, Import Specialist, Phytosanitary Issues Management Team, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-6799.
The regulations in 7 CFR part 319 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain plants and plant products into the United States to prevent the introduction of plant pests. The regulations contained in “Subpart—Nursery Stock, Plants, Roots, Bulbs, Seeds, and Other Plant Products,” §§ 319.37 through 319.37-14 (referred to below as the regulations), restrict, among other things, the importation of living plants, plant parts, and seeds for propagation.
Under § 319.37-2(b)(2) of the regulations, the importation from all foreign places except Canada of any naturally dwarf or miniature form of
The volume of artificially dwarfed and other dwarf plants imported into the United States has increased dramatically in recent years, from fewer than 600 plants in 1993 to 54,749 plants in 1998. Because of the increasing numbers of harmful pests found in artificially dwarfed plants imported into the United States, we believe that many of these plants may be field-collected plants that are produced quickly in their country of origin for mass export. These plants include species that, historically, have not been imported as artificially dwarfed plants and that may not be given the same meticulous care and safeguards as traditional artificially dwarfed plants such as bonsai and penjing.
In April 1999, adults and larvae of citrus longhorned beetle (CLB),
In June 1999, APHIS inspectors intercepted an unidentified longhorned beetle in Miami, FL, during an intensive inspection of artificially dwarfed wisteria plants from the People's Republic of China. Another longhorned beetle,
In this document, we are proposing to add new requirements for importing artificially dwarfed plants into the United States to guard against the introduction of plant pests, including those mentioned above, into the United States. We are not proposing to restrict the importation of naturally dwarf plants under 305 millimeters in length in this document because we do not believe those plants present a significant pest risk. Further, naturally dwarf plants under 305 millimeters in length are subject to inspection upon arrival and, if pests are detected, treatment.
If this proposed rule is adopted, any growing media would be required to be removed from the artificially dwarfed plants prior to shipment to the United States, unless the plants are to be imported in accordance with the regulations in § 319.37-8. Under current regulations, all imported nursery stock is subject to this requirement except plants that are imported under the regulations in § 319.37-8. The proposed requirement would help to further ensure that soil-borne pests do not accompany the plants to the United States.
Under this proposed rule, plants would also need to meet the following requirements in order to be eligible for importation into the United States:
(1) The artificially dwarfed plants must be grown for at least 2 years in a nursery that is registered with the government of the country where the plants were grown.
This proposed requirement, which mirrors requirements maintained by the European Union, would help to ensure that artificially dwarfed plants have been grown in nurseries that have adequate phytosanitary measures in place to guard against the infestation of plants by longhorned beetles and other dangerous plant pests. We believe that nurseries provide a higher degree of pest protection for such plants than do open fields and other areas because nurseries are routinely cleaned and kept free of debris, and the plants contained in nurseries are regularly observed for signs of pest infestation. This requirement would prevent the importation of plants that are harvested from open fields and that present a higher risk of pest infestation.
(2) The artificially dwarfed plants must be grown in pots containing only sterile growing media during the 2-year period when they were grown in the registered nursery.
This proposed requirement would help to ensure against infestation of artificially dwarfed plants by harmful soil-borne plant pests such as nematodes. Plants that are potted and grown in sterile growing media have been shown to present less of a risk of pest infestation because the use of sterile growing media helps to preclude the possibility that growing media could be a source of pest infestation.
(3) The artificially dwarfed plants must be grown on benches at least 50 cm above the ground.
Research conducted by the United Kingdom has shown that plants that are grown in pots placed on benches at least 50 cm above the ground are less likely to be attacked by plant pests than plants grown on the ground because they are less accessible to pests. The European Union, based on this research, also maintains this same requirement for imported artificially dwarfed plants.
(4) The plants and the nursery where they were grown must be inspected for any evidence of pests and found free of pests of quarantine significance to the United States at least once every 12 months by the plant protection service of the country where the plants were grown.
This proposed requirement would provide added assurance that nurseries growing artificially dwarfed plants have adequate phytosanitary measures in place to protect against the infestation of plants by longhorned beetles and other plant pests.
In order to verify that these conditions are met in the country where the plants were grown, all artificially dwarfed plants imported into the United States would be required to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the government of the country where the plants were grown. The phytosanitary certificate would have to contain declarations that each of the above four conditions have been met.
We believe that the above conditions would provide adequate protection against imported artificially dwarfed plants introducing pests into the United States.
In conjunction with the above changes, we are also proposing to amend § 319.37-2 to make it clear that artificially dwarfed plants must be imported in accordance with the proposed regulations in § 319.37-5(q).
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule
This proposed rule would require imported artificially dwarfed plants to be free of growing media and accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection issued by the government of the country where the plants were grown, verifying that the following conditions have been met:
• The plants were grown for 2 years prior to shipment to the United States in nurseries registered with the government of the country where the plants were grown;
• The plants were grown in pots containing sterile growing media and grown on benches at least 50 cm above the ground; and
• The plants and the nurseries were inspected at least once every 12 months by the plant protection service of the country of export and found free of pests of quarantine significance to the United States.
The proposal is intended to prevent the introduction of longhorned beetles and other dangerous plant pests into the United States. Recent studies have shown that the production losses that could result from a widespread Asian longhorned beetle infestation in the United States could total in excess of $27.4 billion.
The art of miniature (or artificially dwarfed) plant gardening is a recent phenomenon in the United States. Because it is a highly time consuming and very labor intensive activity, it is practiced by a relatively small number of U.S. nurserymen and households. The size of these artificially dwarfed plants range from 4 inches to 60 inches in height, with prices ranging from $10 to more than $10,000. The median price of an artificially dwarfed plant is close to $100, and its value increases with age, regardless of size.
According to a market expert, 80 percent of the value of this market corresponds to the plants that have been imported from Asia. Such imports come predominantly from Japan, the People's Republic of China, and Korea. The remaining 20 percent corresponds to plants that have been domestically produced. With respect to volume, 20 percent of the artificially dwarfed plants available in the U.S. market are imported from Asia, and the rest are domestically produced. Domestically produced artificially dwarfed plants are the smallest, simplest, and most inexpensive ones. Plants produced in and imported from Asian countries are the largest, most elaborate, and most expensive.
In 1997, the U.S. National Arboretum in Washington, DC, surveyed U.S. nurseries that sell artificially dwarfed plants, as well as other businesses related to the growing of artificially dwarfed plants. A summary of this survey's findings was published in the American Nurseryman Magazine in April 1999. According to that survey, in 1997, there were at least 366 artificially dwarfed plant-related businesses in the United States. Based on that survey, artificially dwarfed plant businesses can be divided into two categories: Full-service nurseries and specialty companies focusing on one product.
Full-service nurseries may carry a wide range of artificially dwarfed plants in varying sizes, including some that they have developed themselves and others they have purchased or have imported from Asia. Many of these businesses also sell pots for these plants, as well as related tools and books. On the other hand, specialty companies may produce one product, such as plants, pots, or tools, or may be limited to teaching or publishing.
The survey identified 97 full service artificially dwarfed plant nurseries (see table below). These entities range from relatively small family-owned and family-operated enterprises to a few large companies.
The 1997 survey found that artificially dwarfed plant-related businesses are fairly well-distributed throughout the United States. However, the largest concentrations are in the Southeast (107) and the Southwest (102), including California. The Northeast has 84 artificially dwarfed plant related businesses. The Midwest has 37 related businesses, and the Northwest has 26.
According to Small Business Administration (SBA) guidelines, a small business involved in the sale or importation of artificially dwarfed plants or related products is one having either less than $500,000 of annual receipts from sales or less than 100 employees.
According to two industry experts on artificially dwarfed plants, there are between 20 to 50 importers of these plants in the United States, with the number varying each year. However, on average, this number is closer to 20. All of them can be considered small entities according to the SBA definition. We do not expect that this proposed rule, if adopted, would significantly affect the price of imported artificially dwarfed plants or that the proposed rule would have a significant effect on importers of artificially dwarfed plants.
Most of the businesses engaged in the production and distribution of artificially dwarfed plants and related materials are family owned and operated. Approximately 99 percent of these firms are considered small according to SBA criteria. There is no reason to believe that these entities would be significantly affected by implementation of this rule because the price of imported artificially dwarfed plants is not expected to change significantly.
The proposed requirement that imported artificially dwarfed plants be grown in registered nurseries—and not collected from open fields—could be expected to affect the number of artificially dwarfed plants imported during the short term. Plants imported from Asia are predominantly higher valued and nursery-grown, and comprise only 20 percent of U.S. sales by quantity, but 80 percent of sales by value. This proposed rule, if adopted, would likely not have a significant effect on the number of higher valued plants imported from Asia. However, since artificially dwarfed plants that are not grown in accordance with the conditions in this rule would be prohibited importation into the United States, it is possible that some U.S. producers could benefit from decreased competition. Nevertheless, the effect of this proposed rule on those nurseries is expected to be insignificant, given the small number of affected imports.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This proposed rule would require all artificially dwarfed plants imported into the United States to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the government of the country of origin. This certificate must contain declarations that certain conditions were met in the country of origin to protect against the infestation of the plants by plant pests.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 7 CFR part 319 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 319 would be revised to read as follows:
Title IV, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 U.S.C. 166 and 450; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
2. Section 319.37-2 would be amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the words “trees or shrubs” and adding in their place the words “plants meeting the conditions in § 319.37-5(q)”.
b. In paragraph (b)(6)(i), by removing the words “such as bonsai” and adding in their place the words “meeting the conditions in § 319.37-5(q)”.
c. In paragraph (b)(7), by removing the words “tree or shrub” the second time it appears and adding in their place the words “plant meeting the conditions in § 319.37-5(q)”.
2. In § 319.37-5, a new paragraph (q) would be added to read as follows:
(q) Any artificially dwarfed plant imported into the United States must have been grown and handled in accordance with the requirements of this paragraph and must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate of inspection that was issued by the government of the country where the plants were grown.
(1) Any growing media, including soil, must be removed from the artificially dwarfed plants prior to shipment to the United States unless the plants are to be imported in accordance with § 319.37-8.
(2) The phytosanitary certificate accompanying artificially dwarfed plants must contain declarations that the following requirements have been met in the country where the plants were grown:
(i) The artificially dwarfed plants were grown for at least 2 years in a nursery registered with the government of the country where the plants were grown;
(ii) The artificially dwarfed plants were grown in pots containing only sterile growing media during the 2-year period when they were grown in a registered nursery;
(iii) The artificially dwarfed plants were grown on benches at least 50 cm above the ground; and
(iv) The plants and the nursery where they were grown were inspected for any evidence of pests and found free of pests of quarantine significance to the United States at least once every 12 months by the plant protection service of the country where the plants were grown.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the importation of cattle to exempt cattle imported from Australia from testing for brucellosis and tuberculosis prior to their export to the United States. We are also proposing to amend those regulations to exempt cattle imported from New Zealand from testing for brucellosis prior to their export to the United States. We have determined that cattle imported from Australia and New Zealand present a negligible risk of
We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all comments that we receive by June 19, 2001.
Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 99-071-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 99-071-1.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. Glen I. Garris, Supervisory Staff Officer, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-4356.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 93 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation into the United States of specified animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into the United States of various animal diseases, including brucellosis and tuberculosis. Brucellosis is a contagious disease affecting animals and humans, caused by bacteria of the genus
Paragraph (a) of § 93.406 outlines procedures for the importation of cattle from other parts of the world into the United States. This paragraph details tuberculosis and brucellosis testing and certification requirements for all cattle offered for importation from any part of the world, except those intended for immediate slaughter.
The government of Australia has requested that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) exempt cattle imported from Australia from testing for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Australia has been free of tuberculosis since 1997 and free of brucellosis since 1990.
In response to the Government of Australia's request, the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has prepared a qualitative risk assessment evaluating the status of brucellosis and tuberculosis in Australia. The risk assessment is based on documentation provided by Australia regarding its veterinary infrastructure, animal health monitoring system, trading practices with other regions, and other pertinent information. The risk assessment documents Australia's freedom from both tuberculosis and brucellosis, describes the capabilities of Australia's veterinary diagnostic laboratory, and evaluates Australia's natural barriers and regulatory restrictions that serve to protect against the introduction and dissemination of disease. Copies of the risk assessment may be obtained from the person listed under
Based on the findings of our risk assessment, we believe that cattle imported from Australia would pose a negligible risk of introducing tuberculosis and/or brucellosis into the United States. Therefore, we are proposing to amend § 93.406 of the regulations to exempt cattle imported from Australia from testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis. However, cattle imported from Australia would still have to be quarantined under the provisions of § 93.411 and undergo any tests and procedures that may be required by the Administrator to determine their freedom from communicable diseases.
The government of New Zealand has requested that the USDA exempt cattle imported from New Zealand from testing for brucellosis. New Zealand has been free of brucellosis since 1989.
In response to the Government of New Zealand's request, APHIS has prepared a qualitative risk assessment evaluating the status of brucellosis in New Zealand. The risk assessment is based on documentation provided by New Zealand regarding its veterinary infrastructure, animal health monitoring system, trading practices with other regions, and other pertinent information. The risk assessment documents New Zealand's freedom from brucellosis, describes the capabilities of New Zealand's veterinary diagnostic laboratory, and evaluates New Zealand's natural barriers and regulatory restrictions that serve to protect against the introduction and dissemination of disease. Copies of the risk assessment may be obtained from the person listed under
Based on the findings of our risk assessment, we believe that cattle imported from New Zealand would pose a negligible risk of introducing brucellosis into the United States. Therefore, we are proposing to amend § 93.406 of the regulations to exempt cattle imported from New Zealand from testing for brucellosis. However, cattle imported from New Zealand would still have to be quarantined under the provisions of § 93.411 and undergo any tests and procedures that may be required by the Administrator to determine their freedom from communicable diseases.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule would exempt cattle imported into the United States from Australia from the requirement for testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis. This proposed rule would also exempt cattle imported into the United States from New Zealand from the requirement for testing for brucellosis. This action would relieve certain testing requirements for cattle imported from Australia and New Zealand while continuing to protect against the
Australia has a large cattle industry, but has minimal cattle exports to the United States. We do not expect that removing the current tuberculosis and brucellosis testing requirements would significantly affect the number of cattle imports from Australia.
The number of cattle imported into the United States from Australia has increased slightly over recent years, although in 1998, imports from Australia only represented about $101,400 of the approximately $1.148 billion value of all U.S. cattle imports. While cattle imports from Australia may continue to increase, it is unlikely that the rates of increase would be significantly affected by the removal of the current tuberculosis and brucellosis testing requirements. The costs of testing, which include veterinary fees and handling expenses, are $15.00 to $25.00 per tuberculosis test and $7.50 to $15.00 per brucellosis test, and these testing costs represent less than 2 percent of the 1998 import price for cattle from Australia. It is realistic to assume that only a fraction of the cost savings associated with the removal of tuberculosis and brucellosis testing requirements would be passed to U.S. importers.
There is no history of cattle imports into the United States from New Zealand. Removing the brucellosis testing requirement is not expected to significantly affect cattle imports from New Zealand.
The average value of New Zealand's cattle exports during 1995 to 1997 was $731 to $801 per head. Brucellosis testing in the United States, which includes veterinary and handling fees, costs about $7.50 to $15.00, would represent only about 1 to 2 percent of the average value of cattle exported by New Zealand. If U.S. cattle imports from New Zealand were to commence, only a fraction of this cost saving would be passed along to the importer. Therefore, this proposed change is not expected, by itself, to generate such imports.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that the Agency specifically consider the economic effects of its rules on small entities. More than 99 percent of the 766,991 U.S. farms that reported cattle or calf sales in the most recent “Census of Agriculture” could be classified as small entities, using the Small Business Administration's criterion of annual receipts of less than $500,000. Given that there is no history of cattle imports from New Zealand and only a very low level of cattle imports from Australia, and given the minimal cost decrease that would result from the proposed testing exemptions, no effect on domestic cattle producers, large or small, is expected.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
This proposed rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 93 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 93 would continue to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105, 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
2. Section 93.406 would be amended as follows:
a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), in the first sentence, the words “in paragraph (d) of this section and” would be added immediately after the words “Except as provided”.
b. A new paragraph (d) would be added to read as follows:
(d)
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Extension of comment period.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is extending the comment period for the proposed rulemaking, Nutrition Labeling of Ground or Chopped Meat and Poultry Products and Single-Ingredient Products. The comment period is scheduled to close on April 18, 2001. At the request of a group of trade associations, FSIS is granting a 90-day extension to the comment period to provide the associations additional time to conduct research, gather information from their memberships, and analyze the results and responses. The proposed rule was published on January 18, 2001 (66 FR 4970).
Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2001.
Send one original and two copies of written comments to FSIS Docket No. 98-005P, Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room 102-Annex, 300 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700. The request for this extension will be posted as a related document associated with the
Dr. Robert Post, Director, Labeling and Consumer Protection Staff, Office of Policy, Program Development, and Evaluation, Food Safety and Inspection
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to better ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this notice, FSIS will announce it and provide copies of this
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Denial of a petition for rulemaking.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking submitted by the American College of Nuclear Physicians (ACNP) and the Society of Nuclear Medicine (SNM) (PRM-35-16). The petitioners request that the Commission: rescind its approval of the NRC staff's draft final revision of the regulations at 10 CFR part 35 “Medical Use of Byproduct Material”, which was approved by the Commission in a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated October 23, 2000; revoke all of part 35, except for specifically identified requirements; and institute a new rulemaking proceeding to adopt a regulatory scheme for the use of byproduct material in diagnostic nuclear medicine that reflects the discipline's safety record. The NRC is denying the petition because: the Commission approved the final rule after an extensive rulemaking process that provided an unprecedented level of enhanced stakeholder and public participation; the Commission believes that the ACNP/SNM had many opportunities to present their concerns and suggestions as part of that process; and the petition does not appear to present any significant new information or recommendations that the Commission has not already considered.
Copies of the petition for rulemaking and the NRC's letters to the petitioners are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room 01-F21, Rockville, Maryland.
Catherine Haney, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6825, e-mail: cxh@nrc.gov.
On January 11, 2001, the NRC docketed a January 3, 2001, letter from Donald A. Podoloff, MD, of the American College of Nuclear Physicians, and Jonathan M. Links, PhD, of the Society of Nuclear Medicine, to the Office of the Secretary, as a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802 (PRM-35-16). The petitioners request that the Commission: rescind its approval of the NRC staff's proposed revision to 10 CFR part 35, “Medical Use of Byproduct Material,” which was approved by the Commission in a Staff Requirements Memorandum dated October 23, 2000; revoke all of 10 CFR part 35, except for specifically identified requirements; and institute a new rulemaking proceeding to adopt a regulatory scheme for the use of byproduct material in diagnostic nuclear medicine that reflects the discipline's “unparalleled and undisputed safety record.”
The petitioners provide a history of the Commission's statutory authority and nuclear medicine regulation from their perspective. The petitioners state that the NRC regulates the medical use of reactor-generated radioactive materials to protect the public health under section 81 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2111) and that its responsibilities include the regulation of radiopharmaceuticals and sealed sources. The NRC does not regulate machine-produced x-rays nor naturally occurring or accelerator-produced radioisotopes (such as those used in positron emission tomography). The petitioners also described the relationship between NRC and State regulatory authority and the impacts of NRC's program on State regulatory programs.
The petitioners characterize the use of radioactive material as a highly regulated activity. All uses and possession of radioactive material are prohibited, except those uses and possessions that are authorized by an individual license. The petitioners believe that as medical uses of radioactive materials expanded with the development of new technologies, the licensure process quickly became complex, often involving lengthy documents with little consistency from one license to another license. The petitioners state that in the late 1970's, the NRC placed all common license conditions into regulations. The petitioners believe that this regulatory action was the NRC's attempt to simplify the licensing process and to allow greater consistency in uses and possession of radioactive materials.
The petitioners believe that the NRC's regulations applicable to diagnostic nuclear medicine eclipse the regulatory controls imposed on other dramatically more dangerous medical products and procedures by a wide margin. The petitioners state that the goal of this petition is to end that unsupportable and extraordinarily expensive program. The petitioners also state that their proposed regulatory scheme would assure the continued extremely safe use of diagnostic nuclear medicine products and procedures while saving the nation millions of dollars a year.
The petitioners request that the NRC amend its regulations to match the regulatory scheme to the minimal risks presented. Specifically, they request that NRC regulate the use of byproduct material in diagnostic nuclear medicine solely by:
1. Protecting workers, the general public, and the environment through
2. Ensuring the protection for patients, workers, the public, and the environment by enforcing comprehensive education, and training and experience requirements for the use and possession of byproduct materials;
3. Relying on health care professionals with the required education, training, and experience in nuclear medicine, nuclear pharmacy, and basic nuclear and radiation science to protect the health and safety of their patients under the supervision of their respective State Medicine and Pharmacy Boards;
4. Revoking all of part 35, except for requirements concerning comprehensive education, training, and experience of authorized users, coupled with a new provision that would require evidence of mastery of basic nuclear and radiation sciences by passage of an examination given in this field by a board certified by the American Board of Medical Specialties or a single alternate examination equivalent in scope and depth to that covered in the certified boards and approved by the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI);
5. Ceasing the subdivision of diagnostic nuclear medicine into smaller and smaller fragments. After completing comprehensive education, training, and experience in basic nuclear and radiation sciences, and passing an appropriate comprehensive examination in these areas, as defined in (4) above, an authorized user may subspecialize in any portion of diagnostic nuclear medicine he/she wishes without further Commission restriction;
6. Removing all license conditions except for simple identification. This includes the name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax numbers of the institution, the responsible administrator, and the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO). The license should simply state, “This license permits the possession, use, transport, and disposal of any byproduct material, in any physical or chemical form, in any quantity, for diagnostic nuclear medicine use including clinical use, research, quality control, teaching, and related diagnostic nuclear medicine professional activities.” In the case of presently limited licenses, such as in nuclear cardiology, “diagnostic nuclear cardiology” should replace “diagnostic nuclear medicine.” The license should also state that, “This license does not cover diagnostic uses of radiopharmaceuticals containing more than 30 microcuries of I-131.”
7. Inspecting diagnostic medical licensees only in those rare situations of likely over exposures of workers, the general public, or the environment. The routine inspections now being conducted are an invitation to document meaningless paperwork “deviations” and which impose substantial unnecessary costs on licensees. As far as patients are concerned, cases of possible malpractice will be handled under existing State law by the Boards of Medicine and/or Pharmacy and the courts, without NRC involvement unless specifically requested by the Board or the court.
8. Decreasing the size of the staff assigned to the medical use program to adequately reflect the limited role the Commission plays in assuring diagnostic nuclear medicine safety. This staff adjustment has been long overdue. As the number of NRC medical licensees decreases because of the increase in Agreement States, the number of employees assigned to the medical program paradoxically increases. Because Congress requires that the NRC recover its costs from licensees, fewer and fewer licensees are supporting an increasingly bloated NRC program. A properly sized staff alone would dramatically reduce the escalating cost of holding an NRC license.
The petitioners state that they are not asking for a “deregulation” of diagnostic nuclear medicine in the usual meaning of the word, which implies a decrease in safety standards; they are requesting that NRC remove prescriptive regulations and license conditions. The petitioners believe that qualified professional authorized users have significantly more training and real-life experience than regulators in providing the highest level of protection and safety for their patients and others.
The petitioners believe that the Commission has never adopted a regulatory scheme that matches its requirements to the acknowledged minimal risks posed by diagnostic nuclear medicine. The petitioners characterize the revisions to 10 CFR part 35 approved by the Commission on October 23, 2000, as offering little meaningful change from the existing regulations. The petitioners believe that, combined with NRC's increased use of “license conditions” to impose requirements that do not appear in its regulations, the new supposedly “risk-informed” regulations mark a step backward, not forward and that these new regulations bear no relationship to the risk sought to be protected against, and which will, by its substantial unnecessary costs, adversely impact health care.
The petitioners state that in the 64-year history of nuclear medicine in the United States, about one-third of a billion radiopharmaceutical doses have been administered. There was one case, in the 1950's, of a radiation death due to a diagnostic radiopharmaceutical. This event occurred before there was board certification in nuclear medicine, nuclear pharmacy, and nuclear medicine technology. The petitioner states that this mistake was due to human error and would not have been avoided with NRC's current regulations and license conditions.
The petitioners believe that the entire predicate of the NRC's regulation of diagnostic nuclear medicine appears to be that radiation from byproduct materials poses significant risks to patients, workers and the public and that this predicate is demonstrably untrue. The petitioners believe that diagnostic nuclear medicine is extremely safe, and its use by properly trained health care professionals poses no undue risks. The petitioners cite the conclusion of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science that the regulatory structure imposed on diagnostic nuclear medicine by the NRC is a costly and unnecessary burden that yields no benefit to patients, workers, or the public.
Although this petition deals solely with diagnostic nuclear medicine, the petitioners believe that essentially the same arguments can be made to reduce the burden on the practice of therapeutic nuclear medicine.
The petitioners state that the NRC should become involved in regulating patient safety only when justified by the risk and where voluntary standards are inadequate. The petitioners believe that the NRC has steadily increased its regulations of nuclear medicine despite minimal changes in the materials used, their applications in medicine, and the absence of any evidence of significant problems.
On October 21, 1998, the petitioners presented a preliminary cost estimate of the impact of the proposed revisions of part 35 to the NRC at a public meeting. The analysis, entitled “Preliminary Estimate of the Cost of the Proposed part 35 for a Typical Hospital Nuclear Medicine Service; Spread Sheet Analysis,” was prepared by Mark Rotman, a former Visiting Medical Fellow at the NRC. The petitioners state that the analysis did not include the cost of most of 10 CFR parts 19 and 20,
The petitioners believe that the requested changes would benefit the public in two ways. First, substantial requirements for physicians' education, training, and experience, and appropriate evidence of mastery by testing would improve the knowledge and abilities of physicians offering diagnostic nuclear medicine. Second, costs to the health care system would decrease without any decrease in safety.
NRC is denying the petition because:
(1) The Commission approved the final rule addressing the issues raised in the petition after an extensive rulemaking process that provided an unprecedented level of enhanced stakeholder and public participation;
(2) The Commission believes that the ACNP/SNM had many opportunities to present their concerns and suggestions as part of that process and did so; and
(3) The petition does not appear to present any significant new information or recommendations that the Commission has not already considered.
In general, the proposed rule amendments, comments, and supporting information presented by the petitioners were previously submitted by the ACNP/SNM in the following documents that provided comments on the rulemaking to revise part 35:
• Document entitled “A Framework for the Regulation of Nuclear Medicine” ACNP/SNM Government Relations Office, dated December 18, 1997 (docketed by the NRC on January 13, 1998, as comment number 239). This document presents information on the important and challenging issues that face the NRC as it reviews and revises 10 CFR part 35.
• Letter dated November 10, 1998, to James Smith, NRC, jointly signed by David C. Nichols, ACNP/SNM; Roy Brown, Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals; Felix Killar, Nuclear Energy Institute; and Rich White, Council on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals (docketed by the NRC as comment number 498 on December 4, 1998). The signatories raise the matter of regulating diagnostic nuclear medicine through part 35, combined with training and experience requirements.
• Letter dated December 16, 1998, from Robert L. Meckelnburg, M.D., President, ACNP and James W. Fletcher, M.D. President, SNM, to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (docketed by the NRC on December 16, 1998, as comment number 505). This letter discusses limiting the requirements for diagnostic nuclear medicine to the provisions of part 20, combined with specific training and experience requirements.
• Letter dated September 3, 1999, to Greta Joy Dicus, then Chairman, NRC, from Robert F. Carretta, M.D., President, SNM, and James M. Woolfenden, M.D., President, ACNP (docketed by the NRC on November 8, 1999, as comment number 604). This letter discusses limiting the requirements for diagnostic nuclear medicine to the provisions of part 20, combined with specific training and experience requirements.
The NRC has already responded to comments similar to those presented by the petitioners in their January 11, 2001, petition for rulemaking. Responses to these comments are provided in SECY-00-0118, “Final Rules—10 CFR part 35, ‘Medical Use of Byproduct Material’ and 10 CFR part 20, ‘Standards for Protection Against Radiation',” dated May 31, 2000. In this document, the NRC staff presented the Commission with a draft final rule that would revise the regulations governing the medical use of byproduct material as well as related supporting and guidance documents. This document contains an exhaustive analysis of the comments received on the proposed revision to part 35 that was noticed for public comment on August 13, 1998 (63 FR 43516); the NRC's response to these comments; and the changes made to the proposed rule in response to these comments. The Commission subsequently approved the draft final rule in a Staff Requirements Memorandum, dated October 23, 2000.
The following addresses Requested Actions 1-5, as listed under the heading “The Requested Actions” as well as cost figures, discussed under the heading, “Petitioner's Cost Estimate” of this notice. Requested Actions 6 through 8, as listed under the heading “The Requested Actions,” raise issues not amenable to rulemaking such as removal of conditions from NRC diagnostic nuclear medicine licenses, inspection, and NRC personnel levels. As such, these issues are not further addressed here. However, the NRC staff has responded to comments on related issues such as licensing and inspection of diagnostic nuclear medicine in SECY-00-0118, Attachment 6,
The NRC staff has already responded to Requested Action 1 regarding the approach of regulating diagnostic nuclear medicine solely under part 20 by explaining the need for certain specific provisions in part 35 in SECY-00-0118, Attachment 6,
The final rule includes requirements that are needed to protect occupationally exposed individuals, patients, and the public. Certain radiation protection-related requirements unique to medical use are needed in part 35 because of their contribution to risk reduction. For example, the final rule retains requirements to calibrate instrumentation used to measure the radioactivity of patient dosages before they are administered (§ 35.60). For this reason and because the NRC believes that these requirements are essential to the safe handling of byproduct material * * *
The NRC staff has already responded to Requested Actions 2-4 regarding training and experience requirements for the medical use and possession of byproduct material. See SECY-00-0118, Attachment 6,
The NRC believes that the training and experience requirements in the final rule for authorized medical physicists (AMP), authorized nuclear pharmacists (ANP),
Further, under the revised 10 CFR part 35, NRC will continue to rely on health care professionals who are required to meet certain NRC training and experience criteria to protect the health and safety of the public and patients.
The NRC staff has already responded to Requested Action 5 regarding the structure of regulations for the medical use of byproduct material in nuclear medicine (i.e., there are different requirements for training of AU's under §§ 35.100, 35.200 and 35.300) in SECY-00-0118, Attachment 6,
The NRC recognizes that there is a certain degree of basic radiation safety knowledge that is common among all the types of use, e.g., use of the decay formula and decontamination techniques. However, we also believe that there are some basic differences between the uses of byproduct material under §§ 35.100, 35.200, and 35.300 that warrant additional training and experience, e.g., increased potential for exposures in excess of part 20 limits and the potential for adverse biological effects. For example, AUs [authorized users] handling byproduct material for imaging and localization studies, as compared to uptake, dilution, and excretion studies, are generally handling larger quantities and many different radionuclides. Also, AUs meeting the training and experience requirements in § 35.190 are not authorized to prepare radioactive drugs using generators and reagent kits, but AUs under § 35.290 are authorized to prepare drugs using generators and reagent kits. Finally, AUs under § 35.390 are handling material in quantities that can cause deterministic effects.
The NRC staff has already addressed the cost figures (i.e., over $100,000,000/ year to $1 billion/year) presented by the petitioners in SECY-00-0118, Attachment 6,
In evaluating the costs of regulatory compliance and implementation, the NRC has used detailed information whenever it is available. We have sought data from a number of sources, including medical speciality groups, manufacturers, members of the ACMUI, the National Institutes of Health, and various published sources. However, certain necessary data are treated as proprietary. Other data are not collected or are available only in a disaggregated form. Many of the compliance costs will vary substantially from licensee to licensee, depending on the number and type of modalities and procedures that they use and perform. Other compliance costs will be dependent on numerous interrelated variables. We believe that an effort to collect the necessary data and/or develop necessary models to provide substitutes for missing or unavailable data would require very considerable time and expense. We are concerned that at the conclusion of such an effort, because of many remaining gaps and uncertainties in the underlying data, an estimate of the total cost of the regulations would still fall within such broad confidence bounds that it would be fundamentally flawed.
In addition, the NRC has prepared a regulatory analysis for the final rule which shows a net
For the reasons cited in this document, the NRC denies the petition in its entirety.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HUD.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) is withdrawing its notice of proposed rulemaking on Corporate Governance that was published in the
The proposed rule published on April 10, 2001 (66 FR 18709) is withdrawn as of April 20, 2001.
Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel, telephone (202) 414-3788 (not a toll-free number); Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, Fourth Floor, 1700 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20552. The telephone number for the Telecommunications Device for the Deaf is (800) 877-8339.
On April 10, 2001, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight proposed a regulation to set forth minimum requirements with respect to corporate governance policies and procedures of the Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (collectively the Enterprises). The proposed rule would, among other things, delineate the legal role and responsibilities of the members of the board of directors of the respective Enterprises. In light of the anticipated appointment by the President of the United States of new members to the boards of each Enterprise, the proposed rule is withdrawn at this time as likely to result in untimely confusion for the appointees as to the standards applicable to their positions. OFHEO anticipates reissuing the proposal. OFHEO requests that preparation and filing of any comments on the withdrawn proposal be withheld pending such reissuance.
Accordingly, for reasons stated in the preamble, the notice of proposed rulemaking that was published in the
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, and Model 747, 757, 767, and 777 series airplanes. This proposal would require replacing the rudder pedal pushrod fasteners for both the captain's and first officer's pedal assemblies with new, improved fasteners. This action is necessary to prevent loss of rudder control due to improperly torqued fasteners that connect the pushrod to the rudder pedal assembly, which could result in loss of controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by June 4, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-395-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-395-AD” in the subject line and need not be submitted in triplicate. Comments sent via the Internet as attached electronic files must be formatted in Microsoft Word 97 for Windows or ASCII text.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Barbara Mudrovich, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2983; fax (425) 227-1181.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-395-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-395-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The FAA has received a report from one operator of a Boeing Model 737-400 series airplane that, during rollout after landing, the captain's right rudder pedal moved to the full travel position when it was pushed and did not return to the normal position when it was released. The first officer used the pedal to control the rudder and nose wheel steering. Investigation revealed that the pushrod was not connected to the right rudder pedal assembly. The nut and washer were found in the lower forward compartment. The airplane in this incident had accumulated 17,600 total flight hours and 7,900 total flight cycles. Another operator reported that a pilot felt a loose rudder pedal. Investigation revealed that the fastener connecting the pushrod to the rudder pedal assembly was loose. The airplane in this incident had accumulated 3,012 total flight hours and 2,658 total flight cycles.
In addition, maintenance inspections of 130 in-service Model 737 series airplanes found four other loose fasteners. The manufacturer reports that a loose nut may allow the bolt to migrate out of its hole and block the movement of the adjacent rudder pedal. The bolt could also fall out of its hole and disconnect the rudder pedal from the pushrod.
The rudder pedal installation that controls the rudder and nose wheel steering on certain Model 737-100, -200, -300, and -500 series airplanes, and certain Model 747, 757, 767, and 777 series airplanes, is similar in design to that on the affected Model 737-400 series airplanes. Therefore, those Model 737-100, -200, -300, and -500 series airplanes, and Model 747, 757, 767, and 777 series airplanes, may be subject to the same unsafe condition revealed on the affected Model 737-400 series airplanes.
This condition, if not corrected, could cause loss of rudder control due to improperly torqued fasteners that connect the pushrod to the rudder pedal assembly, which could result in loss of controllability of the airplane.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the Boeing service bulletins listed in the following table:
The service bulletins listed in the table above describe procedures for replacing the rudder pedal pushrod fasteners for both the captain's and first officer's pedal assemblies with new, improved fasteners. Replacement action specifies using self-locking, castellated nuts and cotter pins through the bolts for nut retention. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins described previously.
There are approximately 6,097 Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, and Model 747, 757, 767, and 777 series airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 2,338 series airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $75 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $315,630, or $135 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent loss of rudder control due to improperly torqued fasteners that connect the pushrod to the rudder pedal assembly, which could result in loss of controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Replace the rudder pedal pushrod fasteners for both the captain's and first officer's pedal assemblies with new, improved fasteners that use self-locking, castellated nuts and cotter pins through the bolts for nut retention, per the applicable Boeing service bulletin listed in the following table:
Replacement actions that include replacing the rudder pedal pushrod fasteners for both the captain's and first officer's pedal assemblies with new, improved fasteners, which use self-locking, castellated nuts and cotter pins through the bolts for nut retention, accomplished before the effective date of this amendment, per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1214, dated April 8, 1999, is considered acceptable for compliance with the applicable action specified in this amendment.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
This document proposes to amend the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) adjudication regulations to eliminate the requirement that beneficiaries advise VA of changes affecting their entitlement to benefits
Comments must be received on or before June 19, 2001.
Mail or hand-deliver written comments to: Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420; or fax comments to (202) 273-9289; or e-mail comments to
Donald England, Chief, Policy and Regulations Staff (211A), Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-7210 (This is not a toll-free number).
For compensation, pension and dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits administered by VA, individual factors such as income, marital status, the beneficiary's number of dependents, may affect the amount of the benefit that he or she receives or they may affect his or her right to receive the benefit. Beneficiaries must report changes in these factors to VA in a timely manner; certain current VA regulations require that they report such changes in writing. However, there are other means by which beneficiaries could report such changes, including telephone, facsimile, or e-mail, that would allow beneficiaries to advise VA of the changes more quickly and thereby enable VA to adjust benefit payments more quickly. Furthermore, the office of the VA Inspector General has recommended that we eliminate the requirement that such reports be in writing in order to reduce the amounts of the overpayments created when beneficiaries report changes that require VA to reduce or terminate their benefits. For these reasons, we propose to amend VA's adjudication regulations at 38 CFR 3.204(a)(1), 3.256(a) and 3.277(b) to delete the requirement that beneficiaries report such changes in writing.
If VA is to adopt these changes, clearly we must also develop safeguards, both for beneficiaries and for VA, to ensure that VA adjusts benefit payments based only on information provided by the beneficiary (or his or her fiduciary) and that the information provided is documented for VA records. We propose to address these issues by adding a new regulation at 38 CFR 3.217. We propose to specify in paragraph (a) of that new section, that unless specifically provided otherwise elsewhere in the regulations, the submission of information that affects entitlement via e-mail, facsimile, or other written electronic means will satisfy a requirement that such information be submitted in writing. This paragraph will also include a note to clarify that the new section applies only to how such information is submitted; it does not relieve the claimant of any other evidence
We propose to authorize VA to take action affecting entitlement to benefits based on oral or written information provided by a beneficiary or his or her fiduciary in paragraph (b) of new section 3.217. When an individual submits information in writing or by facsimile or e-mail, clearly there is, or in the case of e-mail VA may clearly create, a written document detailing the information provided and the date VA received it. However, because there is no such automatic recording of information that is provided orally, we propose that VA may not take action based on oral information or statements unless the VA employee receiving the information takes specific actions during the conversation in which the information or statement is provided. We propose to require the VA employee to take the following actions:
(1) Identify himself or herself as a VA employee who is authorized to receive the information or statement;
(2) Verify the identity of the provider as either the beneficiary or his or her fiduciary by obtaining specific information about the veteran or beneficiary, such as Social Security number, date of birth, branch and/or dates of military service, or other information, that can be verified from the beneficiary's VA records; and
(3) Inform the provider that VA will use the information or statement to calculate benefit amounts.
We also propose to require the VA employee receiving the information to document all of the information or the statement received, as well as the steps taken to verify the identity of the provider, in the beneficiary's VA records. Just as importantly, we propose to require the VA employee to document in the beneficiary's VA records that he or she informed the provider that VA would use the information or statement to calculate benefit amounts.
VA regulations at 38 CFR 3.103(b) generally prohibit VA from reducing or terminating an award of compensation, pension or DIC without first notifying the beneficiary of the adverse action and allowing him or her 60 days in which to submit evidence showing that VA should not take the adverse action. There are specific exceptions to that rule in which VA may issue a notice of the adverse action at the same time it takes the action rather than wait 60 days before taking the action. One of those exceptions is when an adverse action is based solely on
Many beneficiaries report these changes to VA by telephone because it is more convenient or in hopes of keeping VA from issuing payments to which they know they are not entitled. They are frustrated when VA advises them that it will issue at least two additional benefit payments unless the beneficiary reports the same information in writing. Adopting the proposed change to § 3.103(b) in conjunction with the proposed changes to §§ 3.204, 3.256 and 3.277 and the addition of § 3.217, will address the concerns of both beneficiaries, by allowing VA to take action on reported changes in a more timely and customer friendly fashion, and the Office of the Inspector General by reducing the amounts of overpayments created because of adverse actions. We believe the proposed provisions contain sufficient added safeguards to ensure that the information and statements used for decision making are accurate and that we accept oral information or statements only under conditions that meet due process requirements.
We also propose to make nonsubstantive changes for purposes of clarity.
Proposals regarding 38 CFR 3.256, and 3.277 would contain changes to collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Accordingly, under section 3507(d) of the Act, VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to OMB for its review of the collections of information.
OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments on the proposed collections of information should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies mailed or hand-delivered to: Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AK25.”
The Department considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—
• Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including responses through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
The Secretary hereby certifies that this regulatory amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. This amendment would not directly affect any small entities. Only individuals could be directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this amendment is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program numbers are 64.104, 64.105, 64.109, and 64.110.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is proposed to be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read as follows:
38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 3.103 is amended by:
A. Revising paragraph (b)(2) heading and revising paragraphs (b)(3) introductory text and (b)(3)(i).
B. Removing “is” from paragraphs (b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iv), (b)(3)(v) and (b)(3)(vi).
C. Removing the comma at the end of paragraphs (b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iii) and (b)(3)(iv), and adding, in its place, a period.
D. Removing “, or” at the end of paragraph (b)(3)(v) and adding, in its place, a period.
E. Adding paragraph (b)(4).
F. Revising the authority citation at the end of the section.
The addition and revisions read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
(3)
(i) An adverse action based solely on factual and unambiguous information or statements as to income, net worth, or dependency or marital status that the beneficiary or his or her fiduciary provided to VA in writing or orally (under the procedures set forth in § 3.217(b)), with knowledge or notice that such information would be used to calculate benefit amounts.
(4)
3. In § 3.204(a)(1), the word “written” is removed.
4. A new § 3.217 is added preceding the undesignated centerheading “Dependency, Income and Estate”:
(a) For purposes of this part, unless specifically provided otherwise, the submission of information or a statement that affects entitlement to benefits by e-mail, facsimile, or other written electronic means, will satisfy a requirement or authorization that the statement or information be submitted in writing.
Section 3.217(a) merely concerns the submission of information or a statement in writing. Other requirements specified in this part, such as a requirement to use a specific form, to provide specific information, to provide a signature, or to provide a certified statement, must still be met.
(b) For purposes of this part, unless specifically provided otherwise, VA may take action affecting entitlement to benefits based on oral or written information or statements provided to VA by a beneficiary or his or her fiduciary. However, VA may not take action based on oral information or statements unless the VA employee receiving the information meets the following conditions:
(1) During the conversation in which the information or statement is provided, the VA employee:
(i) Identifies himself or herself as a VA employee who is authorized to receive the information or statement (these are VA employees authorized to take actions under §§ 2.3 or 3.100 of this chapter);
(ii) Verifies the identity of the provider as either the beneficiary or his or her fiduciary by obtaining specific information about the beneficiary that can be verified from the beneficiary's VA records, such as Social Security number, date of birth, branch of military service, dates of military service, or other information; and
(iii) Informs the provider that the information or statement will be used for the purpose of calculating benefit amounts; and
(2) During or following the conversation in which the information
5. Section § 3.256(a) introductory text is amended by removing “in writing”.
6. Section § 3.277(b) introductory text is amended by removing “in writing”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision and request for redesignation submitted by the state of Nebraska for the purpose of redesignating the lead nonattainment area in eastern Douglas County, Nebraska, to attainment of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). In the final rules section of the
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by May 21, 2001.
Comments may be mailed to Kim Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Kim Johnson at (913) 551-7975.
See the information provided in the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of the
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document proposes two allotments. The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Stargazer Broadcasting, Inc., proposing the allotment of Channel 237C3 at Eagle Lake, Texas, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Channel 237C3 can be allotted to Eagle Lake in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirement with a site restriction of 16.4 kilometers (10.2 miles) west to avoid short-spacings to the licensed sites of Station KVIC(FM), Channel 236C3, Victoria, Texas, and Station KIKK-FM, Channel 239C, Houston, Texas. The coordinates for Channel 237C3 at Eagle Lake are 29-35-15 North Latitude and 96-30-03 West Longitude. The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Montana Magic Investments, Inc., proposing the allotment of Channel 293A at Montana City, Montana, as the community's first local aural transmission service. Channel 293A can be allotted to Montana City in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 3.8 kilometers (2.4 miles) north to avoid a short-spacing to the licensed site of Station KWYS-FM, Channel 293C, Island Park, Idaho. The coordinates for Channel 293A at Montana City are 46-33-43 North Latitude and 111-57-39 West Longitude. Since Montana City is located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border, concurrence of the Canadian government has been requested.
Comments must be filed on or before May 21, 2001, and reply comments on or before June 5, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: David P. Garland, President, Stargazer Broadcasting, Inc., P.O. Box 519, Woodville, Texas 75979 (Petitioner); Roger Lonnquist, Montana Magic Investments, Inc., P.O. Box 4218, Helena, Montana 59604 (Petitioner).
Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-80 and MM Docket No. 01-81, adopted March 21, 2001, and released March 30, 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.
The 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 reads as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Texas, is amended by adding Eagle Lake, Channel 237C3.
3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Montana, is amended by adding Montana City, Channel 293A.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Idaho Broadcasting Corsortium, Inc., proposing the reallotment of Channel 256C from Lost Cabin to Arapahoe, Wyoming, and the modification of Station KSXZ-FM's construction permit accordingly. Channel 256C can be reallotted to Arapahoe in compliance with the Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 1.5 (0.9 miles) northeast at the petitioner's requested site. The coordinates for Channel 256C at Arapahoe are 42-5813 North Latitude and 108-28-30 West Longitude.
Comments must be filed on or before May 28, 2001, and reply comments on or before June 12, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, his counsel, or consultant, as follows: Laura A. Otis, Rosenman & Colin, LLP, 805 15th Street, NW., 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20005-2212 (Counsel for Petitioner).
Sharon P. McDonald, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-86, adopted March 28, 2001 and released April 6, 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 Wyoming, is amended by removing Lost Cabin, Channel 256C and adding Arapahoe, Channel 256C.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
This document requests comments on a petition for rule making filed on behalf of Channel 11 License, Inc., permittee of Channel 11, International Falls, Minnesota (File No. BPCT-960709KR), requesting the reallotment of NTSC Channel 11 from International Falls to Chisholm, Minnesota, as that community's first local television transmission service and modification of its authorization accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules. There is no paired DTV channel for Channel 11 at International Falls. Coordinates used for Channel 11 at Chisholm are 47-51-39 NL and 92-56-43 WL. As Chisholm, Minnesota, is located within 400 kilometers (250 miles) of the United States-Canada border, the Commission must obtain concurrence of the Canadian Government to this proposal.
Comments must be filed on or before May 28, 2001, and reply comments on or before June 12, 2001.
Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: Tom W. Davidson and Natalie G. Roisman, Esqs., Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., 1333 New Hampshire Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20036.
Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 418-2180.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 01-87, adopted March 28, 2001, and released April 6, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
Television 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 73.606(b), the Table of TV Allotments under Minnesota, is amended by adding Chisholm, Channel 11, and removing International Falls, Channel 11.
Federal Communications Commission.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the USAID Malaria Vaccine Development Program (MVDP) Federal Advisory Committee. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on 1 May 2001 and from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 2 May 2001 at the Conference Room of the Environmental Health Project located in Suite 300, 1611 North Kent Street in Arlington, VA 22209-2111. The agenda will concentrate on the activities of the MVDP over the past six months and on future plans.
The meeting will be partially closed since proprietary information will be discussed throughout the meeting. However, an open public information session including a program briefing and opportunity for discussion will be held from 10-10:30 on 1 May.
Those wishing to attend or obtain additional information about the USAID MVDP should contact Carter Diggs, the designated Federal Officer for the USAID MVDP Federal Advisory Committee at the Office of Health and Nutrition, USAID MVDP Federal Advisory Committee at the Office of Health and Nutrition, USAID/G/PHN/HN/EH, Room 3.07-013, 3rd floor, RRB, Washington, DC 20523-3700, telephone (202) 712-5728, Fax (202) 216-3702, cdiggs@usaid.gov.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice.
This document proposes to amend the recommended manufacturing milk requirements (Recommended Requirements) by updating the existing drug residue monitoring program. The proposal would provide State regulatory agencies and the dairy industry with updated guidance in carrying out sampling, testing, and monitoring activities relating to drug residues in manufacturing grade milk. The proposal to update the drug residue monitoring program was initiated at the request of the Dairy Division of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) and developed in cooperation with NASDA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), dairy trade associations, and producer groups. This document also proposes certain other changes to the Recommended Requirements for clarity and consistency.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 19, 2001.
Written comments may be submitted to Duane R. Spomer, Chief, Dairy Standardization Branch, Dairy Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 2746 South Building, Stop 0230, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; faxed to (202) 720-2643; or e-mailed to
Comments should reference the date and page number of this issue of the
The current Recommended Requirements, along with the proposed changes, are available either from the above address or by accessing the information on the Internet. The Recommended Requirements are located at the following Internet address:
Duane R. Spomer, Chief, Dairy Standardization Branch, AMS/USDA/Dairy Programs, Room 2746 South Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 720-7473, e-mail
Under the authority of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627), the United States Department of Agriculture maintains a set of model regulations relating to quality and sanitation requirements for the production and processing of manufacturing grade milk. These Recommended Requirements are developed by AMS and recommended for adoption and enforcement by the various States that regulate manufacturing grade milk. The purpose of the model requirements is to promote uniformity in State dairy laws and regulations relating to manufacturing grade milk.
In consultation with representatives from NASDA, State regulatory agencies, FDA, and dairy industry trade associations, the Department prepared the Recommended Requirements to promote uniformity in State dairy laws and regulations for manufacturing grade milk. To accommodate changes that have occurred in the dairy industry, NASDA and various State officials have from time to time requested USDA to update the Recommended Requirements.
On May 6, 1993, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) updated the existing Recommended Requirements and incorporated an expanded drug residue monitoring program based on drug residue provisions for Grade A milk produced under the cooperative National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) program (58 FR 26950). Within the NCIMS program, FDA, State regulatory agencies, consumers, and the dairy industry cooperatively develop and modify model regulations that are used to
During its July 1999 annual meeting, the Dairy Division of NASDA passed a resolution requesting USDA to review the drug residue provisions of Recommended Requirements and update this document to provide greater consistency with the drug residue requirements currently in place for Grade A milk. AMS reviewed these provisions and developed a draft that identified the changes associated with this request. This draft was provided to State regulatory officials and dairy trade association representatives for informal discussion prior to publication in the
The requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, were considered in developing this notice, and it has been determined that this action does not have federalism implications as defined under the executive order. This action does not have substantial effects on the States (the relationship between the national government and the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government). The adoption of the Recommended Requirements by State regulatory agencies is voluntary. States maintain the responsibility to establish dairy regulations and continue to have the option to establish regulations that are different from the Recommended Requirements. A State may choose to have requirements less restrictive or more stringent than the Recommended Requirements. Their decision to have different requirements would not affect the ability of milk producers to market milk or of processing plants to produce dairy products in their State.
AMS is proposing to change the term “fieldman” to “fieldperson” wherever it appears in the Recommended Requirements so that gender-neutral designations are used. The term fieldman is currently included in the Definitions section and is used in several instances in the Administrative Procedures section of the document.
In addition to the proposals to update the drug residue monitoring program and to provide gender-neutral language, this document proposes certain other changes for accuracy, clarity, and consistency.
Except for the gender changes identified earlier in this Notice, the following outline details the remaining proposed changes in the Recommended Requirements. For the reasons set forth, AMS is publishing this notice with a 60-day comment period to provide a sufficient time for interested persons to comment on the changes.
(7 U.S.C. 1621-1627)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice.
We are giving notice that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is seeking public comments on the draft Scrapie Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules. This document contains draft cooperative procedures and standards to be used by the Agency, States, and the sheep and goat industries to contribute to the control and eradication of scrapie, a serious disease of sheep and goats.
We invite you to comment on the draft Scrapie Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules. We will consider all comments that we receive by June 19, 2001.
Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 97-093-7, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 97-093-7.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
You may request a copy of the draft Scrapie Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules by writing to the person listed under
Dr. Diane Sutton, National Scrapie Program Coordinator, National Animal Health Programs Staff, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-6954.
Scrapie is a degenerative and eventually fatal disease affecting the central nervous systems of sheep and goats. To control the spread of scrapie within the United States, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), administers regulations at 9 CFR part 79, which restrict the interstate movement of certain sheep and goats. APHIS also has regulations at 9 CFR part 54 that describe a voluntary scrapie control program.
The draft Scrapie Eradication Uniform Methods and Rules (UM&R) is a set of proposed cooperative procedures and standards to aid the control and eradication of scrapie. The legal requirements for interstate movement of sheep and goats due to scrapie are contained in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The Scrapie Eradication UM&R provides guidance to the States regarding the minimum standards necessary for a State to participate in the national eradication program. The UM&R will be revised and published as necessary by APHIS, with input from involved State and Federal agencies, representatives of the livestock industry, and the public. The current draft of the UM&R was written after substantial consultation with State animal health agencies, the American Sheep Industry Association, and the United States Animal Health Association.
We are soliciting comments on the draft UM&R from any interested parties. To obtain a copy of the UM&R, or to submit comments on it, please see the instructions given under
21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114, 114a, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-126, and 134a-134h; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The USDA, Forest Service is gathering information and preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a forest wide noxious weed management program. The intent of this program is to deter the establishment, and control the spread of existing noxious weeds on portions of the Bitterroot National Forest, with special consideration given to the areas affected by the 2000 fire season. The methods of weed management would include mechanical, biological, vegetative, innovative grazing, ground and aerial herbicide applications. Methods of management will be evaluated based on environmental and wilderness restrictions, and based on site characteristics to ensure weed management activities are as successful as possible. Treatment areas would include big game summer and winter range and adjacent burned areas, roads, trails, trailheads, administrative sites, and other emphasis areas. The total treated area will encompass between 15,000 and 20,000 acres. This project will also include pre and post treatment monitoring and follow up treatments for a period of 10 to 15 years.
Comments concerning the scope of this project should be received by the Sula Ranger District, Bitterroot National Forest by May 15, 2001.
Please send written comments to: Sula Ranger District, Bitterroot National Forest; Attn: Forest Weed EIS; 7338 Highway 93 South; Sula, MT 59871.
Craig Bobzien, Darby/Sula District Ranger, telephone: (406) 821-3201, or Frank Guzman, Forest Weed EIS Team Leader, Sula Ranger District, 7338 Highway 93 South, Sula, MT 59871, telephone (406) 821-3201, email:
This project will encompass portions of the
Public participation will be an integral component of the study process, and will be especially important at several points during the analysis. The first is during the scoping process. The Forest Service will be seeking information, comments and assistance from federal, State, County, and local agencies, individuals and organizations that may be interested in or affected by the proposed activities. The scoping process will include: (1) Identification of potential issues, (2) identification of issues to be analyzed in depth, and (3) elimination of insignificant issues or those which have been covered by a previous environmental review. Written scoping comments will be solicited through a scoping package that will be sent to the project mailing list and local newspapers. For the Forest Service to best use the scoping input, comments should be received by May 31, 2001. Preliminary issues identified for analysis in the EIS include the potential effects and relationship of the project to human health risk, water quality, fisheries and native plant communities, wildlife habitat, soil productivity, recreation, scenery, heritage resources, sensitive plants.
Based on the results of scoping and the resource conditions within the project area, alternatives (including a no-action alternative) will be developed for the draft EIS. The draft EIS is projected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2001. The final EIS is anticipated in February 2002.
The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days from the date that the EPA publishes the notice of availability in the
At this early stage, the Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft EIS's must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal, so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns of the proposed action, comments on the draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may address the adequacy of the draft EIS, or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act in 40 CFR 1503.3, in addressing these points.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC) will meet on May 3, 2001, at the World Trade Center, 121 S.W. Salmon, Portland, Oregon 97204. The purpose of the meeting is to continue discussions on the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until 3:30 p.m. Agenda items to be discussed include, but are not limited to: Soliciting advice regarding the Future Direction of Adaptive Management Areas, sharing information about the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Framework, and illustrating how IAC advice was used in the development of the draft Aquatic Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan and the FERC/ACS Short- and Long-Term Questions. The IAC meeting will be open to the public and is fully accessible for people with disabilities. Interpreters are available upon request in advance. Written comments may be submitted for the record at the meeting. Time will also be scheduled for oral public comments. Interested persons are encouraged to attend.
Questions regarding this meeting may be directed to Steve Odell, Executive Director, Regional Ecosystem Office, 333 SW 1st Avenue, P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208 (Phone: 503-808-2166).
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of availability of proposed changes in the Alaska NRCS State Technical Guide for review and comment.
It has been determined by the NRCS State Conservationist for Alaska
Comments will be received on or before May 21, 2001.
Chuck Bell, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 800 West Evergreen, Palmer, Alaska, 99645; phone (907) 761-7760; or FAX (907) 761-7790.
If you would like to review the Nutrient Management practice standard in view of making comments, contact Chuck Bell at the above address or phone number to receive a copy of the draft standard.
For the next 30 days the NRCS will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made to the subject standard.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in New Mexico, Department of Agriculture.
Notice of availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the FOTG of the NRCS in New Mexico for review and comment.
It is the intention of NRCS in New Mexico to issue a series of new conservation practice standards in Section IV of the FOTG. These revised standards include: 595-Pest Management, 332-Contour Buffer Strips, and 382-Fence.
The NRCS New Mexico State Conservationist has chosen to revise and supplement the National Standards adapted to the State of New Mexico. These will be incorporated into Section IV of the New Mexico Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG). Some of these practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land and wetlands. Copies of these standards are available from NRCS in Albuquerque, NM and are also available electronically on the NRCS New Mexico Internet Homepage at: http://www.nm.nrcs.usda.gov/techserv/sec4home.htm
Section 343 on the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law to NRCS State technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS will receive comments relative to these proposed changes. Following that period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.
Comments will be received on or before May 21, 2001.
Inquire in writing to Mr. Rosendo Trevin
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletion from the procurement list.
This action adds to the Procurement List services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List a commodity previously furnished by such agencies.
May 21, 2001.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Patrick T. Mooney (703) 603-7740.
On March 2, 2001 the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices (66 F.R. 13041) of proposed additions to and deletion from the Procurement List:
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the services to the Government.
2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on current contractors for the services.
3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the services to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following services are hereby added to the Procurement List:
This action does not affect current contracts awarded prior to the effective
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on future contractors for the commodity.
3. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodity to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodity deleted from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the commodity listed below is no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
Accordingly, the following commodity is hereby deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from procurement list.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List commodities and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete commodities previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2001.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Patrick T. Mooney (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 47(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed addition, all entities of the Federal Government (except as otherwise indicated) will be required to procure the commodities and services listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the commodities and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodities and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this certification are invited.
Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information. The following commodities and services have been proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the commodities to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the commodities proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following commodities have been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C., 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
The application to expand FTZ 20 is approved, subject to the Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28, and further subject to the Board's standard 2,000-acre activation limit for the overall zone project.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of rescission of antidumping duty administrative review.
On March 22, 2001, the Department of Commerce (the Department) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea for the period July 29, 1999, through January 31, 2001, pursuant to a request made by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM) on February 28, 2001 (66 FR 16037, 16038). In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department is rescinding this administrative review because the producer, DSM, has withdrawn its request for an administrative review in a timely manner.
April 20, 2001.
Howard Smith or Michele Mire, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 4, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5193 or (202) 482-4711, 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 (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).
On February 14, 2001, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate from the Republic of Korea (66 FR 10269, 10270). On March 22, 2001, the Department initiated an administrative review for the period July 29, 1999, through January 31, 2001, pursuant to a request made by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd. (DSM) on February 28, 2001 (66 FR 16037, 16038). On March 21, 2001, DSM withdrew its request that the Department conduct an administrative review.
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that the Secretary may permit a party that requests an administrative review to withdraw the request within 90 days after the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested administrative review. The Department is rescinding this review because the requesting party, DSM, has withdrawn its request for an administrative review within the 90 day time limit and no other interested parties have requested a review.
The notice is in accordance with section 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of rescission of antidumping duty administrative review.
On October 2, 2000, the Department published in the
April 20, 2001.
Helen Kramer or Steve Bezirganian, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0405 or (202) 482-1131, 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 of 1930, as amended, by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department) regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR part 351 (April 2000).
The product covered by this review is grain-oriented silicon electrical steel, which is a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, of a thickness of no more than 0.560 millimeters, in coils of any width, or in straight lengths which are of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness, as currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS) under item numbers 7225.30.7000, 7225.40.7000, 7225.50.8085, 7225.99.0090, 7226.11.1000, 7226.11.9030, 7226.11.9060, 7226.91.7000, 7226.91.8000, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, 7226.92.8050, 7226.99.0000, 7228.30.8050, and 7229.90.1000. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written descriptions of the scope of these proceedings are dispositive.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 31, 2000, Allegheny Ludlum and AK Steel Corporation (formerly Armco, Inc.), collectively “petitioners,” requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy. We initiated this review on October 2, 2000 (65 FR 58733). On March 29, 2001, the petitioners filed a letter with the Department withdrawing their request for the Department to conduct an administrative review. Ordinarily, parties have 90 days from the publication of the notice of initiation of review in which to withdraw a request for review. See CFR 351.213(d)(1). We did not receive petitioners' withdrawal request until after the 90-day period had elapsed. However, the review has not progressed substantially and there would be no undo burden on the parties or the Department if the Department were to rescind the review on the basis of this request. Therefore, the Department has determined that it would be reasonable to grant the withdrawal at this time.
This notice is published pursuant to section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1675 (1999)), and section 351.213 of the Department's regulations (19 CFR 351.213 (2000)).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination.
April 20, 2001.
Stephanie Moore at (202) 482-3692 or Tipten Troidl at (202) 482-1767, 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.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to certain producers and
The petition in this investigation was filed by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, Gallatin Steel Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., Weirton Steel Corporation, the Independent Steelworkers Union, and the United Steelworkers of America (the petitioners).
Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the
On January 18, 2001, we issued a partial extension of the due date for this preliminary determination from February 7, 2001 to March 26, 2001.
On March 26, 2001, we amended the Extension Notice to take the full amount of time to issue this preliminary determination. The extended due date is April 13, 2001.
On April 10, 2001, we received comments from petitioners based on their partial translation of the respondent's untranslated financial statements. Petitioner's comments concerned the equityworthiness and creditworthiness of Cold Rolling Mill of Indonesia (CRMI), and the equityworthiness of Krakatau.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (
Specifically included within the scope of this investigation are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, regardless of definitions in the
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., ASTM specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this investigation, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00,
In the scope section of the
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).
Because Indonesia is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Indonesia materially injure, or threaten material injury to, a U.S. industry. On January 4, 2001, the ITC published its preliminary determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from Indonesia of the subject merchandise.
On March 23, 2001, the petitioners submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the antidumping duty investigations of hot-rolled carbon steel flat products.
The period for which we are measuring subsidies (the POI) is calendar year 1999.
Under section 351.524(d)(2) of the CVD Regulations, we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant.
In this investigation, no party to the proceeding has claimed that the AUL listed in the IRS tables does not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the firm or industry under investigation. Therefore, in accordance with section 351.524(d)(2) of the CVD Regulations, we will allocate non-recurring subsidies over 15 years, the AUL listed in the IRS tables for the steel industry.
Petitioners alleged that Krakatau was uncreditworthy in the years in which it received GOI loans and equity infusions.
Pursuant to Government Regulation number 12/1969, the Ministry of Finance through Bank Indonesia, which is Indonesia's Central Bank, can borrow money denominated in foreign currencies to lend to Indonesian companies. As stated in the
In 1995, the year in which the credit facility was extended, a lending rate of four percent would have been inconsistent with an interest rate the company would have received on a comparable commercial loan, and would thus provide a countervailable benefit in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act. Moreover, there is no information on the record of this investigation which would indicate that the two-step loan was provided to Krakatau pursuant to a program to which other companies ostensibly had access. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the loan was specific to Krakatau under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
To calculate the benefit from this program, we compared the interest rate Krakatau paid on the two-step loan during the POI to the benchmark interest rate the company would have paid for a comparable commercial loan. For the benchmark interest rate, we used the average cost of long-term fixed-rate loans in Indonesia as the interest rates that would have been paid by a creditworthy company, specifically the rates offered by commercial banks in Indonesia as reported in the Indonesian Financial Statistics, submitted in the March 20, 2001, GOI questionnaire
Petitioners alleged that the GOI provided various equity infusions into Krakatau and its subsidiary, the CRMI. Petitioners alleged that in 1995, the GOI converted approximately 1.298 trillion rupiah of debt into equity. In addition, petitioners alleged that the GOI provided Krakatau with equity infusions totaling 1.6 trillion rupiah in the five years prior to December 31, 1992. Petitioners also alleged two equity infusions into CRMI. We initiated on these two allegations under the following programs: “1989 Equity Infusion to CRMI” and “Three-Step Equity Infusion to CRMI.”
According to the response of the GOI and Krakatau, equity infusions or debt-to-equity conversions were provided to Krakatau in various years. In addition, all of the alleged equity infusions were provided to Krakatau. The details of the equity infusions and conversions are proprietary, and are discussed in the
Section 771(5)(E)(i) of the Act and section 351.507(a)(1) of the CVD Regulations state that, in the case of government-provided equity infusion, a benefit is conferred if an equity investment decision is inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors.
Consistent with the methodology discussed in section 351.507(a)(2) of the CVD Regulations, the first question in analyzing a benefit with respect to an equity infusion is whether, at the time of the infusion, there was a market price for similar newly-issued equity. If so, the Department will consider an equity infusion to be inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors if the price paid by the government for newly-issued shares is greater than the price paid by private investors for the same, or similar, newly-issued shares.
If actual private investor prices are not available, then the Department will determine whether the firm funded by the government-provided infusion was equityworthy or unequityworthy at the time of the equity infusion. (
In this instance, Krakatau reported that there was no market price for a similarly newly-issued equity at the time of the GOI equity infusions and debt-to-equity conversions into Krakatau. Therefore, we must determine whether Krakatau was equityworthy or unequityworthy at the time of the equity infusions and conversions.
The first criterion examined by the Department to determine whether, from the perspective of a reasonable private investor, Krakatau showed an ability to generate a reasonable rate of return within a reasonable period of time, is an objective analysis of Krakatau prepared prior to the government-provided equity infusions and conversions which the government based its decisions to invest. Based on our examination of the responses of the GOI and Krakatau, we have preliminarily determined that no objective studies of Krakatau had been prepared prior to the GOI's investment decisions on which the GOI could have based its investment decisions for the equity infusions and debt-to-equity conversions.
Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the GOI's equity infusions and conversions into Krakatau constitute countervailable subsidies within the meaning of section 771(5) of the Act. These investments provide a financial contribution, as described in section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Also, we preliminarily determine that this program is specific under section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act because the equity infusions/conversions were limited to Krakatau. Finally, because no objective analysis was performed containing information typically examined by potential private investors considering an equity investment prior to the GOI's decisions to invest in Krakatau, the investment decisions were inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors. Therefore, a benefit exists according to section 771(5)(E)(i) of the Act in the amount of the equity infusions and the amount of the debt-to-equity conversions.
To calculate the benefit applicable to the POI, we applied the Department's standard grant methodology. We divided the total benefits attributable to the equity infusions and conversions by Krakatau's total sales during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy from this program to be 15.52 percent
In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for Krakatau, the only company under investigation. We preliminarily determine that the total estimated net countervailable subsidy rate is 16.53 percent
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from Indonesia, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination. The hearing is tentatively scheduled to be held 57 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. In addition, six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 50 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 5 days from the date of filing of the case briefs. An interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be considered if received within the time limits specified above.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination.
April 20, 2001.
Eric B. Greynolds at (202) 482-6071 or Robert Copyak (202) 482-2209, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to certain producers and exporters of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products (subject merchandise) from India. For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.
The petition in this investigation was filed by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Gallatin Steel Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, Weirton Steel Corporation, Independent Steelworkers Union, and the Independent Steelworkers of America (the petitioners).
Since the publication of the notice of initiation in the
We note that the GOI's January 26, 2001 questionnaire response indicated that Jindal Iron and Steel (Jindal) shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. However, we did not receive a questionnaire response from Jindal.
On February 22, 2001, petitioners submitted financial information for Ispat and Essar and requested that the Department initiate creditworthy investigations for the two companies for fiscal years 1997 through 2000. In the same submission, petitioners submitted additional financial information for SAIL covering fiscal years 1997 and 1998 and requested that the Department reverse its decision in the
On January 18, 2001, we issued a partial extension of the due date for this preliminary determination from February 7, 2001, to March 26, 2001.
On March 26, 2001, we amended the Extension Notice to take the full amount of time to issue this preliminary determination. The extended due date is April 13, 2001.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (
Specifically included within the scope of this investigation are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including,
• SAE/AISI grades of series 2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTS.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled flat-rolled carbon-quality steel covered by this investigation, including: vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
In the scope section of the
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).
Because India is a “Subsidy Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from India materially injure or threaten material injury to a U.S. industry. On January 4, 2001, the ITC published its preliminary determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from India of subject merchandise.
On March 23, 2001, petitioners submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the final determination in the companion antidumping duty investigation. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final determination in the
The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring subsidies is April 1, 1999, through March 31, 2000, which corresponds to the period for producers/exporters' most recently completed fiscal year.
Jindal failed to respond to the Department's questionnaire. Sections 776(a)(2)(A) and 776(a)(2)(B) of the Act require the use of facts available when an interested party withholds information that has been requested by the Department, or when an interested party fails to provide the information requested in a timely manner and in the form required. Jindal failed to provide information explicitly requested by the Department; therefore, we must resort to the facts otherwise available. Because Jindal failed to provide any requested information, sections 782(d) and (e) of the Act are not applicable.
Section 776(b) of the Act provides that in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In this investigation, the Department requested that all producers/exporters in India that shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POI submit the information requested in our initial questionnaire. However, Jindal, a producer/exporter that shipped subject merchandise to the United States during the POI, did not participate in the investigation.
The Department finds that by not providing the necessary information specifically requested by the Department and by failing to participate in any respect in this investigation, Jindal has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, in selecting facts available, the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted.
Section 776(b) of the Act indicates that, when employing an adverse inference, the Department may rely upon information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in a countervailing duty or an antidumping investigation; (3) any previous administrative review, new shipper review, expedited antidumping review, section 753 review; or (4) any other information placed on the record.
For more information on the rate attributed to Jindal, see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this preliminary determination.
Under section 351.524(d)(2) of the CVD Regulations, we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of the Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant.
In this investigation, the Department is examining non-recurring subsidies. Regarding non-recurring subsidies, we have allocated, where applicable, all of the non-recurring subsidies of the producers/exporters of subject merchandise over the AUL listed in the IRS tables for the steel industry and used in a recently completed administrative review for Indian steel companies (
In accordance with section 351.505(3)(i) of the CVD Regulations, for those programs requiring the application of a short-term benchmark interest rate, we used company-specific, short-term interest rates on commercial loans as reported by producers/exporters of subject merchandise. With respect to the rupee-denominated, short-term benchmark, we used the weighted-average of the companies' cash credit loans. We note that in
For those programs requiring a rupee-denominated discount rate or the application of a rupee-denominated, long-term benchmark interest rate, we used, where available, company-specific, weighted-average interest rates on commercial long-term, rupee-denominated loans. We note that some producers/exporters of subject merchandise did not have rupee-denominated, long-term loans from commercial banks for all required years. Therefore, for those years, we had to rely on a rupee-denominated, long-term benchmark interest rate that is not company-specific, but provides a reasonable representation of industry practice, in order to determine whether a benefit was provided to the companies from rupee-denominated, long-term loans received from the GOI. Pursuant to 19 CFR § 351.505(a)(3)(iii), we first sought to use national average interest rates for those years in which the producer/exporters did not report company-specific interest rates on comparable commercial loans. However, the GOI did not provide in its questionnaire response national average interest rates on long-term, rupee-denominated financing for those years. Therefore, in keeping with the Department's past practice, we used as our benchmark in these instances the weighted-average interest rates of commercial rupee-denominated, long-term loans that were received by the other respondent companies in this investigation. This approach is consistent with the Department's practice in recent investigations.
SAIL used a countervailable program requiring the use of long-term interest rate benchmarks that were denominated in foreign currencies. Because SAIL did not have any comparable, commercial loans denominated in the appropriate foreign currencies, we used currency-specific “Lending Rates” from private creditors as published in the
In the November 13, 2000 petition and the November 22, 2000 supplement to the petition, petitioners alleged that SAIL was uncreditworthy for the years 1989 through 2000. Based upon the information provided by petitioners we initiated creditworthy investigations of SAIL for only the fiscal years 1999 and 2000. We declined to initiate a creditworthy investigation for the years 1989 through 1998 because the information provided in the petition did not support the allegation that SAIL was uncreditworthy for that period.
As discussed in the “Case History” section of this preliminary determination, on February 22, 2001, petitioners submitted additional financial information for SAIL covering the years 1997 and 1998 and requested that the Department reverse its finding in the
Pursuant to section 351.505(a)(4)(i) of the CVD Regulations, the Department will generally consider a firm to be uncreditworthy if, based on information available at the time of the government-provided loan, the firm could not have obtained long-term loans from conventional commercial sources. To make this determination, the Department may examine, among other factors, the following:
(A) The receipt by the firm of comparable commercial long-term loans;
(B) The present and past financial health of the firm, as reflected in various financial indicators calculated from the firm's financial statements and accounts;
(C) The firm's recent past and present ability to meet its costs and fixed financial obligations with its cash flow; and
(D) Evidence of the firm's future financial position, such as market studies, country and industry economic forecasts, and project and loan appraisals prepared prior to the agreement between the lender and the firm on the terms of the loan.
With regard to items (B) and (C), above, it is necessary to examine financial ratios of a firm not only as they stand alone, but also within the context of the industry in which it operates. Petitioners have calculated numerous financial ratios for Ispat, Essar and SAIL based on the companies' balance sheets during the years in question. The Department has confirmed these figures. The key ratios calculated and reported by petitioners are debt/equity, total liabilities/net worth, fixed assets/net worth, current liabilities/net worth, quick ratio and current ratio. However, in our creditworthy analysis we have placed little reliance on the debt/equity ratio because the other five ratios are more important in determining the solvency and creditworthiness of a company.
As explained in the April 13, 2001, creditworthiness memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director of the Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, a public document on file in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B-099 (
As also explained in the
Regarding petitioners' allegation that Ispat and Essar were uncreditworthy during fiscal years 1997 through 2000, our review of the companies' financial ratios do not lead us to conclude that the companies were uncreditworthy. Moreover, the companies' financial statements as well as their questionnaire responses indicate that they were able to secure commercial financing without GOI guarantees during the years alleged. For more information, see the
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI), through commercial banks, provides short-term pre-shipment financing, or “packing credits,” to exporters. Upon presentation of a confirmed export order or letter of credit to a bank, companies may receive pre-shipment loans for working capital purposes,
Post-shipment export financing consists of loans in the form of discounted trade bills or advances by commercial banks. Exporters qualify for this program by presenting their export documents to their lending bank. The credit covers the period from the date of shipment of the goods to the date of realization of export proceeds from the overseas customer. Under the Foreign Exchange Management Act of 1999, exporters are required to realize export proceeds within 180 days from the date of shipment, which is monitored by the RBI. Post-shipment financing is, therefore, a working capital program used to finance export receivables. This financing is normally denominated either in rupees or in foreign currency, except in those instances when an exporter uses foreign currency pre-shipment financing and is then restricted to post-shipment export financing denominated in the same foreign currency.
In general, post-shipment loans are granted for a period of no more than 180 days. The interest rate charged on these foreign currency denominated loans during the POI was LIBOR plus 1.5 percent. For loans not repaid within the due date, exporters lose the concessional interest rate on this financing.
The Department has previously found both pre-shipment export financing and post-shipment export financing to be countervailable, because receipt of export financing under these programs was contingent upon export performance and the interest rates under this program were lower than the rates the exporters would have paid on comparable commercial loans.
To determine whether a benefit was conferred under the pre-export financing program for rupee-denominated loans, we compared the interest rate charged on these loans to a rupee-denominated, short-term benchmark interest rate, as described in the “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate” section above. We compared this company-specific benchmark rate to the interest rates charged on the producer/exporter's pre-shipment rupee loans and found that the interest rates charged were lower than the benchmark rates. Therefore, in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, we preliminarily determine that this program conferred countervailable benefits on producers/exporters of subject merchandise during the POI because the interest rates charged on these loans were less than what the companies otherwise would have had to pay on comparable short-term commercial loans.
To calculate the benefit conferred by these pre-shipment loans, we compared the actual interest paid on the loans with the amount of interest that would have been paid at the benchmark interest rate. Where the benchmark interest exceeds the actual interest paid, the difference is the benefit. We then divided the total amount of benefit by each producer/exporter's total exports. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy under the pre-shipment export financing program to be 0.13 percent
With regard to rupee-denominated post-shipment loans, we calculated the benefit using the same methodology described above. With respect to our calculation of the net subsidy rate, respondents have indicated that post-shipment financing can be tied to specific exports contracts. Therefore, when calculating the net subsidy rate under this program, we divided the benefits received by each producer/exporter under this program by their respective sales of subject merchandise made to the United States during the POI.
During the POI, SAIL also took out post-shipment export financing denominated in U.S. dollars. To determine the benefit conferred by SAIL's U.S. dollar-denominated post-shipment financing, we again compared the program interest rates to a comparable benchmark interest rate. As explained in the “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate” section above, we used as our benchmark the weighted-average interest rate of SAIL's company-specific, U.S. dollar-denominated short-term loans received from commercial banks. We compared this company-specific benchmark rate to the interest rates charged on SAIL's post-shipment U.S. dollar-denominated loans and have determined that the interest payments under the program were less than what would have been paid on a comparable commercial short-term loan. Because respondents have indicated that post-shipment loans are tied to particular shipments, we divided SAIL's benefits under this program by its sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy under the post-shipment export financing program to be 0.02 percent
The DEPS formerly was the Passbook Scheme (PBS), which was enacted by the GOI on April 1, 1995. Administered under auspices of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the PBS enabled GOI-designated manufacturers/exporters, upon export of finished goods, to earn import duty exemptions in the form of credits which could be used to pay customs duties on subsequent imports. The amount of PBS credit granted was determined according to the GOI's “Standard Input/Output Norms Schedule” (SIO Norms), which contains GOI-determined breakdowns of inputs needed to produce finished products. Rather than receiving cash, companies record their PBS credits in “passbooks” and then offset import duties on subsequent GOI-approved imports by making debit entries in their passbooks.
The PBS was discontinued on April 1, 1997. In its January 26, 2001, response to the Department's original questionnaire, the GOI stated that credit available under the PBS had to be utilized by September 30, 1999, after which date any outstanding credits lapsed. No producer/exporter reported using this program during the POI.
India's DEPS was enacted on April 1, 1997, as a successor to the PBS. As with PBS, the DEPS enables exporting companies to earn import duty exemptions in the form of passbook credits rather than cash. Exporting companies may obtain DEPS credits on a pre-export basis or on a post-export basis. Eligibility for pre-export DEPS credits is limited to manufacturers/exporters that have exported for a three-year period prior to applying for the program. The amount of pre-export DEPS credits that could be earned during the POI was ten percent of the average of total export performance of the applicant during the preceding three years. Pre-export DEPS credits are not transferable.
All exporters are eligible to earn DEPS credits on a post-export basis, provided that the exported product is listed in the GOI's SIO Norms. Post-export DEPS credits can be used for any subsequent imports, regardless of whether they are consumed in the production of an export product. Post-export DEPS credits are valid for 12 months and are transferable. With respect to subject merchandise, exporters were eligible to earn credits equal to 14 percent of the f.o.b. value of their export shipments during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2000. During the POI, SAIL, Essar, Ispat, and TISCO all earned post-export DEPS credits.
The criteria regarding the remission, exemption or drawback of import duties is set forth in 19 CFR 351.519. Pursuant to this provision, the entire amount of an import duty exemption is countervailable if the government does not have in place and apply a system or procedure to confirm which imports are consumed in the production of the exported product and in what amounts, or if the government has not carried out an examination of actual imports involved to confirm which imports are consumed in the production of the exported product.
In
Consequently, in
We note that, in this investigation, the GOI and the producers/exporters of subject merchandise have claimed that the DEPS is not countervailable. However, we find that these claims are not sufficient to demonstrate that a different decision is warranted at this time. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination, we find that the DEPS conferred countervailable export subsidies upon producers/exporters of subject merchandise during the POI. However, during verification we will carefully examine how this program operates.
We have determined that benefits from the DEPS are conferred as of the date of exportation of the shipment for which the pertinent DEPS credits are earned rather than the date DEPS credits are used. At that time, the amount of the benefit is known by the exporter. The benefit to producers/exporters under this program is the total value of DEPS import duty exemptions that producers/exporters earned on their export shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. We have also determined that the application fees paid by producers/exporters qualify as an “* * * application fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the benefit of the countervailable subsidy.”
Under 19 CFR § 351.524(c), this program provides a recurring benefit because DEPS credits provide exemption from import duties. To derive the DEPS program rate, we first calculated the value of the pre- and post-export credits that producers/exporters earned for their export shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI by multiplying the f.o.b. value of each export shipment by 14 percent, the percentage of DEPS credit allowed under the program for exports of subject merchandise. We then subtracted as an allowable offset the actual amount of application fees paid for each license in accordance with section 771(6) of the Act. Finally, we took this sum (the total value of the licenses net of application fees paid) and divided it by each producer/exporter's total respective exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POI.
On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 10.55 percent
Under India's Duty Exemption Scheme, exporters may also import inputs duty-free through the use of import licenses. Using advance licenses, companies are able to import inputs “required for the manufacture of goods” without paying India's basic customs duty. Advance intermediate licenses and special imprest licenses are also used to import inputs duty-free. The GOI reported that advance intermediate licenses and special imprest licenses are not related to exports. During the POI, Essar and TISCO used advance licences and TISCO also sold some advance licenses. Producers/exporters did not use or sell any advance intermediate licenses or special imprest licenses during the POI.
The Department has previously determined that the sale of import licenses confers a countervailable export subsidy.
Essar and TISCO used advance licenses during the POI. In
In addition, we further determined in
Consequently, we determined in
Respondents have stated that some adjustments have been made to this program; however, these claims are not sufficient to demonstrate that a different decision is warranted at this time. On this basis, we continue to determine that the advance license program is a countervailable program. However, during verification will we closely examine any changes made to the program since
Under 19 CFR 351.524(c), this program provides a recurring benefit because advance licenses provide import duty exemptions. Essar and TISCO used advance licenses during the POI on exports of subject merchandise to the United States. As in
To calculate the benefits conferred to Essar and TISCO from their use of the advance licenses, we first calculated the total amount of import duty exemptions realized by Essar and TISCO (net of application fees). Regarding TISCO's sale of advanced licenses, we determine that the benefit is equal to the revenues (net of application fees) that TISCO realized on its sale of the licenses. In
During the POI, producers/exporters of subject merchandise sold through public auction two types of import licenses—SILs for Quality and SILs for Star Trading Houses. SILs for Quality are licenses granted to exporters which meet internationally-accepted quality standards for their products, such as the IS0 9000 (series) and ISO 14000 (series). SILs for Star Trading Houses are licenses granted to exporters that meet certain export targets. Both types of SILs permit the holder to import products listed on a “Restricted List of Imports” in amounts up to the face value of the SIL. Under the program, the SILs do not exempt or reduce the amount of import duties paid by the importer.
Producers/exporters reported that they sold SILs during the POI. The Department's practice is that the sale of SILs constitutes an export subsidy because companies receive these licenses based on their status as exporters.
During the POI, producers/exporters sold numerous SILs. Because the receipt of SILs cannot be segregated by type or destination of export, we calculated the net subsidy rate by dividing the total amount of proceeds each producer/exporter of subject merchandise received from its sales of these licenses by its respective total export sales for the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.16 percent
The EPCGS provides for a reduction or exemption of customs duties and an exemption from excise taxes on imports of capital goods. Under this program, producers may import capital equipment at reduced rates of duty by undertaking to earn convertible foreign exchange equal to four to five times the value of the capital goods within a period of eight years. For failure to meet the export obligation, a company is subject to payment of all or part of the duty reduction, depending on the extent of the export shortfall, plus penalty interest.
In
Producers/exporters reported that they imported machinery under the EPCGS in the years prior to the POI and during the POI. For some of their imported machinery, producers/exporters met their export requirements. As a result, the GOI completely waived the amount of import duties. However, producers/exporters have not completed their export requirements for other imports of capital machinery. Therefore, although producers/exporters received a reduction in import duties when the capital machinery was imported, the final waiver on the potential obligation to repay the duties has not yet been made by the GOI.
We determine that producers/exporters benefitted in two ways by participating in this program. The first benefit to producers/exporters is the benefit from the waiver of import duty on imports of capital equipment. SAIL was the only producer/exporter of subject merchandise to meet some of its export requirements with respect to certain imports of capital equipment. Because the GOI has formally waived the unpaid duties on those imports, we have treated the full amount of the waived duty exemptions as a grant received in the year in which the GOI officially granted the waiver. For other imports of capital machinery, producers/exporters have not completed their export commitments and the final waiver of the potential obligation to repay the duties on those imports has not yet been made by the GOI.
The criteria to be used by the Department in determining whether to allocate the benefits from a countervailable subsidy program is specified under 19 CFR 351.524. Specifically, recurring benefits are not to be allocated but are to be expensed to the year of receipt, while non-recurring benefits are to be allocated over time. In this investigation, non-recurring benefits will be allocated over 15 years, the AUL of assets used by the steel industry as reported in the IRS tables.
Normally, tax benefits are considered to be recurring benefits and are expensed in the year of receipt. Since import duties are a type of tax, the benefit provided under this program is a tax benefit, and, thus, normally would be considered a recurring benefit. However, our CVD regulations recognize that, under certain circumstances, it is more appropriate to allocate over time the benefits of a program traditionally considered a recurring subsidy, rather than to expense the benefits in the year of receipt. Section 351.524(c)(2) of the CVD regulations provides that a party can claim that a subsidy normally treated as a recurring subsidy should be treated as a non-recurring subsidy and enumerates the criteria to be used by the Department in evaluating such a claim. In the Preamble to our regulations, the Department provides an example of when it may be more appropriate to consider the benefits of a tax program to be non-recurring benefits, and, thus, allocate those benefits over time.
In their questionnaire responses, producers/exporters reported all of the capital equipment imports they made using EPCGS licenses and the application fees they paid to obtain their EPCGS licenses. We preliminarily determine that the application fees paid by SAIL qualify as an “* * * application fee, deposit, or similar payment paid in order to qualify for, or to receive, the benefit of the countervailable subsidy.”
In order to calculate the benefit received from the waiver of SAIL's import duties on its capital equipment imports, we determined the total amount of duties waived in each year (net of application fees). Consistent with our approach in
A second type of benefit conferred under this program involves the import duty reductions that producers/exporters received on the imports of capital equipment for which producers/exporters have not yet met their export requirements. For those capital equipment imports, producers/exporters have unpaid duties that will have to be paid to the GOI if the export requirements are not met. Therefore, we determine that the companies had outstanding contingent liabilities during the POI. When a company has an outstanding liability and the repayment of that liability is contingent upon subsequent events, our practice is to treat any balance on that unpaid liability as an interest-free loan.
We determine that the amount of contingent liability to be treated as an interest-free loan is the amount of the import duty reduction or exemption for which producers/exporters applied but, as of the end of the POI, was not finally waived by the GOI. Accordingly, we determine the benefit to be the interest that producers/exporters would have paid during the POI had they borrowed the full amount of the duty reduction at the time of import. We note that this approach is consistent with the methodology employed in
To calculate the program rate, we combined, where applicable, the sum of the allocated benefits received on waived duties and the benefits conferred on producers/exporters in the form of contingent liability loans. We then divided each producer/exporter's total benefit under the program by its respective total export sales during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.30 percent
The SDF was established in 1978 during a time when the steel sector in India was subject to price and distribution controls. From 1978 through 1994, India's integrated steel producers, SAIL, TISCO, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited (RINL), and India Iron & Steel Company Limited (IISCO), were mandated by the GOI to increase the prices for the products they sold. The proceeds from the price increases were remitted to the SDF. Under the SDF program, companies that contributed to the fund are eligible to take out long-term loans at advantageous rates.
Loans from the SDF are made for the following purposes: (1) Financing capital improvements and research and development projects; (2) providing funding for rebates to the Small Scale Industries Corporations on supplies by those companies; and (3) meeting the expenditures of the Economic Research Unit of the Joint Plant Committee (JPC).
The Commission for Iron and Steel, which is known as CI&S, is led by the Secretary of the Ministry of Steel. This official is an ex-officio member of the SDF Managing Committee, and Chairman of the JPC. The issuance and administration of loans under the SDF program are supervised by the JPC. However, according to the GOI, all of the SDF's lending decisions are subject to the review and approval of the SDF Managing Committee.
In
However, new information on the record of this investigation has led us to reverse the non-countervailable finding we made in
In particular, during the period in which the funds for the SDF were provided, the GOI controlled the price of steel products in India. In order to create the SDF, the GOI, acting through the JPC, mandated steel price increases which were earmarked for the SDF. Steel producers collected this price increase, which was paid by steel consumers in India, and these additional funds were then placed into the SDF as a source of concessional financing for the Indian steel industry. Therefore, information on the record, information which was not on the record in
Under section 771(5)(B) of the Act, a subsidy can be found whenever the government makes a financial contribution, when it provides a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution, or when it entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution. We preliminary determine that the GOI directed the contribution of funds for the SDF within the meaning of section 771(5)(B) of the Act, by levying price increases on steel products which were routed into the SDF. Furthermore, because the Secretary of the Ministry of Steel has a major leadership role in the JPC and the SDF Managing Committee, the bodies that issue and administer loans under the SDF, we preliminarily determine that the GOI exercises control over the way in which funding is disbursed under this program. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that loans under the SDF constitute a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. According to information from the GOI, eligibility for loans from the SDF is limited to steel companies. Thus, we also preliminarily determine that loans under this program are specific within the meaning of 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act. SAIL and TISCO received loans under the SDF program. However, SAIL has indicated in its questionnaire response that it had no outstanding SDF loans with interest payments due during the POI. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that these loans did not provide a benefit to SAIL during the POI. We will examine the terms of the loans in detail during verification.
In order to determine whether TISCO's loans under the SDF program conferred a benefit within the meaning of section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act, we compared the actual interest rates charged to the benchmark interest rates that would have been charged on a comparable commercial loan. As discussed in the “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate” section of this preliminary determination, where available we used as our benchmark the weighted-average interest rates on TISCO's rupee-denominated, long-term loans. For those years in which no company-specific long-term benchmark was available for TISCO, we used the weighted-average interest rates of commercial rupee-denominated, long-term loans that were received by the other producers/exporters of subject merchandise. Our comparison of the interest rates indicates that the interest rate payments that TISCO made under the SDF program were less than what it would have otherwise paid on a comparable commercial loan. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the interest savings realized under this program conferred a benefit upon TISCO. We then divided the total amount of interest savings TISCO obtained under this program by TISCO's total sales for the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 1.45 percent
In October of 1998, SAIL, which was facing financial problems, proposed a turnaround plan to the GOI, through the SDF Managing Committee, in which it outlined its financial and business restructuring. The goals of the restructuring plan were to restore the profitability and competitiveness of the company. In order to achieve these goals, SAIL included in its proposal to the GOI provisions for the forgiveness of portions of its outstanding SDF debt. As SAIL's principal shareholder, the GOI reviewed and approved SAIL's overall restructuring plan. However, the approval for the actual forgiveness of SAIL's SDF loans lay with the SDF Managing Committee. SAIL has reported that on February 17, 2000, the SDF Managing Committee issued a resolution in which it waived Rs. 50.73 billion of SAIL's SDF debt. In addition, SAIL indicated that it received from the GOI three other waivers on its SDF loans in the years immediately preceding the POI.
As explained above, we have determined that because the Ministry of Steel has a major leadership role in the SDF Managing Committee, the actions of the SDF Managing Committee are subject to the influence and control of the GOI. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the forgiveness of SAIL's Rs. 50.73 billion in SDF debt that took place during the POI, as well as the SDF waivers that occurred in prior years, constitute a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Furthermore, because the waivers of the SDF loans were limited to SAIL, we determine that they were specific to a particular enterprise within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
In its questionnaire response, SAIL has claimed that a portion of the GOI debt forgiveness it received during the POI was contingent on the company assisting its subsidiary, IISCO, with its debts. Thus, SAIL argues that this portion of the SDF debt was effectively provided to IISCO and, therefore, did not benefit SAIL.
For purposes of this preliminary determination, we have determined that all of the Rs. 50.73 billion in SDF debt forgiveness that SAIL received during the POI constitutes a countervailable benefit conferred upon SAIL in the form of a grant. Information from the GOI indicates that, absent government involvement, SAIL would have borne the burden of IISCO's inability to repay its debts. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the full amount of the SDF loan waiver provided during the POI is attributable to SAIL. We will carefully examine this entire transaction during verification.
To calculate the benefit under this program, we treated the amount of debt forgiveness SAIL received in each year under this program as a non-recurring grant. For each of those years, we performed the “0.5 percent test” as prescribed under 19 CFR 351.524(b)(2). For those grants whose face values were larger than 0.5 percent of SAIL's total sales in the year the grant was approved, we allocated the face amounts of the grants over 15 years, the AUL applied in this investigation, using the Department's standard allocation methodology. We then divided the amounts of the benefits attributable to the POI by SAIL's total sales during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 6.27 percent
In the 1970s, IISCO, a subsidiary of SAIL, was an ailing private sector company, the management of which was assumed by SAIL in the early 1970s at the direction of the GOI. According to the GOI, pursuant to a 1978 Act of Parliament, IISCO was made a wholly-owned subsidiary of SAIL. However, IISCO continued to incur losses, and, in order to meet its capital expenditures and to finance its debts, the GOI issued loans to the company in the late 1980s and early 1990s. According to the GOI, these loans were “routed” through SAIL. The GOI eventually forgave these loans as part of SAIL's financial restructuring package.
In its questionnaire responses, SAIL has claimed that IISCO was the sole recipient of the GOI's debt forgiveness and that SAIL did not benefit from the waiver of the GOI loans in any way. However, according to the questionnaire response of the GOI, due to IISCO's troubled financial situation, IISCO was not able to repay the outstanding debt it owed to SAIL. Thus, according to the GOI, IISCO's inability to repay its debts meant that SAIL, as the controlling entity of IISCO, was “burdened with loans with no prospect of their recovery.” In order to provide relief to SAIL and IISCO, the GOI approved a waiver of SAIL's GOI debts in the amount of Rs. 3.81 billion so that SAIL could immediately thereafter waive loans in the same amount that IISCO owed to SAIL.
Based on the information provided by the GOI, we preliminarily determine that this program conferred countervailable benefits upon SAIL. Absent the involvement of the GOI, IISCO would have not been able to repay the loans it owed to SAIL. In other words, the actions of the GOI enabled SAIL to avoid bad debt expenses. Thus, we preliminarily determine that this program constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act. Furthermore, because the waiver of the GOI loans was limited to SAIL, we determine that it was specific to a particular enterprise within the meaning of section 771(5A)(D)(i) of the Act.
To calculate the benefit under this program, we treated the amount of debt forgiveness SAIL received as a non-recurring grant. We then performed the “0.5 percent test,” as prescribed under section 351.524(b)(2) of the CVD Regulations. Because the amount of the grant was larger than 0.5 percent of SAIL's total sales in the year the debt forgiveness was approved, we allocated the face amount of the grant over 15 years, the AUL applied in this investigation, using the Department's standard allocation methodology. We then divided the amount of the benefit attributable to the POI by SAIL's total sales during the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy to be 0.45 percent
In its questionnaire response, the GOI reported that it does not extend loan guarantees under a particular program. Rather, it provides loan guarantees on a case-by-case basis only after companies have explained in their loan applications the situation and circumstances justifying the guarantee. According to the GOI's response, loan guarantees are normally extended to “Public Sector Companies” in particular industrial sectors. SAIL was the only producer/exporter of subject merchandise that reported loans outstanding during the POI on which it had received GOI loan guarantees. These long-term loans were denominated in several foreign currencies.
In
Under 19 CFR 351.506, a benefit exists from a loan guarantee to the extent that the total amount a firm pays for the loan with a government-provided guarantee is less than the total amount the firm would pay for a comparable commercial loan that the firm could actually obtain on the market absent the government-provided guarantee, including any differences in guarantee fees. Thus, to determine whether a government loan guarantee confers a benefit, we compare the total amount paid by the company (
Using the foreign currency denominated, long-term interest rate benchmark for SAIL that was discussed in the “Benchmarks for Loans and Discount Rate” section of this preliminary determination, we found that the total amounts SAIL paid for its GOI-guaranteed loans were less than the total amounts SAIL would have otherwise paid for comparable commercial loans. Thus, we preliminarily determine that the loan guarantees from the GOI conferred a benefit on SAIL equal to the difference between these two amounts. We then divided the benefit SAIL received under this program by its total sales for the POI. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.06 percent
SAIL also received several GOI-guarantees on loans that were issued by international lending and development institutions. In
During verification we will gather information on guarantee fees charged by commercial banks in India. We will report this benchmark information in our verification report and encourage interested parties to comment on this issue in their case and rebuttal briefs.
Under the Interest Tax Act of 1974, a tax is levied on the chargable interest accruing to a credit institution in a given year. Under Section 28 of the Act, the GOI may exempt any credit institution or class of credit institutions, or the interest on any category of loan or advances from the levy of the interest tax. Pursuant to this section of the Act, the GOI has exempted working capital loans taken from banks for supporting exports from the interest tax. Loans obtained by producers/exporters of subject merchandise from banks under the pre- and post-shipment export financing program are covered by this exemption. All producers/exporters of subject merchandise used this program.
In the
To calculate the benefit for each producer/exporter of subject merchandise, we first determined the total amount of interest paid by each producer/exporter during the POI by adding the interest payments made on all pre- and post-shipment export loans. We then multiplied this amount by the tax rate to which the interest amount would have been subject, if not for the exemption during the POR. In its response, the GOI indicated that during the POI the rate of interest tax exempted was two percent of the basic interest rate. Next, we divided the benefit by the value of each producer/exporter's total exports or total exports of subject merchandise to the United States, depending on the type of sales to which the export financing was tied. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the net countervailable subsidy from this program to be 0.01 percent
The GOI indicated that pursuant to the Finance Act of 2000, the tax exemptions under this program were discontinued as of April 1, 2000. However, the GOI has not yet submitted a copy of the Finance Act of 2000 to substantiate the termination of the program. During verification we will seek to confirm whether this program has been terminated and whether its termination qualifies as a “program-wide change” under 19 CFR § 351.526. If we can substantiate during verification that there has been a program-wide change, we will adjust the cash deposit rates to reflect the termination of this program in our final determination.
SAIL's Annual Reports for fiscal years 1995 through 1999 indicate that the company received “grant-in-aid” from the GOI under several programs ranging from environmental and labor welfare assistance to research and development grants. We conducted the “0.5 percent test” on each of these grants, as prescribed under 19 CFR § 351.524(b)(2). The face amounts of the grants received during the fiscal years 1995 through 1999 did not exceed 0.5 percent of SAIL's total sales. Thus, we determine that these grants would have been expensed in the years of receipt. Because any benefits attributable to these grants would not be allocable to the POI, we find that the program is not used during the POI; therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether these grants are countervailable.
In accordance with section 782(i) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated individual rates for the companies under investigation—SAIL, Essar, TISCO, Ispat, and Jindal. To calculate the “all others” rate, we weight-averaged the individual rates of SAIL, Essar, TISCO, and Ispat by each company's respective sales of subject merchandise made to the United States during the POI. We note that we did not include Jindal's net subsidy rate in the “all others” rate because Jindal's net subsidy rate was calculated on the basis of facts available. These rates are summarized in the table below:
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from India, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and nonproprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination. Any requested hearing will be tentatively scheduled to be held 57 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. In addition, six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 50 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 5 days from the date of filing of the case briefs. An interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be considered if received within the time limits specified above.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination.
April 20, 2001.
Dana Mermelstein at (202) 482-1391 or Samantha Denenberg at (202) 482-1386, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Thailand. For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.
The petition in this investigation was filed, on November 22, 2000, by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Gallatin Steel Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, Weirton Steel Corporation, Independent Steelworkers Union, and the United Steelworkers of America (the petitioners).
We initiated this investigation on December 4, 2000. See Notice of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigations: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Argentina, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Thailand, 65 FR 77580 (December 12, 2000) (Initiation Notice). Since the initiation, the following events have occurred. On December 20, 2000, we issued a countervailing duty questionnaire to the Royal Thai Government (RTG). On January 3, 2001, the RTG responded to Section I.D. of the Department's questionnaire, identifying Sahaviriya Steel Industries Public Company Limited (SSI) as the only producer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation. On January 17, 2001, petitioners renewed their allegation that SSI was uncreditworthy in 1996. On February 6, 2001, we received questionnaire responses from SSI and the RTG. On February 27, 2001, we issued supplemental questionnaires to the RTG and SSI. On March 7 and March 13, 2001, we received the RTG's and SSI's responses to the Department's supplemental questionnaires. On March 16, 2001, the Department decided not to initiate an uncreditworthiness investigation of SSI for 1996. See Memorandum to the File Regarding Uncreditworthiness Allegation for SSI in 1996.
On January 18, 2001, we issued a partial extension of the due date for this preliminary determination from February 7, 2001, to March 26, 2001. See Certain Hot -Rolled Carbon Steel
The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (
Specifically included within the scope of this investigation are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including, e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications A543, A387, A514, A517, A506).
• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this investigation, including vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
In the scope section of the Initiation Notice for this investigation, the Department encouraged all parties to submit comments regarding product coverage by December 26, 2000. The Department is presently considering a request to amend the scope of these investigations to exclude a particular specialty steel product. We will issue our determination on this request prior to the final determination.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).
Because Thailand is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from Thailand materially injure or threaten material injury to a U.S. industry. On January 4, 2001, the ITC published its preliminary determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from Thailand of subject merchandise (66 FR 805). The views of the
On March 23, 2001, petitioners submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the final determinations of the antidumping duty investigations of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Argentina, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the People's Republic of China, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine. See Initiation Notice. In accordance with section 705(a)(1) of the Act, we are aligning the final determination in this investigation with the final determinations in the companion antidumping investigations of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products.
The period of investigation (POI) for which we are measuring subsidies is calendar year 1999.
The RTG failed to respond to specific questions in the Department's original and supplemental questionnaires. Section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act states the Department shall use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination if any interested party “withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority.” As described in more detail in the
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of a party if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. In this investigation, the Department requested the RTG to submit information identifying which companies and industries had been targeted for debt restructuring. The Department also requested the CDRAC “List of 351,” a list which identifies the first 351 cases “targeted” by the RTG for debt restructuring. This information was requested in the initial and supplemental questionnaires, respectively. The Department finds that by not providing necessary information specifically requested by the Department the RTG has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. Therefore, in selecting facts available, the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted.
When employing an adverse inference, the statute indicates that the Department may rely upon information derived from (1) the petition; (2) a final determination in a countervailing duty or an antidumping investigation; (3) any previous administrative review, new shipper review, expedited antidumping review, section 753 review, or section 762 review; or (4) any other information placed on the record. See section 776(b)(1)-(b)(4) of the Act and 19 CFR § 351.308(c). As adverse facts available in this preliminary determination, we have relied upon information in the record, including other information in the response and information submitted by the petitioners, in order to determine that the information the RTG has withheld may provide necessary insight into the specificity of SSI's and PPC's debt restructurings. The Department's selection of the information used as adverse facts available is discussed in more detail in the
Section 351.524(d)(2) of the Department's regulations states that we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant.
No party requested, or submitted information which yielded, an industry-wide AUL different from the AUL listed in the IRS tables. We are therefore using the 15-year AUL as reported in the IRS tables to allocate any non-recurring subsidies under investigation which were provided directly to SSI. Petitioners also alleged that Prachuab Port Co., Ltd. (PPC), which is 51 percent owned by SSI and which provides port facilities and services to SSI, received non-recurring subsidies under several programs. For non-recurring subsidies provided to PPC, we are using the AUL of 20 years, as reported in the IRS tables for port facilities.
Both SSI and PPC received exemptions from import duties on the importation of capital equipment (under IPA Section 28), which we have preliminarily determined to be non-recurring benefits. See
Section 351.524(d)(3) of the regulations directs us regarding the selection of a discount rate for the purposes of allocating non-recurring benefits over time. The regulations provide several options in order of preference. The first among these is the cost of long-term fixed-rate loans of the firm in question, excluding any loans which have been determined to be countervailable, for each year in which non-recurring subsidies have been received. Both SSI and PPC have calculated their annual average cost of long-term fixed-rate loans. SSI has done so for the years 1994 through 1997; PPC has done so for the years 1993 through 1997. Since we are not investigating the countervailability of SSI's or PPC's loans during this period, there is no reason to seek another source of appropriate discount rate information. However, for the years 1992 and 1993, in which SSI received IPA Section 28 benefits, and for which SSI has not provided its cost of long-term fixed-rate loans, we have used as our discount rate the cost of long-term fixed-rate loans reported by PPC for 1993. While the RTG did report the Thailand-wide average cost of fixed-rate debt for the years 1992 through 1999, we believe that PPC's own cost of long-term fixed rate debt more closely satisfies the Department's preference for a company-specific interest rate.
We initiated an investigation of whether SSI was creditworthy for the years 1997 through 1999. However, except for 1999, we have not found benefits granted in those years that are allocable to the POI, under any of the non-recurring subsidy programs under investigation. See
In determining whether SSI was uncreditworthy during 1999, we conducted: (1) an examination of SSI's ability to meet its costs and fixed financial obligations with its cash flow; (2) an analysis of SSI's financial ratios from 1996 to 1998; and, (3) an examination of whether new long-term commercial loans were provided by commercial lending institutions, other than the debt restructuring itself.
In its questionnaire responses, SSI stated that it was unable to meet its principal and interest payment schedules and that defaults occurred on the loans which gave rise to the necessity for restructuring those loans. Information in the responses also shows that by 1999 SSI was unable to meet its financial obligations. Because SSI was a startup, we would expect to see that SSI's capital and other startup-related expenses would absorb revenue in the initial years and would cause the company to experience some difficulty in meeting its debt obligations in its initial years, in this case 1994 through 1995. However, even beyond the first two years, SSI was still having difficulty meeting its debt servicing requirements from 1996 through the first half of 1999.
We also examined the company's financial statements for the three years prior to 1999. In this case, the questionnaire responses provide sufficient SSI financial statement information for 1996, 1997, and 1998 to analyze whether a reasonable private lender would have extended credit to SSI in 1999. When we examined the relevant ratios (Current Ratio, Quick Ratio, Debt-to-Equity) for 1996 through 1998, we see that 1996 starts with SSI below average financial health benchmarks. After 1996, SSI experienced a marked decline in its financial performance in all three of these ratios: for example, the Current Ratio was below financial benchmark averages for 1996 and worsened until 1998; the Quick Ratio exhibited the same trend as the Current Ratio; and the Debt-to-Equity Ratio exhibited a marked increase from 1996 to 1998. This information shows that 1998 was the worst in terms of overall financial health. These ratios normally would be seen by a reasonable private lender as an indication of SSI's declining ability to meet its debt service obligations and thus an indication of its uncreditworthiness. For additional information, see Memorandum from Javier Barrientos through Dana Mermelstein to Barbara E. Tillman: Creditworthiness of SSI (April 13, 2001) (Creditworthiness Memo) (public version on file in the Department's Central Records Unit). Respondents have argued that the debt restructuring itself constitutes commercial long-term financing obtained in 1999, and therefore is indicative of SSI's creditworthiness. The Department, however, has examined the proprietary details of the debt restructuring transaction to determine whether it gives rise to countervailable benefits, and has found that the financing to which respondents refer was part of the debt restructuring package which was achieved on non-commercial terms. See section on
Thus, based on the above information and in accordance with section 351.505 (a)(4) of the Department's regulations, we preliminarily determine that SSI was uncreditworthy in 1999. There is no indication that SSI could have obtained long-term loans from conventional commercial sources.
Because we have preliminarily determined that SSI was uncreditworthy in 1999, we adjusted the loan benchmark rate by adding a risk premium, calculated according to the methodology described in section 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of our regulations, for those subsidies conferred during the fiscal year 1999.
We initiated an investigation of SSI's equityworthiness for 1999. The conversion to equity of SSI's convertible debentures which occurred in 1999 was one element of SSI's debt restructuring which was completed in 1999. As discussed in greater detail below, we are continuing to gather information necessary to determine whether the alleged RTG involvement in the debt-for-equity conversion gives rise to countervailable subsidies. Therefore, for purposes of this preliminary determination, we need not reach the issue of SSI's equityworthiness in 1999.
According to the questionnaire responses, the Investment Promotion Act of 1977 (IPA) is administered by the Board of Investment (BOI) and is designed to provide incentives to invest in Thailand. In order to receive IPA benefits, each company must apply to the BOI for a Certificate of Promotion (license), which specifies goods to be produced, production and export requirements, and benefits approved. These licenses are granted at the discretion of the BOI and are periodically amended or reissued to change benefits or requirements. IPA benefits include VAT exemptions, import duty exemptions, income tax exemptions, and other tax benefits for promoted companies under various sections of the IPA. Each IPA benefit for which a company is eligible must be specifically stated in the license.
According to the responses, Thailand had been considering the establishment of a private domestic steel industry since the 1960's. It was not until the late 1980's, however, that developing market factors made a Thai flat-rolled steel industry feasible. In an effort to encourage private investment into this industry, the BOI solicited bids and offered a package of tax and duty incentives under IPA that it would make available for the creation of a hot-rolled steel sheet facility. The August 2, 1988 Announcement of the Office of the Board of Investment No. Por. 1/1988, Re: Promotion of Steel Sheet Production outlined the criteria for application to this program. Six applications were submitted, and two of these were found to meet the requirements outlined in the above announcement, one of them being SSI's. SSI was then chosen to receive the benefits package because it was considered by the BOI to have a greater likelihood of success than the other applicant. After the BOI approved the benefits package for SSI, the Ministry of Industry (MOI) issued SSI a factory license. The MOI then announced on November 24, 1989, in Ministry of Industry Announcement, Re: Policy on Steel Sheet Industry, that it would “suspend its consideration for the establishment or the expansion of factories producing hot-rolled, cold-rolled, and surface treatment sheet (plate mill excluded), for a period of ten years.”
When determining whether a program is countervailable, we must examine whether it is an export subsidy or whether it provides benefits to a specific
In addition to IPA benefits to SSI, petitioners alleged that PPC, the 51 percent-owned subsidiary of SSI, also received a package of benefits under IPA. PPC, which owns and operates the port facility where SSI is located, was established in 1991, after SSI was established and approved for its package of IPA benefits. Although the BOI did not expressly solicit applicants to establish a port facility, the fact that PPC was created after SSI to develop a port facility in the same location as SSI's plant; is owned 51 percent by SSI; and, services SSI's import and export needs, leads us to conclude that the BOI's approval of a package of incentives to PPC was part of its effort to develop a hot-rolled steel industry, and therefore, that PPC's package of incentives is specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iii)(I) of the Act.
Because the packages of benefits were composed of different types of incentives under different sections of the IPA, we are analyzing the issues of financial contribution and benefit under each relevant section.
a.
Import duty exemptions provide a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act in the form of foregone revenue that is otherwise due to the RTG. The benefit is the amount of the revenue foregone by the RTG.
Although import duty exemptions are identified as recurring in the illustrative list of recurring benefits in section 351.524(c)(1) of the regulations, petitioners alleged that, since these import duty exemptions were for the purchase of capital equipment, they should be treated as non-recurring in accordance with section 351.524(c)(2)(iii) of the regulations. In the preamble to our regulations, we stated that if a government provides an import duty exemption tied to major equipment purchases, it may be reasonable to conclude that, because these duty exemptions are tied to capital assets, the benefits from such duty exemptions should be considered non-recurring. See Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 63 FR 65348, 65393 (November 25, 1998) (Preamble). The benefit received from the exemption of import duties under IPA Section 28 is tied to the capital assets of SSI and PPC. Additionally, proprietary information provided by SSI supports our treatment of Section 28 benefits as non-recurring. Our analysis of this information is contained in the Memorandum from Case Analysts to Barbara E. Tillman, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Analysis of Business Proprietary Information related to IPA Section 28 (April 13, 2001) (Business Proprietary Memo). Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that it is appropriate to treat the exemption of duties on capital equipment as a non-recurring benefit.
To measure the benefit allocable to the POI, we first conducted the “0.5 percent test” for the total Section 28 import duty exemptions.
b.
SSI's benefits under Section 30 expired at the beginning of the POI. However, this expiration does not constitute a program-wide change in accordance with section 351.526(b) of the regulations because the program itself was not terminated and SSI reported that it started receiving duty exemptions under another element of the IPA, Section 36. Section 36 provides companies with export-specific import duty and tax exemptions. Section 36(1) allows companies to import raw and
c.
d.
To measure the benefit, we assumed, consistent with Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Countervailing Duty Order; Extruded Rubber Thread from Malaysia, 57 FR 38475 (August 25, 1992), that SSI first used its pool of countervailable tax deductions under IPA section 35, earned in 1998, to reduce its tax liability on its income tax return for 1998, filed during the POI. See Id., Department's Position at Comment 13. See also Extruded Rubber Thread From Malaysia; Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 60 FR 17516 (April 6, 1995), Department's Position at Comment 7. We then determined the extent to which that countervailable tax deduction reduced SSI's taxable income. We calculated the benefit by multiplying the amount of taxable income which SSI was able to offset with its Section 35 tax deduction by the income tax rate. We then divided this benefit by SSI's total sales during the POI. We preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy to be 0.13 percent ad valorem.
Petitioners' allegations with respect to SSI's and PPC's debt restructurings indicated that, in light of SSI's and PPC's financial condition, and as a result of direct or indirect actions of the RTG, the companies' creditors restructured their debt on terms that were not comparable to those which would be offered by commercial lenders or reasonable private investors. The favorable terms included reductions in interest rates, forgiveness of interest and principal, and lengthening of loan terms. Petitioners allege that these actions were specific because the RTG exercised discretion and disproportionately targeted large industries such as the steel industry for debt restructuring.
According to the questionnaire responses, SSI and PPC each underwent comprehensive financial debt restructurings, beginning in 1998 and concluding during the POI, which resulted in all of their debts being restructured, and included the conversion to equity of previously issued converted debentures. We have examined information provided by the RTG and SSI with respect to the operation of the Thai financial sector and the RTG's role therein, including actions of the RTG in response to the financial crisis caused by the collapse of the baht, the RTG's role in corporate debt restructuring in general, and the corporate debt restructurings of SSI and PPC in particular, to determine whether the RTG played a role which would give rise to countervailable subsidies.
a.
b.
According to the RTG, CDRAC initially focused its attention on the largest and most complicated debts in the economy, without respect to specific industries or regions, and regardless of whether the debtors or creditors were public or private sector entities. In late 1998, CDRAC created a list of the first 351 firms, in 200 groups, as priority cases targeted for debt restructuring and selected to participate in the CDRAC process. According to the questionnaire response, the selection criteria used in developing the list of 351 companies were: (1) Debtors with sizable credit outstanding; (2) debtors proposed by the Thai Bankers' Association, the Foreign Bankers' Association, the Association of Finance Companies, the Federation of Thai Industries and the Board of Trade
c.
According to the responses, SSI, PPC, and their creditors were prompted to pursue debt restructuring by factors internal and external to the companies and their creditors, including the economic climate following the collapse of the baht in July 1997, and the financial management strategy these companies pursued before and after this collapse. All parties involved had incentives to achieve a loan arrangement that would enable SSI and PPC to continue their operations and repay their debts. The secured loans and unsecured bonds were restructured at the same time to assure all creditors that the restructuring was viable. According to the questionnaire responses, none of the original loans or the restructured loans were provided through, or insured pursuant to, any RTG program.
While the details of the debt restructuring are proprietary, it is sufficient for the purposes of this preliminary determination to characterize the restructurings as having involved the reorganization of SSI's and PPC's short-term and long-term debts to provide repayment terms under which SSI and PPC could service their debt obligations in the coming years, based on general economic and company-specific forecasts. The unsecured bonds, which had been issued on the bond market in 1995 as debentures convertible to equity, were converted to equity on terms under which the private bondholders (some of which were foreign) and SSI agreed would enable SSI to meet its obligations.
The respondents have reported that neither SSI nor PPC was involved with, or participated in, the CDRAC process. Although both SSI and PPC were invited to participate in this process, both restructurings were almost complete by the time CDRAC was operational. SSI and PPC contend that the restructurings were achieved without CDRAC or adherence to the CDRAC procedures, and the companies and the RTG claim that the restructurings did not involve the RTG. SSI and PPC also contend that they were not required to comply with any CDRAC application or reporting requirements to proceed with their restructurings.
d.
Based on information on the record of this proceeding, we believe that the list of the first 351 firms identified for debt restructuring is critical to our analysis of specificity. In the Department's original questionnaire to the RTG (see Department Questionnaire, December 20, 2000, pg. II-17), we requested any federal or regional legislation targeted at large industries, including the steel industry, that was passed dealing with the debt restructurings. Additionally, we requested the RTG to identify which companies had their debt restructured and in which industries they belonged. The RTG responded by providing information regarding the establishment of CDRAC. The RTG also discussed a list of 351 companies that CDRAC had targeted for restructuring. However, neither this list of 351, nor any other identification of companies that had undergone debt restructuring, was provided, despite our requests. Additionally, in the Department's supplemental questionnaire, we again requested the RTG to identify companies that had undergone debt restructuring, and specifically requested the list of 351 companies that CDRAC had targeted for debt restructuring (see Department Supplemental Questionnaire, February 27, 2001, pg. 7). The RTG declined to provide the list, stating that they were prohibited from providing the list under Thai law because of confidentiality constraints. The Department's questionnaire details the protections afforded respondents for this type of information. Both the statute and the regulations provide protection for business proprietary and confidential information requested by the Department.
A 1999 report issued by the BOT, and submitted by petitioners, indicates that the steel industry may have received special consideration prior to the CDRAC process. The report also indicates that the steel industry was identified by the RTG for debt restructuring (see Steel Industry in Crisis, Bank of Thailand, December 1999). The Steel Industry in Crisis report indicates that 32 of the 351 companies found on the list were from the primary metal production sector. It is also not clear whether the RTG's stated qualifications for being placed on the list of 351 firms were applied consistently to all those firms placed on the list or even whether all of the firms on the list were restructured. Additionally, another publicly available report indicates that the RTG, through the Board of Investment, identified five major industries whose survival was vital to economic recovery. The steel industry was included on this list of major industries. See Support for Structural Reform in Five Industries Including Steel—Industrial Revitalization with BOI as the Driving Force, Shukan Tai Keizai (August 9, 1999) (submitted by petitioners). On the record of this investigation, there is certain other information that illustrates the importance of the list of 351 companies in analyzing whether SSI's and PPC's debt restructurings were specific. However, this information is proprietary and cannot be summarized for purposes of this notice. This proprietary information is discussed in the Memorandum from Case Analysts to Barbara E. Tillman, Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from Thailand: Analysis of Business Proprietary Information on SSI and PPC Debt Restructuring (April 13, 2001) (Debt Restructuring Memo). The Department is not able to address these important issues without access to the list of 351 companies that the RTG developed. Because the RTG has not provided this list to the Department, we are applying adverse facts available,
With respect to financial contribution, several of SSI's and PPC's creditors were owned or controlled by the RTG at the time the restructurings were completed. The details of this RTG ownership and control are proprietary, and are discussed more fully in the Debt Restructuring Memo; however, the levels of ownership and control are sufficient to support a conclusion that the provision of restructured loans by government-owned or -controlled creditors constitutes a financial contribution within the meaning of section 771(5)(D)(i). At this time, we have insufficient information regarding the privately-owned creditors which provided restructured loans or converted debentures to equity to address whether those creditors have been “entrusted or directed” by the government to make a financial contribution to SSI and PPC within the meaning of 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act.
In determining whether there is a benefit to SSI and PPC from these restructured loans, we compared the interest rates on the loans provided by government-owned or -controlled creditors to a benchmark interest rate which reflects an interest rate on comparable commercial loans which the companies could actually obtain on the market.
All of the restructured loans are variable-rate long-term loans. The RTG did not provide information relating to a national average variable long-term interest rate. Therefore, we are using as our benchmark the annual average Minimum Lending Rate (“MLR”) which is reported as BOT data through the following internet address:
Petitioners have alleged that SSI is receiving countervailable benefits under the electricity system that exists in Thailand: electricity is largely supplied by state-owned agencies, and a uniform electricity tariff policy exists which is supported by a central electricity agency which prices electricity differently to the two state-owned distribution agencies. Petitioners alleged that this system results in countervailable subsidies to the extent that the RTG is providing electricity for less than adequate remuneration.
According to the questionnaire responses, the RTG owns and controls most of the generation and transmission of electricity in Thailand. The ministry responsible for Thailand's electricity policy is the Prime Minister's Office. More specifically, rate-setting policy is developed by the National Energy Policy Council (NEPC). This policy addresses both the rates charged by the generating agency, as well as the distribution agencies. The generating agency is the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) and the two distributing authorities are the Metropolitan Electricity Authority (MEA), which serves Bangkok and the immediate surrounding areas, and the Provincial Electricity Authority (PEA), which serves the remainder of the country. The RTG maintains a “uniform tariff policy” that aims to provide the same rates to all consumers in the same customer category regardless of whether they are in MEA's distribution area or PEA's distribution area.
Other than EGAT, which supplies approximately 73 percent of the electricity used in Thailand, there are Independent Power Providers (IPP) and Small Power Providers (SPP). IPPs generate approximately 15.4 percent of Thailand's electricity, and SPPs generate approximately 9 percent. Thailand also imports approximately 2.4 percent of its electricity from Laos and Malaysia. IPPs sell electricity only to EGAT. SPPs sell electricity to EGAT, as well as to end users in industrial estates. IPPs and SPPs are privately owned. The SPPs that sell to end users are prohibited from selling electricity at rates higher than those charged by the agencies owned by the RTG. The RTG provided to the Department a document entitled Concession of Electricity Business, which was issued by the Ministry of Interior and states that the rates charged by SPPs shall not exceed those charged by PEA.
The questionnaire responses state that PEA's cost of delivery to some of its customers in the region it serves is higher than MEA's cost of delivery. In order to implement the uniform tariff policy that the RTG had in place during the POI, EGAT provided a discount to PEA and charged MEA a surcharge on the electricity generated by EGAT.
According to the RTG National Energy Policy Office (NEPO) Recommendations to Cabinet Report (the NEPO Report), dated September 26, 2000, the original objectives of the RTG's uniform tariff policy, which has been in place since 1991, were to establish a tariff that reflects the economic costs and secures the financial status of the three power utilities, and to promote efficiency of electricity usage and equity for all power consumer categories. The RTG's tariff policy consists of the base tariff, plus an automatic adjustment mechanism which ensures that the electricity charges cover fluctuations in marginal costs. There are four criteria the RTG used in determining the electricity tariff structure: (1) marginal costs; (2) load pattern; (3) revenue
According to the NEPO Report, prior to 1997, the electricity tariff was established on a flat-rate basis. Under this system, EGAT sold electricity at a lower rate to PEA than it did to MEA. This bulk supply tariff afforded a cross-subsidization of PEA via the higher rates charged to MEA because the distribution cost for PEA was higher than for MEA. In November of 1996, the NEPC approved a modification of the bulk supply tariff to go into effect in January 1997. This modification altered the bulk supply tariff from the initial flat rate to a time-of-use rate. The time-of-use rates were based on usage during peak and off-peak hours. The modification also created a cross-subsidization of PEA in the form of a surcharge added to the bulk supply tariff EGAT charged to MEA and a deduction from the bulk supply tariff that EGAT charged PEA. The NEPC has altered the surcharge and deductions charged to PEA and MEA on three separate occasions thus far. On May 22, 1997, an adjustment was made so the surcharge and deduction would correspond with the former average bulk supply tariff. This change was retroactive to January 1997. On October 8, 1997, the surcharge and deduction were altered again as a result of the economic crisis in Thailand, and the changes were retroactive to July 1997. On March 20, 2000, the third alteration of the surcharge and deduction was made, retroactive to October 1998, in order to keep the power utilities in line with the financial criteria established when the electricity tariff structure was created.
The retail tariff structure used by MEA and PEA varies depending upon the category of consumer. The following are the categories of consumers: Residential; Small General Services; Medium and Large General Services, and Specific Business Services; Government Institutions and Non-Profit Organizations; and, Agricultural Pumping Service. SSI is considered to be a Large General Services customer. SSI and PPC purchased all of the electricity consumed during the POI from PEA.
In order to find a countervailable subsidy under the Act, the Department must determine that a financial contribution is provided (section 771(5)(D) of the Act), that there is a benefit to the recipient (section 771(5)(E) of the Act), and that the program is specific (section 771(5A) of the Act ). The government's provision of electricity constitutes a financial contribution as defined in 771(5)(D)(iii).
To determine whether there is a benefit from the provision of a good, the Act specifies that the Department must examine whether the good was provided for less than adequate remuneration. According to section 771(5)(E) of the Act, the adequacy of remuneration with respect to a government's provision of a good or service, “* * * shall be determined in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good or service being provided or the goods being purchased in the country which is subject to the investigation or review. Prevailing market conditions include price, quality, availability, marketability, transportation, and other conditions of purchase or sale.” In the regulations, we set forth, in order of preference, the benchmarks that we will examine in determining the adequacy of remuneration (see section 351.511). Under the regulations, the first preference is to compare the government price to a market-determined price stemming from actual transactions within the country. However, in the preamble, we made clear that if the government provider constitutes a majority of the market, we would have to resort to other alternatives, including world market prices, and if no such market-determined prices were available, we would examine whether the government applied market principles in setting its price. See 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2)(iii) and Preamble, 63 FR 65378.
In this instance, EGAT is the major generator of electricity and MEA and PEA are the major distributors of electricity. Of the two types of private electricity producers, IPPs sell their product to EGAT and not to end users, and SPPs are prohibited by the RTG from charging prices higher than PEA's. Regarding import prices or other types of market reference prices, while Thailand does import a small percentage of electricity (2.4 percent), this electricity is purchased by EGAT and sold through the same tariff structure that is described above. Additionally, any exports of electricity are sold through the government agencies. Therefore, any in-country, market-determined prices we might use as a point of comparison would ultimately be distorted by the involvement of a government agency or the government's ceiling on market prices. In the preamble to section 351.511, we discuss the fact that the nature of the provision of electricity would normally prevent us from examining a “world market price.”
Therefore, based on the situation in Thailand, it becomes necessary to examine whether the price charged for electricity is consistent with market principles, in accordance with section 351.511(a)(2)(iii) of the regulations. As discussed in the preamble, in assessing whether the government price was set in accordance with market principles, we will analyze such factors as the government's price-setting philosophy, costs (including rates of return sufficient to ensure future operations), or possible price discrimination. The preamble further explains that these factors are not listed in any hierarchy, and that we may rely on one or more of these factors in any particular case.
However, in this case, the evidence indicates that there is also price discrimination in the provision of electricity by the RTG. As is stated in the NEPO Report, a cross-subsidization is required in order to maintain the uniform tariff structure (see NEPO Report at 8), hence the surcharge MEA pays to EGAT and the deduction PEA receives from EGAT. Absent the uniform tariff policy, MEA would be incurring costs much lower for its distribution of electricity than would PEA and therefore, in accordance with market principles, MEA's retail prices to its customers would be lower than PEA's. Absent the policy, PEA would be incurring much higher costs for its distribution of electricity, and hence, its customers would be paying higher prices because PEA's cost of distribution would be higher.
A report commissioned by the RTG to conduct a review of the tariff structure in Thailand also illustrates that price discrimination currently exists. The PriceWaterhouseCoopers' report, Review of Electric Power Tariffs Final Report (PWC Report), issued in January, 2000, notes that the ultimate goal is privatization of the utility, a component of which is the necessary phase-out of
Without the cross-subsidization mandated by the RTG to ensure that PEA's prices are no higher than MEA's prices, PEA's customers would, based on market principles, be charged a higher price, and as such, we preliminarily determine that electricity is provided by the RTG for less than adequate remuneration in accordance with section 771(5)(E)(iv) of the Act.
Since this tariff structure only benefits PEA's customers, we find this provision of electricity to be specific in accordance with section 771(5A)(D)(iv) of the Act (see also The Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (SAA), H.Doc. 103-316, Vol. 1 (1994) at 262) because it is limited to users who are located in a specific geographical region within Thailand (i.e., all customers outside the Bangkok metropolitan area).
To determine the benefit from this provision of electricity, we calculated the difference, on a per kilowatt hour basis, between the rate paid by MEA during the POI (bulk supply tariff plus surcharge) and the rate paid by PEA during the POI (bulk supply tariff minus deduction). We then multiplied that difference by kilowatt hours consumed. We then divided that figure by the relevant total sales value during the POI to determine a countervailable subsidy of 0.66 percent ad valorem.
According to the questionnaire responses, under provisions of Section 21(4) of the VAT Act, companies that were granted Section 28 benefits under the IPA before January 1, 1992, are not required to pay VAT on imports of fixed assets. SSI received its IPA Section 28 certificate prior to this date, and is therefore eligible for this program. The respondents have argued that this exemption from VAT on imports of fixed assets did not constitute a benefit to SSI because all companies, promoted and non-promoted alike, are effectively exempted from VAT on their imports of fixed assets. According to Section 82 of the VAT Act, the VAT liability is computed by subtracting the “input tax” (the VAT paid) from the “output tax” (the VAT collected). Consequently, companies that pay VAT on imports of fixed assets are effectively exempted from this VAT payment as they receive a credit for the VAT they paid on purchases of inputs, including imports of fixed assets, when their monthly VAT liability is computed. According to the questionnaire responses, under the VAT system, companies receive credit for the VAT paid on the purchases of inputs and, as a result, no VAT is effectively paid by companies on these purchases.
SSI has not been granted any VAT exemptions under Section 21(4) on imports of capital equipment since early 1997. VAT liability is computed on a monthly basis, and the RTG has reported the estimated shortest, average, and longest periods of time for which a company might wait to receive a VAT refund. Even when applying the longest estimated period of time a company might wait to receive a VAT refund, any time-value-of-money benefit received by SSI under Section 21(4) of the VAT Act would either fall short of the POI or be insignificant. On this basis, we preliminarily determine that with regard to SSI, the exemption from the VAT on imports of fixed assets under Section 21(4) of the VAT Act does not constitute a countervailable benefit.
In addition, we note that SSI also received VAT exemptions on its imports of inputs under section 36(1) of the IPA. Since we have not reached a decision on Section 36(1), we need not address the VAT exemptions for purposes of this preliminary determination. We will examine the VAT exemptions for the final determination.
We preliminarily determine that the producer/exporter of subject merchandise did not apply for or receive benefits attributable to subject merchandise under the following programs during the POI.
LPN did not produce or export subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Therefore, we have not examined LPN's debt restructuring, its equityworthiness, or its creditworthiness.
SSI reported that a power plant was never constructed on-site. Therefore, IPA incentives were not used for construction of such a power plant.
The water pipeline and reservoir which were allegedly built specifically for SSI were not built.
In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for the company under investigation, SSI. We have preliminarily determined that the total estimated countervailable subsidy rate is 6.55 percent ad valorem for SSI. With respect to the “all others” rate, section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act requires that the “all others” rate equal the weighted average countervailable subsidy rates established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis countervailable subsidy rates. Since SSI was the sole producer/exporter during the POI, we are using SSI's rate as the “all others” rate.
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from Thailand produced or exported by SSI or any other company, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination.
In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.310, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination. The hearing is tentatively scheduled to be held 57 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. In addition, unless otherwise informed by the Department, six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 50 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than five days from the date of filing of the case briefs. An interested party may make an oral presentation only on arguments included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309 and will be considered if received within the time limits specified above.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
April 20, 2001.
Sally C. Gannon at (202) 482-0162, Mark Hoadley at (202) 482-0666, or Julio Fernandez at (202) 482-0190, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 7866, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to certain producers and exporters of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from South Africa. For information on the estimated countervailing duty rates, please see the “Suspension of Liquidation” section of this notice.
The petition in this investigation was filed by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, Gallatin Steel Company, IPSCO Steel Inc., LTV Steel Company, Inc., National Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation, Weirton Steel Corporation, Independent Steelworkers Union, and the United Steelworkers of America (collectively, the petitioners).
We initiated this investigation on December 4, 2000.
On January 18, 2001, we issued a partial extension of the due date for this preliminary determination from February 7, 2001 to March 26, 2001.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers), regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness of less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (
Specifically included within the scope of this investigation are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium or niobium (also commonly referred to as columbium), or both, added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum.
Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products in which: (i) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (ii) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (iii) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this investigation unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:
• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical elements exceeds those listed above (including,
• Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)/American Iron & Steel Institute (AISI) grades of series 2300 and higher.
• Ball bearings steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Tool steels, as defined in the HTSUS.
• Silico-manganese (as defined in the HTSUS) or silicon electrical steel with a silicon level exceeding 2.25 percent.
• ASTM specifications A710 and A736.
• USS Abrasion-resistant steels (USS AR 400, USS AR 500).
• All products (proprietary or otherwise) based on an alloy ASTM specification (sample specifications: ASTM A506, A507).
• Non-rectangular shapes, not in coils, which are the result of having been processed by cutting or stamping and which have assumed the character of articles or products classified outside chapter 72 of the HTSUS.
The merchandise subject to this investigation is classified in the HTSUS at subheadings: 7208.10.15.00, 7208.10.30.00, 7208.10.60.00, 7208.25.30.00, 7208.25.60.00, 7208.26.00.30, 7208.26.00.60, 7208.27.00.30, 7208.27.00.60, 7208.36.00.30, 7208.36.00.60, 7208.37.00.30, 7208.37.00.60, 7208.38.00.15, 7208.38.00.30, 7208.38.00.90, 7208.39.00.15, 7208.39.00.30, 7208.39.00.90, 7208.40.60.30, 7208.40.60.60, 7208.53.00.00, 7208.54.00.00, 7208.90.00.00, 7211.14.00.90, 7211.19.15.00, 7211.19.20.00, 7211.19.30.00, 7211.19.45.00, 7211.19.60.00, 7211.19.75.30, 7211.19.75.60, and 7211.19.75.90. Certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products covered by this investigation, including vacuum degassed fully stabilized; high strength low alloy; and the substrate for motor lamination steel may also enter under the following tariff numbers: 7225.11.00.00, 7225.19.00.00, 7225.30.30.50, 7225.30.70.00, 7225.40.70.00, 7225.99.00.90, 7226.11.10.00, 7226.11.90.30, 7226.11.90.60, 7226.19.10.00, 7226.19.90.00, 7226.91.50.00, 7226.91.70.00, 7226.91.80.00, and 7226.99.00.00. Subject merchandise may also enter under 7210.70.30.00, 7210.90.90.00, 7211.14.00.30, 7212.40.10.00, 7212.40.50.00, and 7212.50.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes, the Department's written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive.
In the scope section of the
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).
Because South Africa is a “Subsidies Agreement Country” within the meaning of section 701(b) of the Act, the International Trade Commission (ITC) is required to determine whether imports of the subject merchandise from South Africa materially injure, or threaten material injury, to a U.S. industry. On January 4, 2001, the ITC published its preliminary determination finding that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is being materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports from South Africa of subject merchandise (66 FR 805). The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3381 (December 2000),
On March 23, 2001, petitioners submitted a letter requesting alignment of the final determination in this investigation with the final determinations of the antidumping duty investigations of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat products from Argentina, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, the People's Republic of China, Romania, South Africa, Taiwan, Thailand, and Ukraine.
The period for which we are measuring subsidization (the period of investigation or POI) is the companies' most recently completed fiscal year.
The Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) is an investment and financing entity which is wholly-owned by the GOSA. In its questionnaire responses, the GOSA has stated that the IDC, along with its operating units, functions independently of government action, and has independent budget and decision-making powers. In order to assess whether an entity like the IDC should be considered to be the government for purposes of countervailing duty investigations, the Department has in the past considered facts such as the following significant: (1) government ownership, (2) the government's presence on the entity's board of directors, (3) the government's control over the entity's activities, (4) the entity's pursuit of governmental policies or interests, and (5) whether the entity is created by statute.
Regarding point (1), the IDC's annual reports indicate that “The IDC is a wholly owned State Corporation established by Act No. 22 of 1940.” Regarding point (2), the GOSA has the right to appoint the majority of IDC's board of directors, pursuant to the IDC's Act of Incorporation. The GOSA's Minister of Trade and Finance appoints the board's chairman and managing director.
While the GOSA emphasizes the fact that the IDC is self-funding, theoretically, an entire government is self-funding and the statute does not direct us to consider how the government funds the assistance provided by the government action; rather it directs us to determine whether there is a financial contribution by the government and a benefit is thereby conferred. We note that we have treated the IDC's actions as constituting the conferral of financial contributions by a governmental authority in the past.
Section 351.524(d)(2) of the Department's regulations states that we will presume the allocation period for non-recurring subsidies to be the average useful life (AUL) of renewable physical assets for the industry concerned, as listed in the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) 1977 Class Life Asset Depreciation Range System, as updated by the Department of Treasury. The presumption will apply unless a party claims and establishes that these tables do not reasonably reflect the AUL of the renewable physical assets for the company or industry under investigation, and the party can establish that the difference between the company-specific or country-wide AUL for the industry under investigation is significant.
The applicable AUL listed in the IRS tables for the steel industry, and used in the most recently completed investigation for South African steel companies, is 15 years.
Section 351.524(d)(2)(iii) of our regulations states that a company-specific AUL is “calculated by dividing the aggregate of the annual average gross book values of the firm's depreciable productive fixed assets by the firm's aggregated annual charge to accumulated depreciation, for a period considered appropriate by the Secretary.” The Department's practice has been to use a ten-year period. While a ten-year period is not required by statute or our regulations, one year cannot reasonably serve as a basis for calculating a company-specific AUL. Moreover, we note that Saldanha
The Department's normal practice is to begin the benefit stream for non-recurring subsidies in the year of receipt of the subsidy.
After reviewing all of the information on the record, we preliminarily determine that a change in the starting date for the benefit stream is not warranted, and we are following our normal practice of beginning the benefit stream for all non-recurring subsidies in the year in which they are first conferred. Section 351.524(d)(2)(iv) states that the Secretary will consider starting the benefit stream at a date other than the date on which the subsidy is bestowed only in “certain extraordinary circumstances.” The information on the record does not demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist in this case. In our commentary discussing the type of situation to which subsection 351.524(d)(2)(iv) might apply, we stated: “The assets needed to develop new technologies, or to produce a new product may not even have been designed yet, and certainly the product is not yet developed.” CVD Final Rule, 63 FR at 65397. The steel produced by Saldanha is not a new product, and, although the production technology may be relatively new, it had already been developed and was simply being transferred to a new company in South Africa. Petitioners have not demonstrated that there was more of a lag time between R&D and production in Saldanha's case than that which would occur in the construction of any greenfield mill using more conventional technologies. In addition, petitioners did not claim that the size of the Saldanha mill is unusual for a greenfield project. Even though the GOSA considers it “huge” in terms of development projects within South Africa, the language in the Preamble concerning funding of development projects cites, in relevant part, subsidies “* * * to fund extraordinarily large development projects that require extensive research and development * * *” The Saldanha project may be quite large in South Africa, but it did not entail, as discussed above, extensive research and development. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the benefit stream for non-recurring subsidies should not be realigned.
Saldanha is the only respondent to have received IDC (i.e., GOSA) long-term loans and other non-recurring subsidies. Saldanha proposed two loans to be used as benchmark loans in evaluating the IDC loans and in calculating discount rates. As discussed in the “Creditworthiness” section below, we find that neither loan proposed by Saldanha meets the requirements for comparable commercial loans in section 351.505(a)(2). No other long-term commercial interest rates were submitted. Section 351.505(a)(3)(ii) states that, if there are no comparable commercial loans, then the Department “may use a national average interest rate for comparable commercial loans.”
Therefore, for the years 1996 through the POI, we calculated the discount rates and benchmark loan rates by averaging the “Lending” rate and “Government Bond Yield” rate for each year as found in the International Financial Statistics published by the International Monetary Fund. This is the same methodology employed in the last CVD investigation of the South African steel industry.
Saldanha objects to the use of the Lending rate, and argues that the Department should use the RSA 150 government bond rate, plus a risk premium of between 1.8 and 2 percent, as the benchmark rate. The proposed risk premium is the result of a study undertaken by Saldanha concerning the rate at which it might issue commercial paper. Saldanha argues that the RSA 150 government bond rate is superior to the Lending rate because the South African central bank increased the prime rate in response to a 1998 currency crisis, and because the commercial paper study concluded Saldanha could sell commercial paper at the RSA 150 rate plus the 1.8 to 2 percent risk premium.
We rejected the government bond rate in
Although we discussed commercial interest rates at length during our meetings with the IDC, the South African Reserve Bank, and commercial bankers, no information was provided that would enable us to determine a commercial long-term interest rate that could be used as the discount rate. As such, because the government bond rate does not represent a commercial rate, for purposes of this final determination, we have constructed a discount rate which we believe is more
We investigated whether Saldanha has been uncreditworthy since its inception in 1996. As discussed in “The IDC's Equity Infusions in Saldanha” and the “Industrial Loan Financing Provided by the IDC and Findevco Ltd.” sections below, the years for which we are analyzing the benefits from equity infusions and the IDC loans are fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000. Therefore, we have limited our creditworthiness analysis to those years.
We preliminarily have determined that Saldanha was uncreditworthy during fiscal years 1998 through 2000. The primary bases for this determination are: (1) an absence of long-term commercial loans, provided by commercial lending institutions, that were not guaranteed by the IDC; and (2) our examination of Saldanha's ability to meet its costs and fixed financial obligations with its cash flow.
In its questionnaire response, Saldanha stated that it had “significant credit exposure” provided by local banks which were unaffiliated with the GOSA.
Saldanha points to two long-term loans, unguaranteed by the IDC, as proof that it has been creditworthy. However, as explained in our discussion of the Findevco and IDC loans below, we have determined that one of these loans was from a foreign, state-controlled development bank, and the other was credit provided by a supplier. Section 351.505(a)(2)(ii) of the regulations defines “commercial” loans, which are the focus of this analysis, as loans “* * * taken out by the firm from a commercial lending institution or a debt instrument issued by the firm in a commercial market,” and states that we will not “* * * consider a loan provided under a government program, or a loan provided by a government-owned special purpose bank to be a commercial loan * * *” Thus, neither the supplier credit nor a loan provided by a foreign development bank meets our definition of a commercial loan.
In addition to an absence of long-term commercial loans which could provide evidence of Saldanha's creditworthiness, Saldanha does not appear able to meet its financial obligations without difficulty. While it would not be unexpected for a greenfield mill to experience some difficulty in meeting its debt obligations in its initial years, Saldanha was still unable to meet its interest obligations by 1998 and beyond. Saldanha states in its questionnaire response that “there was never at any time any instance whatsoever that the company was not able to meet its financial obligations such as interest and capital redemption.”
Finally, we note that, while Saldanha is a greenfield mill, and thus there is not a significant history of financial data to examine, financial statements from fiscal years 1999 and 2000 indicate that Saldanha has been highly leveraged over the period examined. Saldanha's financial statements and history are discussed in the
Because we have preliminarily determined that Saldanha has been uncreditworthy from fiscal year 1998 onward, we adjusted both the loan benchmark rate and the discount rate by adding a risk premium, calculated according to the methodology described in section 351.505(a)(3)(iii) of our regulations, for those subsidies conferred during fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
Because Iscor owns 50 percent of Saldanha, we have examined whether cross-ownership exists between the two companies within the meaning of section 351.525(b)(6) of our regulations. Section 351.525(b)(6)(vi) of the regulations defines cross-ownership as existing “* * * where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation(s) in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. Normally, this standard will be met where there is a majority voting ownership interest between two corporations or through common ownership of two (or more) corporations.” The preamble to the CVD Regulations identifies situations where cross-ownership may exist even though there is less than a majority voting interest between two corporations: “in certain circumstances, a large minority interest (for example, 40 percent) or a ‘golden share’ may also result in cross-ownership.” CVD Final Rule, 63 FR at 65401;
Iscor controls 50 percent of the voting ownership in Saldanha. There is only one other shareholder, the IDC, which owns the other 50 percent. Thus, there is no “majority ownership”
Facts outlined in the
Section 351.525(c) of the regulations requires that the benefits from subsidies provided to a trading company which exports subject merchandise be cumulated with the benefits from subsidies provided to the firm which is producing the subject merchandise that is sold through the trading company, regardless of their affiliation. In their questionnaire responses, Highveld and Iscor indicated that they sell subject merchandise through trading companies. Based on information provided in the questionnaire responses, the South African trading companies, through which Iscor and Highveld exported subject merchandise during the POI, did not receive benefits under the programs subject to investigation. Therefore, we have determined that the subsidy rates calculated for each producer will be attributable to the merchandise exported either directly or through a trading company by that producer.
The GOSA enacted Section 37E of the Income Tax Act in 1991. The program was limited to investments approved between September 1991 and September 1993. For projects approved as valued-added processes, Section 37E allows for depreciation of capital assets and the deduction of pre-production interest and finance charges in advance, that is, in the year the costs are incurred rather than the year the assets go on line. The program also allows taxpayers in loss positions to receive “negotiable tax credit certificates” (NTCCs) in the amount of the cash value of the Section 37E tax deduction (i.e., deduction multiplied by the tax rate). The NTCCs can be sold (normally at a small discount, which Saldanha reports as 0.5 percent) to any other taxpayer, who can use them to pay taxes. The program does not provide for accelerated depreciation, nor does it provide for additional finance charge-related deductions beyond those available under other provisions of the South African tax code. The advantage to users of this program is the receipt of these tax deductions in advance, i.e., when the expenses are incurred rather than when the equipment is put into use.
According to the GOSA's questionnaire response, eligibility for Section 37E benefits was determined on a project-by-project basis by a committee appointed by the Minister of Finance, in concurrence with the Minister of Trade and Industry, and of which the IDC is a member charged with investigating and evaluating applications. (
When determining whether the government has provided a countervailable subsidy, we must examine whether the government has provided a financial contribution to a person and a benefit is thereby conferred.
We find that Section 37E constitutes a financial contribution by the GOSA because the GOSA has foregone revenue in allowing for these tax deductions sooner rather than later within the meaning of Section 771(5)(D)(ii) of the Act. We further find that Saldanha received a benefit by receiving the NTCCs up to four years earlier than it could have received deductions under the standard provisions of the income tax code, which allow for the deductions to be made only after the relevant assets have been put into use.
With respect to specificity, we have examined whether Section 37E benefits are specific under section 771(5A) of the Act. Based upon our analysis of the approval package, we preliminarily determine that the approval for Section 37E benefits was contingent upon export performance, and, as such, that the Section 37E benefits to Saldanha are specific as an export subsidy under sections 771(5A)(A) and (B) of the Act. Because much of the information analyzed to determine specificity with respect to this program is business proprietary, a complete discussion of the documentation and the bases for our conclusions are set forth in the
Since the Section 37E program reduces a company's capital requirements, and because the receipt of Section 37E benefits required express government approval, we determine that it is more appropriate to treat the benefits provided under Section 37E as a non-recurring subsidy.
To determine the benefit, we calculated the time value of obtaining the certificates in advance of the allowance, in this case by up to four years, by discounting the cash value of each allowance. The difference between the value of the certificates and the discounted value of the allowances is the benefit to Saldanha. Finally, because we consider that these Section 37E benefits should be allocated over time as a non-recurring subsidy, we treated each year's benefit as a non-recurring grant using our standard grant methodology.
In 1988, the IDC and Iscor together began to examine the possibility of using the Corex process to take advantage of South Africa's iron ore supply, particularly ore from Iscor's Sishen mine, without incurring the costs of a blast furnace. The environmental benefits of the Corex process were also a consideration. The IDC's feasibility studies culminated in reports to the IDC's and Iscor's boards of directors in the fall of 1994. Each partner's board agreed to the project in November 1994 and Saldanha was incorporated on January 25, 1995.
Environmental concerns and site location resulted in a one-year deferral of the project's start date. As a result of these delays, the feasibility studies were revised in the fall of 1995, revealing increased costs. In response to these changed circumstances, Iscor withdrew from the project. According to the IDC's 1995 annual report:
As a consequence of the inordinate delay in the commencement of construction and the placing of orders with suppliers of equipment, the anticipated peak funding requirements of the project has increased substantially and the project return has decreased.
Subsequent to the financial year end, Iscor has withdrawn from the project in its present form and the IDC is evaluating alternative processes and financial structures in order to facilitate the implementation of the project.
All of the environmental concerns were fully addressed and revised investment proposals were submitted to IDC's Board and approved in September 1995 and revised again in November 1995. These proposals confirmed the economic viability of the project with an acceptable real return (i.e. inflation adjusted) on IDC's and Iscor's investment.
As a result of the revised investment proposals and the November 1995 feasibility study, which incorporated the revised financial structure, Iscor returned to the project a short time after its withdrawal. The IDC and Iscor concluded a shareholders' agreement in 1996, including the terms of the revised financial structure agreed to in the fall of 1995. Construction began in early 1996.
The shareholders' agreement committed each of the two partners to provide half of the initial equity investment. IDC and Iscor agreed to provide another equity investment in fiscal year 1999. Both of the IDC's equity investments were through conversion of a portion of earlier loans made by the IDC to Saldanha.
To determine whether a benefit exists from equity infusions, the Department must examine whether “* * * the investment decision is inconsistent with the usual investment practices of private investors * * *” (
The Department has in the past considered the presence of private investment made at the same time as the government's investment indicative of the commercial reasonableness of the government investment. However, the facts of each case must be carefully examined in order to make such a determination. Although NZS was a private investor in this joint venture project, it is clear from the record that NZS could not have undertaken this project without outside investors, and that, absent the government's commitments in the Formation Agreement and Planning Memorandum, no reasonable outside private investor would have undertaken this project. Thus, the participation of NZS is not dispositive that the GONZ's investment was consistent with commercial considerations.
Our analysis of the feasibility studies, the shareholders' agreement, and various internal memoranda generated by the IDC and Iscor indicates that the economic viability of the Saldanha project was predicated on the expected receipt of subsidies from the GOSA. The Saldanha project, like the joint venture project in
The fact that the feasibility studies submitted by the IDC predict positive rates of return does not change our conclusion. As we stated in
Our analysis of the feasibility studies shows that the studies relied on the implementation of specific commitments by the GONZ, such as the assurance of certain financing, domestic market share, supply of raw materials and favorable tax treatment, in their projection of the revenues of the project. Therefore, we find that the studies did not provide an objective assessment of the viability of the project, based on market conditions.
The feasibility studies conducted by the IDC, in combination with the other documentation mentioned above, have led us to conclude that, absent the receipt of expected government subsidies, all of the projected rates of return would have fallen well below the benchmark set by the private investor for participation in the project. Because most of the information upon which our determination relies is business proprietary, our more detailed analysis is set forth in the
Because we have found that these equity infusions were inconsistent with the usual investment practice of private investors in South Africa, we find that benefits were provided to Saldanha in the amount of the two equity infusions, and that these infusions should be
We allocated the amount of the grants over the AUL in accordance with section 351.507 (7)(c) of our regulations using the discount rate discussed above in the section “Calculation of Discount Rates and Benchmark Loan Rates.” Because we have preliminarily determined that Saldanha was uncreditworthy in the years in which these infusions were made (
The IDC and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Findevco, Ltd., provide industrial loan financing geared towards the establishment of new industrial facilities, or the expansion or modernization of existing facilities. The IDC has been providing such financing since its inception in 1940, and any South African company interested in obtaining loan financing through this program may apply through the IDC.
According to its questionnaire responses, Saldanha received a loan under the Findevco program (“the Findevco Loan”) in accordance with the shareholder agreement between the IDC and Iscor. The terms of this loan in the original agreement involved a lag between disbursement and payment, with interest capitalized. Part of the loan amount was later offset through a separate IDC-Saldanha transaction in a manner consistent with the original loan agreement. The remaining portion of the Findevco loan was restructured in a manner the Department considers to constitute a new loan, including new payment terms, and a later deferral of principal and interest as mentioned above in the “Creditworthiness” section. (Further details of the provision of this loan, the “deferral,” and the feasibility studies are mainly of a business proprietary nature and can be found in the
Loans provide a financial contribution under section 771(5)(D)(i) of the Act in the form of a direct transfer of funds from the IDC, or its subsidiary Findevco, to Saldanha. To determine whether there is a benefit, we compared the interest rates charged on the Findevco/IDC loans provided to Saldanha to the benchmark rate described in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section above. Based on this comparison, there is a difference between the amount paid by Saldanha on these loans and the amount Saldanha would have paid on a comparable commercial loan obtained on the South African market. Thus, the loans provided by Findevco and the IDC provide a benefit under section 771(5)(E)(ii) of the Act.
In addition to determining the existence of a financial contribution and a benefit, when determining whether a program is countervailable, we must examine whether it is specifically provided under section 771(5A) of the Act. There is no law explicitly limiting eligibility for IDC loans, or loans from the IDC subsidiary Findevco, to exporters or to an enterprise, industry, or group thereof. Thus, these loans are not
To calculate the benefit, we used the Long-Term Benchmark rate discussed in the section “Calculation of Discount Rates and Benchmark Rates” above. Saldanha provided information regarding two commercial loans as potential benchmarks for its Findevco loan. One of these loans was obtained from a foreign government-owned development bank. The second loan is a supplier finance loan for services provided to Saldanha. Neither of these, however, is acceptable under our regulations. (
For the Findevco Loan, because we have determined that Saldanha received a deferral, we applied the allocation methodology of section 351.505(c)(3) of our regulations for the comparison of loans with different repayment schedules. Section 351.505(c)(3)(i) of our regulations requires that we take the difference between the net present value of payments under the deferred schedule with the IDC interest rate and the net present value of payments under a normal repayment schedule for a commercial loan with the benchmark interest rate and uncreditworthiness risk premium. We then assigned a portion of this difference to the POI in accordance with section 351.505(c)(3)(ii) of the regulations. For the IDC Loan, we followed the standard benefit calculation methodology of 351.505(c)(2) for long-term variable-rate loans. We summed the benefits allocable to the POI from this program and divided this amount by the combined total sales of Saldanha/Iscor during the POI, as discussed in the “Cross-Ownership and Attribution of Subsidies” section above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy to be 3.20 percent
The IDC facilitates and guarantees foreign credits for the importation of capital goods into South Africa. The program was established in 1989 and was designed to facilitate foreign lending to South African firms; the availability of foreign credit in South Africa was extremely limited at that time. The IDC establishes blanket credit lines with specific foreign banks which
According to its questionnaire responses, Saldanha began receiving IDC loan guarantees under this program in 1996, to finance purchases of foreign capital equipment. The GOSA has reported that these export credits are provided under the OECD guidelines for export credits in the relevant countries. Highveld did not receive guarantees under this program. Iscor received several IDC guarantees under this program which were tied to production facilities that are not involved in any part of the production process for subject merchandise. (
The IDC guaranteed import financing for capital equipment purchased by Saldanha. These guarantees represent a financial contribution by the GOSA. We are measuring the benefit of the loan guarantee as the difference between the GOSA loan guarantee fee and a commercial guarantee fee as we did in
In
In addition to determining the existence of a financial contribution and benefit, when determining whether a program is countervailable, we must examine whether it is specifically provided under section 771(5A) of the Act. The enacting legislation for the IDC does not explicitly limit eligibility for this import financing guarantee program to exporters or to an enterprise, industry, or group thereof. Thus, these guarantees are not
We note that the GOSA and Saldanha have argued that the commercial guarantee rate chosen by the Department in
To determine the benefit, we used the following methodology. Since the guarantee fees are paid every year on the loan balance that is outstanding, we multiplied the outstanding balance during the POI for each guaranteed loan by the rate of 0.25 percent to calculate the fee paid by Saldanha to the IDC. We then multiplied the outstanding balance by 0.5 percent to calculate the fee Saldanha would have paid to a commercial guarantor. We then subtracted what Saldanha paid the IDC under this program from what it would have paid on a comparable commercial guarantee for each loan. We summed the benefits allocable to the POI from this program and divided this amount by the combined total sales of Saldanha/Iscor during the POI, as discussed in the “Cross-Ownership and Attribution of Subsidies” section above. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy to be 0.12 percent
The GOSA charges lower wharfage fees for exports than for imports through all ports in South Africa. The export rate is an
Section 351.514(a) of the Department's regulations states that a subsidy is an export subsidy if its provision is contingent upon export performance. We preliminarily determine that the GOSA's lower wharfage fees for exports constitute a countervailable export subsidy under section 351.514(a).
In order to calculate the benefit, we calculated what each respondent would have paid in export wharfage fees if the export rate had been equal to an average of the export rate and the import rate, and then subtracted what was actually paid for export wharfage fees. Because we have preliminarily determined that
We initiated an investigation of a program to improve the Saldanha Bay port, alleged to provide countervailable benefits to Saldanha. The program was undertaken by Portnet, a company wholly-owned by the GOSA and charged with managing and constructing South Africa's ports. Portnet is a subsidiary of Transnet, an organization also wholly-owned by the GOSA, which supervises a number of transportation-related organizations. The program involved the expansion of the multipurpose cargo quay at Saldanha Bay port from 250 to 870 meters. Construction began in 1995 and was completed in 1998. In our initiation memorandum, we found that petitioners had provided sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation that the quay expansion was specific to an enterprise or industry or group thereof and was not general infrastructure. We noted that petitioners, after an “exhaustive search,” were unable to find evidence that the GOSA had received adequate remuneration for this program.
After reviewing the GOSA's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily determine that the GOSA received adequate remuneration for this provision of infrastructure. Provision of infrastructure is incorporated in our regulations under section 351.511, “Provision of goods or services.” (
The GOSA reported that Portnet charges country-wide wharfage fees, which it stated are used for port capital. The GOSA provided a business proprietary feasibility study and budgets for the project, demonstrating that Portnet sets its fees at a level designed to ensure that it covers operating costs and future capital expenditures. The documents calculate internal rates of return and profit indices based on planned spending and existing fees. While these fees have not changed in several years, they are
Furthermore, the annual reports for Transnet, Portnet's parent, provide separate descriptions of its subsidiaries' operations, which describe Portnet as a profit-making operation. Financial statements for each subsidiary are also included, which indicate that Portnet had a positive income during fiscal years 1999 and 2000. Appendix A to the GOSA's March 14th response provides a summary of Portnet's financial statements going back to fiscal year 1996, which also shows a positive income for each year. This information, in combination with the study and budgets mentioned above, supports the conclusion that Portnet sets its fees in a manner designed to recover its operating and capital costs and that its fees are set to ensure its future operations. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the GOSA set prices for this infrastructure consistently with market principles,
We initiated an investigation of a program to upgrade the Sishen-Saldanha rail line, alleged to provide countervailable benefits to the production of subject merchandise. The program was undertaken by Spoornet, a company wholly-owned by the GOSA and charged with managing and constructing South Africa's railroads, through its subsidiary Orex, an entity created specifically for management of the Sishen-Saldanha line. Spoornet is a subsidiary of Transnet. The program involved two projects to improve a rail line from iron ore mines in the Sishen region to Saldanha Bay. Orex began planning the first project in November 1999 and completion of the project is expected by July 2002. It involves the construction of additional crossing loops first envisioned, but not built, when the line was built between 1973 and 1976. The GOSA states that construction of these additional loops became necessary with increased volumes of iron ore. The second project involves the upgrading of locomotives and wagons, and was also undertaken for the purpose of increasing iron ore transport capacity. The iron ore transported on this line was mined by Iscor, and either exported, sold to Saldanha, or sold to other local mills not involved in the production of subject merchandise. The GOSA's response states that the improvements were planned in order to accommodate increased iron ore exports. The ore was transported from Saldanha Bay to Saldanha's mill by means of a conveyor belt.
In our initiation memorandum, we found that petitioners had provided sufficient evidence to warrant an investigation that the rail upgrade was specific to an enterprise or industry or group thereof and was not general infrastructure. We noted that petitioners, after an “exhaustive search,” were unable to find evidence that the GOSA had received adequate remuneration for this program.
After reviewing the GOSA's questionnaire responses, we preliminarily determine that the GOSA received adequate remuneration for this program. Provision of infrastructure is incorporated in our regulations under section 351.511, “Provision of goods or services.” (
The GOSA reported that Spoornet charges Iscor a negotiated fee for use of the Sishen-Saldanha line. The GOSA provided plans and proposals for the project, demonstrating that Spoornet negotiated its fee at a level designed to ensure that it covers operating costs and future capital expenditures. The documents calculate internal rates of return and profit indices based on planned spending and existing fees. While the fee has not changed in several years, it is an
Furthermore, the annual reports for Transnet, Spoornet's parent, provide separate descriptions of its subsidiaries' operations, which describe Spoornet as a profit-making operation. Financial statements for each subsidiary are also included, which indicate that Spoornet had a positive income during fiscal years 1999 and 2000. This information, in combination with the plans and proposals mentioned above, supports the conclusion that Spoornet sets its fees in a manner designed to recover its operating and capital costs and that its fees are set to ensure its future operations. Therefore, we preliminarily find that the GOSA set prices for this infrastructure consistently with market principles,
In accordance with section 782(i)(1) of the Act, we will verify the information submitted by respondents prior to making our final determination.
In accordance with section 703(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we have calculated an individual rate for the companies under investigation, Highveld, Iscor, and Saldanha. We have preliminarily determined that the total estimated countervailable subsidy rate is 0.45 percent
In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we are directing the U.S. Customs Service to suspend liquidation of all entries of the subject merchandise from South Africa produced or exported by any company, other than Highveld, which are entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of the publication of this notice in the
In accordance with section 703(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order, without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
In accordance with section 705(b)(2) of the Act, if our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will make its final determination within 45 days after the Department makes its final determination.
In accordance with section 351.310 of our regulations, we will hold a public hearing, if requested, to afford interested parties an opportunity to comment on this preliminary determination. The hearing is tentatively scheduled to be held 57 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Requests for a public hearing should contain: (1) The party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and, (3) to the extent practicable, an identification of the arguments to be raised at the hearing. In addition, unless otherwise informed by the Department, six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the case briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 50 days from the date of publication of the preliminary determination. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Six copies of the business proprietary version and six copies of the non-proprietary version of the rebuttal briefs must be submitted to the Assistant Secretary no later than 5 days from the date of filing of the case briefs. An interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case or rebuttal briefs. Written arguments should be submitted in accordance with section 351.309 of our regulations and will be considered if received within the time limits specified above.
This determination is published pursuant to sections 703(f) and 777(i) of the Act. Effective January 20, 2001, Bernard T. Carreau is fulfilling the duties of the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The Environmental Technologies Trade Advisory Committee will hold a plenary meeting on May 10, 2001, in Room 3407 of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
During the morning, the ETTAC will hear reports on the Industry Consultations Program, policy issues for environmental technologies companies, and an update on improvements being made to the Global Technology Network. ETTAC subcommittees will identify priorities and work plans. The subcommittees will report to the full committee during the afternoon. Subcommittees include: Water; Energy/Air; Market Access; Government Resources.
ETTAC is mandated by Public Law 103-392. It was created to advise the U.S. government on environmental trade policies and programs, and to help it to focus its resources on increasing the exports of the U.S. environmental industry. The ETTAC operates as an advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce and the interagency Environmental Trade Working Group (ETWG) of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC). The ETTAC was originally chartered in May of 1994. It was most recently rechartered until May 30, 2002.
For further information phone Jane Siegel, Office of Technologies Industries, (ETI), U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-5225. This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to ETI.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
2 p.m., Tuesday, May 1, 2001.
1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Conference Room.
Closed.
Rule Enforcement Review.
Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.
Notice.
The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 July 1996.
Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/COMPT/RM, (703) 604-6575.
The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 01-04 with attached transmittal, policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.
DoD.
Notice of meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the next meeting of the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee. The meeting will be open to the public. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463).
May 10 and 11, 2001.
National Science Foundation, Room 555, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
The tentative meeting agenda includes discussion of agency response to PITAC advice and the future demands information technology research and development will need to support the following areas:
1. Software;
2. Scalable Infrastructure;
3. High Performance Computing;
4. Societal Issues.
The National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development, formerly the National Coordination Office for Computing, Information, and Communications, provides information about the PITAC on its website at www.itrd.gov and can be reached by phone at (703) 292-4873. Public seating for this meeting is limited and is available on first come and first served basis.
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Notice to alter Systems of Records.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to amend a system of records notice in its inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
The changes will be effective on May 21, 2001 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination.
Send comments to OSD Privacy Act Coordinator, Records Management Section, Washington Headquarters Services, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.
Mr. David Bosworth at (703) 601-4725, x124.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Military Deployment Issues Files (December 8, 2000, 65 FR 76999).
Delete ‘DHA 05’ and replace with ‘DPR 28’.
Delete first paragraph and replace with ‘Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 901, Falls Church, VA 22041-3226.’
Delete entry and replace with ‘Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 901, Falls Church, VA 22041-3226.’
Military Deployment Issues Files.
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 901, Falls Church, VA 22041-3226;
DoD Deployment Health Clinical Center (including the Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation and Special Care Programs), Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC 20307-0002;
DoD Deployment Health Research Center, Naval Health Research Center, 271 Catalina Boulevard, Barracks Building 322, San Diego, CA 92152-5302;
DoD Deployment Health Medical Surveillance Center, Director of Epidemiology and Disease Surveillance, U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5422; and
U.S. Armed Services Center for Unit Records Research, 7798 Cissna Road, Suite 101, Springfield, VA 22150-3197.
Individuals who participated in military deployments or related operations, exercises, or tests, or served in Operation Desert Storm and/or Operation Desert Shield, the Kuwait Theater of Operations who feel they may have been exposed to biological, chemical, radiological, disease, or environmental agents.
Records consist of individual's name, Social Security Number or service number, last known or current address, occupational information, date and extent of involvement in military deployments or related operations, exercises, or tests, perceived issues, exposure information, medical treatment information, medical history of subject, and other documentation of reports of possible exposure to biological, chemical radiological, disease, or environmental agents. The system contains information from unit and historical records, medical and hospital records, and information provided to the DoD by individuals with first-hand knowledge of reports of possible biological, chemical, radiological, disease, or environmental incidents. Information from health care providers who have evaluated patients with illnesses possibly related to military deployments is also included. Records include those documents, files, and other media that could relate to possible deployment health issues or illnesses.
Records of diagnostic and treatment methods pursued on subjects following reports of possible incidental exposure are also included in this system.
10 U.S.C. 131, Office of the Secretary of Defense; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
Records are collected and assembled to permit investigative examination and analysis of reports of possible exposure to biological, chemical, radiological, disease, or environmental agents incident to service in military deployments or related operations, exercises, or tests, or service in Gulf War deployments, to conduct scientific or related studies or medical follow-up programs, and to assist in the resolution of deployment related issues.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
To the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Social Security Administration for appropriate consideration of individual claims for benefits for which that agency is responsible.
To the Department of Veterans Affairs and Health and Human Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to permit investigative, scientific, medical and other analyses regarding deployment health issues and incidents and possible causes, symptoms, diagnoses, treatment, and other characteristics pertinent to service member's and veteran's health.
To the Military and Veterans Health Coordinating Board (MVHCB), which will coordinate with several agencies the clinical, research, and health risk communications issues relating to service member's (and veteran's) pre and post deployment health.
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of OSD's
Paper records are maintained in file folders; electronic records are stored on magnetic media; microfilm/microfiche are maintained in appropriate storage containers.
Records are retrieved by case number, name, Social Security Number or service number and key words.
Access to areas where records maintained is limited to authorized personnel. Areas are protected by access control devices during working hours and intrusion alarm devices during non-duty hours.
Disposition pending (until NARA approves retention and disposition schedule, treat records as permanent.)
Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 901, Falls Church, VA 22041-3226.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 901, Falls Church, VA 22041-3226.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Special Assistant to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) for Gulf War Illnesses, Medical Readiness, and Military Deployments, 5113 Leesburg Pike, Suite 901, Falls Church, VA 22041-3226.
The OSD rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.
Information is from the individual's themselves, witnesses to a possible event, health care providers who have evaluated patients with illnesses possibly related to service in military deployments or related operations, exercises, or tests as well as extracts from official DoD records to include: personnel files and lists, unit histories, medical records, and related sources.
None.
Department of the Air Force, DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), Office of the USAF Academy Admissions Liaison, announces the proposed reinstatement of a public information collection and seeks public comment on provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, unity, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received June 19, 2001.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Karen E. Parker, Director, Admissions Liaison, U.S. Air Force Academy Liaison Office, USAFA/CCL, Room 4C174, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330-1040.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to above address.
The DD Form 1870, “Nomination for Appointment to the United States Military Academy, Naval Academy and Air Force Academy,” is used solely by legal nominating authorities who by federal law are entitled to make appointments to the three service military academies. The form is used by all three service academies. The nomination form allows for nominating authorities to select by checking one box as to which academy is being provided with the name of a nominee. The completed form provides the required information for a nomination to be processed. Eligibility information concerning the nominees is information that is also included on the form. The nominating authority identifies himself/herself and must date and sign the form to make it a legally acceptable form. The form includes the three addresses of the service academies in order that the form may be returned to the proper academy.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to amend Systems of Records.
The Department of the Army is amending a system of records notice in its existing inventory of record systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on May 21, 2001 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Records Management Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: TAPC-PDD-RP, Stop 5603, 6000 6th Street, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5603.
Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 806-4390 or DSN 656-4390 or Ms. Christie King at (703) 806-3711 or DSN 656-3711.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Departure Clearance Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).
Delete entry and replace with ‘A0600-8-101TAPC’.
Delete entry and replace with ‘Military and Civilian Out-Processing Files’.
Delete entry and replace with ‘Administrative offices and Army Staff agencies, field operating commands, installations and/or activities Army wide. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army’s compilation of record systems notices.”
Delete entry and replace with ‘All Army Active Duty, National Guard, Army Reserve and Department of the Army civilian personnel.’
Delete entry and replace with ‘Installation and Unit Clearance Records, Reassignment Records Checklist, copy of receipts or documents evidencing payment of telephone bills, return of material held on memorandum receipt and other supporting clearance matters and materials.’
Delete entry and replace with ‘By Social Security Number and Surname of departing individual.
Delete entry and replace with ‘Information concerning clearance procedures for departing soldiers, included are clearance certificates, checklists, and related information are maintained for one year then destroyed.
Information listed in the out-processing master file and out-processing outputs files treat as permanent until a disposition and retention schedule has been approved by the National Archives and Records Administration.’
Military and Civilian Out-Processing Files.
Administrative offices and Army Staff agencies, field operating commands, installations and/or activities Army wide. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of record systems notices.
All Army active duty, National Guard, Army Reserve and Department of the Army civilian personnel’
Installation and Unit Clearance Records, Reassignment Records Checklist, copy of receipts or documents evidencing payment of telephone bills, return of material held on memorandum receipt and other supporting clearance matters and materials.
10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Army Regulation 600-8-101, Personnel (In-and Out-and Mobilization Processing); and E.O. 9397 (SSN).
To verify that an individual has obtained clearance from the Army Staff agency or installation's facilities and has accomplished his/her personal and official obligations.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: The DoD ‘Blanket Routine Uses’ set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Paper records in file folders and electronic storage media.
By Social Security Number and Surname of departing individual.
Information is accessed only by designated persons having official need therefor.
Information concerning clearance procedures for departing soldiers, included are clearance certificates, checklists, and related information are maintained for one year then destroyed.
Information listed in the out-processing master file and out-processing outputs files treat as permanent until a disposition and retention schedule has been approved by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Out-Processing Functional Proponent, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22332-0474.
Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the administrative office of the installation/activity to which the individual had been assigned.
Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, departure date, location of last employing office, and signature.
Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the administrative office of the installation/activity to which the individual had been assigned.
Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, departure date, location of last employing office, and signature.
The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
From the individual; Army records and reports.
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to amend and delete systems of records.
The Department of the Army is amending two systems of records notices and deleting one notice from its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, and deleting one system of records.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on May 21, 2001 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Records Management Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: TAPC-PDD-RP, Stop 5603, 6000 6th Street, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5603.
Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 806-4390 or DSN 656-4390 or Ms. Christie King at (703) 806-3711 or DSN 656-3711.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
Corps of Engineers Automated Legal System (CEALS) Training Information Program (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).
Officer Appointment Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army and Army Regulation 601-100, Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers in the Regular Army.”
Delete entry and replace with “Paper records in file folders stored in file cabinets on microfiche and electronic storage media.”
Delete entry and replace with “By individual's surname and Social Security Number.”
Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in secured areas and secured buildings accessible only to designated individuals having official need thereof in the performance of their duties.”
Delete entry and replace with “Inquiry and eligibility files retain and destroy after 2 years. Appointment application records destroy after 1 year. Appointment selection board records retain for 3 years then destroy. Appointment lists retain and destroy after 2 years.”
Officer Appointment Files.
Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Chief, Officer Records Branch, 200 Stovall, Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0400.
Army installations and commands. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army’s compilation of record systems notices.
Applicants for appointment in the U.S. Army or U.S. Army Reserves.
Individual applications for appointment as a warrant or commissioned officer, evaluation reports, supplemental information regarding qualifications, notification of acceptance/rejection and similar relevant documents and reports.
10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Army Regulation 601-100, Appointment of Commissioned and Warrant Officers in the Regular Army; and Executive Order 9397 (SSN).
To determine acceptability of applicants into the Army officer ranks.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Paper records in file folders stored in file cabinets on microfiche and electronic storage media.
By individual's surname and Social Security Number.
Records are maintained in secured areas and secured buildings accessible only to designated individuals having official need thereof in the performance of their duties.
Inquiry and eligibility files retain and destroy after 2 years. Appointment application records destroy after 1 year. Appointment selection board records retain for 3 years then destroy. Appointment lists retain and destroy after 2 years.
Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Officer Records Branch, 200 Stovall, Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0400.
Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the Army installation in which application was sent or to the Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Officer Records Branch, 200 Stovall, Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0400.
Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, date of application, place to which sent, and any other information that will assist in locating the record.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the Army installation in which application was sent or to the Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Officer Records Branch, 200 Stovall, Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0400.
Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, date of application, place to which sent, and any other information that will assist in locating the record.
The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
From the individual; extracts from personnel records; forms, documents, and related papers originated by or received in Army offices.
None.
Eligibility Determination Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).
Delete entry and replace with “U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge of Eligibility Inquiries Section, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0450.”
Delete entry and replace with “Applicants for enlistment who require a waiver for an adult felony; soldiers requesting continuation on active duty who require waiver for certain disqualifications.”
Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 504, Persons not Qualified; 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlisted Program; Army Regulation 635-200, Enlisted Personnel; Army Regulation 601-280, Army Retention Program and E.O 9397 (SSN).”
Delete entry and replace with “To evaluate waiver requests, determine appropriate action and render decision.”
Add to entry “and on electronic storage media”.
Delete entry and replace with “By Social Security Number and surname.”
Delete entry and replace with “Enlistment eligibility records are destroyed upon reenlistment of individual. Inquiry records and other related documents are maintained for 7 years then destroyed.”
Eligibility Determination Files.
U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Non-Commissioned Officer In Charge of Eligibility Inquiries Section, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0450.
Applicants for enlistment who require a waiver for an adult felony; soldiers requesting continuation on active duty who require waiver for certain disqualifications.
File contains requests for enlistment eligibility or waiver of disqualifications for enlistment/reenlistment, requests for grade determination, documents reflecting determinations made thereon, copies or extracted items from basic records, transmittals, and suspense documents needed to assure that requests are acted upon in a timely manner.
10 U.S.C. 504, Persons not Qualified; 10 U.S.C. 3013, Secretary of the Army; Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlisted Program; Army Regulation 635-200, Enlisted Personnel; Army Regulation 601-280, Army Retention Program and E.O 9397 (SSN).
To evaluate waiver requests, determine appropriate action and render decision.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
The DoD “Blanket Routine Uses” set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices also apply to this system.
Paper records in file folders and on electronic storage media.
By Social Security Number and surname.
Records are maintained in areas accessible only to properly cleared,
Enlistment eligibility records are destroyed upon reenlistment of individual. Inquiry records and other related documents are maintained for 7 years then destroyed.
Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22332-0400.
Individuals seeking to determine if information about themselves is contained in this records system should address written inquiries to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Eligibility Inquiries Section, Retention Management Division, Enlistment Personnel Management Directorate, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0451.
Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, date of separation and service component, if applicable, current address and telephone number, and signature.
Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this record system should address written inquiries to the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, Eligibility Inquiries Section, Retention Management Division, Enlistment Personnel Management Directorate, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0451.
Individual should provide the full name, Social Security Number, date of separation and service component, if applicable, current address and telephone number, and signature.
The Army's rule for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are contained in Army Regulation 340-21; 32 CFR part 505; or may be obtained from the system manager.
From the individual, official military personnel records; investigative/security dossiers; medical evaluations; Army records and reports.
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice to amend Address Directory.
The Department of the Army is amending its Address Directory which appears at the end of the Army's Compilation of Privacy Act systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.
This proposed action will be effective without further notice on May 21, 2001 unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
Records Management Division, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, ATTN: TAPC-PDD-RP, Stop 5603, 6000 6th Street, Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-5603.
Ms. Janice Thornton at (703) 806-4390 or DSN 656-4390 or Ms. Christie King at (703) 806-3711 or DSN 656-3711.
The Department of the Army systems of records notices subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the
The specific changes to the records system being amended are set forth below followed by the notice, as amended, published in its entirety. The proposed amendments are not within the purview of subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which requires the submission of a new or altered system report.
This directory is published to enable users of systems of records notices to identify the location of such systems of records in order to request access to and amendment of records.
Office of the Secretary of the Army, 101 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0101.
Office of the Under Secretary of the Army, 102 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0102.
Office of the Administrative Assistant of the Secretary of the Army, 105 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0105.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisitions, Logistics, and Technology, 2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3926.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Civil Works, 108 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0108.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army Financial Management and Comptroller, 109 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0109.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment), 110 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0110.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), 111 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0111.
Office of the General Counsel, 104 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0104.
Office of the Director of Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers, 107 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0107.
Office of the Inspector General, 1700 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1700.
Office of the Auditor General, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302-1596.
Office of the Chief of Legislative Liaison, Office of the Secretary of the Army, 1600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1600.
Office of the Chief, Public Affairs, 1500 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1500.
Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, 106 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0106.
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for International Affairs, 102 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0102.
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of the Army for Operations Research, 102 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0102.
Office of the Chief of Staff, 200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0200.
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, 1000 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-1000.
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, 500 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0500.
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0400.
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0300.
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, 600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0600.
Office of the Chief of Engineers, 2600 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-2600.
Office of the Surgeon General, 5109 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3258.
Office of Chief, National Guard Bureau, 2500 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-2500.
Office of the Chief, Army Reserve, 2400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-2400.
Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-2200.
Office of the Chief of Chaplains, 2700 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-2700.
Office of the Chief, Center of Military History, 102 4th Avenue, Fort McNair, DC 20319-5058.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army, Unit 29351, APO AE 09014-0010.
Commander, U.S. Army Forces Command, 1777 Hardee Avenue, SW, Fort McPherson, GA 30330-1062.
Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20314-1000.
Commander, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, 6010 6th Street, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5506.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Command, 2050 Worth Road, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6003.
Commander, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 8825 Beulah Street, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5246.
Commander, U.S. Army Materiel Command, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-0001.
Commander, U.S. Army Military District of Washington, 103 Third Avenue, Fort McNair, DC 20319-5058.
Commander, U.S. Army South, P.O. Box 34000, Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico 00934-5301.
Commander, U.S. Army Special Operations Command (Airborne), Fort Bragg, NC 28307-5200.
Commander, U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command, P.O. Box 15280, 111 South George Mason Drive, Arlington, VA 22215-0280.
Commander, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 102 McNair, Fort Monroe, VA 23651-1047.
Commander, U.S. Army Pacific, Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5100.
Commander, U.S. Army Operational Test and Evaluation, Command, 4501 Ford Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22302-1458.
Commander, Eighth U.S. Army, APO AP 96205-0010.
Commander, U.S. Military Traffic Management Command, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-5000.
Commander in Chief, U.S. European Command, Unit 30400 Box 10000, APO AE 09128-4209.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Southern Command, 3511 NW 91st Avenue, Miami, FL 33172-1217.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Special Operations Command, 7701 Tampa Point Boulevard, MacDill Air Force Base, FL 33621-5357.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Command, 1562 Mitscher Avenue, Norfolk, VA 23551-2488.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, Honolulu, HI 96861-4031.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Space Command, 250 South Peterson Boulevard, Peterson AFB, CO 80914-3190.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command, 508 Scott Drive, Scott AFB, IL 62225-5357.
Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command, 901 Sac Boulevard, Offutt AFB, NE 68113-6000.
Commander, U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5300.
Commander, U.S. Army Safety Center and School, 1649 5th Avenue, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5009.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center P.O. Box 1600, Huntsville, AL 35807-4301.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Mobile, P.O. Box 2288, Mobile, AL 36628-0001.
Commander, Anniston Army Depot, 7 Frankford Avenue, Anniston, AL 36201-4199.
Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Center and Fort Rucker, Fort Rucker, AL 36362-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Alaska, Fort Richardson, AK 99595-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Alaska, P.O. Box 898, Anchorage, AK 99506-0898.
Commander, U.S. Army Signal Command, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca, Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613-6000.
Commander, U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, AZ 85635-9102.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Little Rock, P.O. Box 867, Little Rock, AR 72203-0867.
Commander, Pine Bluff Arsenal, 10020 Karbrich Circle, Pine Bluff, AR 71602-9500.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division South Pacific, 333 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2102.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles, P.O. Box 2711, Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Sacramento, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2922.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District San Francisco, 333 Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2102.
Commander, National Training Center, Fort Irwin, CA 92310-5076.
Commander, U.S. Army Space Command, 1670 North Newport Road, Colorado Springs, CO 80196-2749.
Commander, U.S. Army Fort Carson, 1430 Wetzl Street, Fort Carson, CO 80913-5050.
Director, U.S. Army Special Operations Agency, 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0400.
Commander, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6925 16th Street NW, Washington, DC 20307-6000.
Director, U.S. Army Command and Control Support Agency, 3200 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-3200.
Commander, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 6900 Georgia Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20307-5001.
Commander, Fort Lesley J. McNair, 4th and P Streets, Fort McNair, DC 20319-0001.
Commander, U.S. Central Command, 7115 South Boundary Blvd, MacDill AFB, FL 33621-5101.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Jacksonville, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, FL 32232-0019.
Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command, 1401 Deshler Street, Fort McPherson, GA 30330-2000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division South Atlantic, 77 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, GA 30303-3490.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Savannah, P.O. Box 889, Savannah, GA 31402-0889.
Commander, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, GA 30905-5650.
Commander, U.S. Army Signal Center and Fort Gordon, Fort Gordon, GA 30905-5010.
Commander, U.S. Army Infantry Center, Fort Benning, GA 31905-5323.
Commander, U.S Army Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, 42 Wayne Place, Fort Stewart, GA 31314-5044.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division Pacific Ocean, Building 230, Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Honolulu, Building 230, Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440.
Commander, U.S. Military Entrance Processing Command, 2834 Green Bay Road, North Chicago, IL 60064-3057.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Great Lakes Regional Office, 111 North Canal Street, Chicago, IL 60606-7205.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Chicago, 111 North Canal Street, Chicago, IL 60606-7205.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Detroit, P.O. Box 1037, Detroit, MI 48231-1027.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Rock Island, P.O. Box 2004, Rock Island, IL 61204-2004.
Commander, U.S. Army Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center, 8899 East 56th Street, Indianapolis, IN 46249-5301.
Commander, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth, 600 Thomas Avenue, Fort Leavenworth, KS 66027-1417.
Commander, Headquarters Fort Riley, Huebner Road, Fort Riley, KS 66442-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Recruiting Command, 1307 3rd Avenue, Fort Knox, KY 40121-2726.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Louisville, P.O. Box 59, Louisville, KY 40201-0059.
Commander, U.S. Army 101st Airborne Division and Fort Campbell, 39 26th Street, Fort Campbell, KY 42223-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Armor Center and Ft Knox, Fort Knox, KY 40121-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District New Orleans, P.O. Box 60267, New Orleans, LA 70160-0267.
Commander, U.S. Army Research and Materiel Command, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick MD 21702-5012.
Director, U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency, 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814-2796.
Director, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, 2800 Power Mill Road, Adelphi, MD 20783-1197.
Commander, U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command, 5232 Fleming Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5423.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District, Baltimore and Supervisor of Harbor Baltimore, P.O. Box 1715, Baltimore, MD 21203-1715.
Commander, U.S. Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5001.
Commander, U.S. Army Claims Service, 4411 Llewellyn Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 20755-5300.
Commander, U.S. Army Central Personnel Security Clearance Facility, 4552 Pike Road, Fort Meade, MD 20755-5250.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, 3100 Ricketts Point Road, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5400.
Commander, U.S. Army Fort George G. Meade, 4551 Llewellyn Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 20755-5000.
Director, U.S. Army Concepts Analysis Agency, 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814-2743.
Commander, U.S. Army Chemical Research, Development, and Engineering Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010-5423.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, 1425 Porter Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21701-5011.
Commander U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, 521 Detrick Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21701-5012.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick, MD 21701-5010.
Commander, U.S. Army Soldier Systems Command, Natick, MA 01760-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District New England, Frederick C. Murphy Federal Building, 424 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA 02254-9149.
Commander, U.S. Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, MA 01760-5020.
Commander, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, 6501 E-11 Mile Road, Natick, MA 01760-5007.
Commander, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, MI 48397-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Detroit, P.O. Box 1027, Detroit, MI 48231-1027.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District St. Paul, Army Corps of Engineers Center, 190 5th Street East, St. Paul, MN 55101-1638.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division Mississippi Valley, P.O. Box 80, Vicksburg, MS 39181-0080.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Vicksburg, 4155 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 39180-3435.
Commander, Army Reserve Personnel Center, 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louise, MO 63132-5200.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District St. Louis, 1222 Spruce Street, St. Louis, MO 63103-2833.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Kansas City, 700 Federal Building, Kansas City, MO 64106-2896.
Commander, U.S. Army Chemical and Military Police Centers, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473-8935.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Center, 32 Engineer Loop, Fort Leonard Wood, MO 65473-8703.
Commander, U. S. Army Engineer, Missouri River Region, 12565 West Center Road, Omaha, NE 68144-3869.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Omaha, 215 North 17th Street, Omaha, NE 68102-4978.
Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command and Fort Dix, Fort Dix, NJ 08640-5001.
Commandant, U.S. Military Academy Preparatory School, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5000.
Commander, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, NJ 07806-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Training Center and Fort Dix, Fort Dix, NJ 08640-5001.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Albuquerque, 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109-3435.
Commander, U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range, White Sands, NM 88002-5031.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Buffalo, 1776 Niagara Street, Buffalo, NY 14207-3199.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division North Atlantic, 90 Church Street, New York, NY 10007-2979.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District New York and Supervisor of New York Harbor, 26 Federal Plaza, New York, NY 10278-0090.
Superintendent, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY 10996-2001.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Wilmington, P.O. Box 1890, Wilmington, NC 28402-1890.
Commander, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School, Fort Bragg, NC 28307-5200.
Commander, U.S. Army Special Forces (Airborne) Command, Fort Bragg, NC 28307-5200.
Director, U.S. Army Research Office, 4300 South Miami Blvd, Research Triangle Park, NC 27703-9142.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division Great Lakes and Ohio River, P.O. Box 1159, Cincinnati, OH 45202-2215.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Tulsa, P.O. Box 61, Tulsa, OK 74121-0061.
Commander, U.S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill, OK 73503-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division Northwestern, P.O. Box 2870, Portland, OR 97208-2870.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Portland, P.O. Box 2946, Portland, OR 97208-2946.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer North Pacific Regional, P.O. Box 2870, Portland, OR 97208-2870.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Pittsburgh, William S. Moorehead Federal Building, 1000 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222-4186.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Philadelphia, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3390.
Commandant, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Avenue, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5215.
Commander, Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150.
Commander, Tobyhanna Army Depot, 11 Hap Arnold Boulevard, Tobyhanna, PA 18466-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Charleston, P.O. Box 919, Charleston, SC 29402-0919.
Commander, U.S. Army Training Center, Fort Jackson, Columbia, SC 29207-5001.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Nashville, P.O. Box 1070, Nashville, TN 37202-1070.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Memphis, 167 North Main Street, Memphis, TN 38103-1894.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division Southwestern, 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-0216.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Fort Worth, P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Galveston, P.O. Box 1229, Galveston, TX 77553-1229.
Commander, U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center, 1733 Pleaston Road, Fort Bliss, TX 79916-6816.
Commander, U.S. Army Institute of Dental Research, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6200.
Commander, U.S. Army Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, UT 84022-5000.
Commander, Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, UT 84074-5000.
Commander, U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, 200 Stovall Street, Alexandria, VA 22332-0400.
Director, Army Review Boards Agency, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-4508
Director, U.S. Army Legal Service Agency, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-5013.
Commander, U.S. Army Center for Substance Abuse Programs, 4501 Ford Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22302-1460.
Director, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 6000 6th Street, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5603.
Director, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, Center for Research of Unit Records, 7798 Cissna Road, Springfield, VA 22150-3197.
Director, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Office, 7798 Cissna Road, Springfield, VA 22150-3197.
Director, The Institute of Heraldry, 9325 Gunston Road, Fort Belvoir, VA 22050-5579.
Director, Military Postal Service Agency, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0006.
Director, U.S. Army Crime Records Center, 6010 6th Street, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5585.
Commander, U.S. Army Security Assistance Command, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-0001.
Director, U.S. Army Civilian Personnel Evaluation Agency, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-4508.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Norfolk and Supervisor of Norfolk Harbor, 803 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510-1096.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Trans Atlantic Programs Center, P.O. Box 2250, Winchester, VA 22604-1450.
Director, U.S. Army Board for the Correction of Military Records, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-4508.
Commander, U.S. Army Combine Arms Support Command and Fort Lee, Fort Lee, VA 23801-1703.
Commandant, The Judge Advocate General School, U.S. Army, 600 Massie Road, Charlottesville, VA 22903-1781.
Chief, U.S. Army Litigation Division, 901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22203-1837.
Commander, U.S. Army Community and Family Support Center, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0503.
Commander, U.S. Army Training Support Center, 2787 Madison Avenue, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5166.
Commander, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-5600.
Director, U.S. Army Gulf War Declassification Project, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3206.
Director, U.S. Army Publishing Agency, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-0302.
Commander, U.S. Army Transportation Center and Fort Eustis, 705 Read Street, Fort Eustis, VA 23604-5078.
Commander, U.S. Army Fort Monroe, Fort Monroe, VA 23651-6000.
Commandant, U.S. Army Logistics Management College, Fort Lee, VA 23801-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Quartermaster Center and School, Fort Lee, VA 23801-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Seattle, P.O. Box 3755, Seattle, WA 98124-3755.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Walla Walla, 201 North Third Avenue, Walla Walla, WA 99362-1876.
Commander, U.S Army Fort Lewis and I Corps, Fort Lewis, WA 98433-5000.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Huntington, 502 8th Street, Huntington, WV 25701-2070.
Commander, U.S. Army Reserve Command—Fort McCoy, 2016 South 11th Avenue, Fort McCoy, WI 54656-5121.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Far East, Unit 15546, APO AP 96205-0610.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Japan, Unit 45010, APO AP 96338-5010.
Commander, U.S. Army Engineer District Europe, CMR 410 Box 1, APO AE 09096.
Commander, U.S. Forces, Korea, Unit 15237, APO AP 96205-0010.
Commander, Army and Air Force Exchange Service, 3911 S. Walton Walker Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75236-0202.
Commander, Army and Air Force Exchange Service-Europe Region, Building 4001, In der Witz 14-18, 55252 Mainz-Kastel, Germany, APO AP 09251-4580.
Commander, Army and Air Force Exchange Service-Europe, Pinder Barracks, Schwabacherster 20 8502 Zirndorf, APO AP 96378-0163.
Commander, Army and Air Force Exchange—Europe, Europe Accounting Support Office, CMR 429, APO AE 09054.
Commander, Army and Air Force Exchange—Pacific Rim, Accounting Support Center, Unit 35163, APO AP 96378-5163.
President, National Defense University, 100 McNair Street, Fort McNair, DC 20319-0001.
National Personnel Records Center (Civilian Personnel Records), 111 Winnebago Street, St. Louis, MO 63118-4126.
National Personnel Records Center (Military Personnel Records), 9700 Page Avenue, St Louis, MO 63132-5100.
Commandant, Academy of Health Services, 3151 Scott Road, Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6138.
**Additional listing of Army addresses can be found in DA PAM 25-50, Compilation of Army Addresses. This publication can be obtained electronically from web site
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps announces a proposed extension of an approved public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 19, 2001.
Send written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection to MCCDC, Training and Education Division, Head, Training Programs Branch, Code C462R, 2034 Barnett Avenue, Suite 201, Quantico, VA 22134-5012.
To request additional information or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, contact Mr. Les Wood at (703) 784-3705.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps announces a proposed extension of an approved public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 19, 2001.
Send written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection to Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruiting Command, (Code OR), 3280 Russell Road, Quantico, Virginia 22134-5103.
To request additional information or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, contact Master Sergeant Hudson at (703) 784-9449.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice of open meeting.
The Board of Visitors of the Marine Corps University (BOV MCU) will meet to review, develop, and provide recommendations on all aspects of the academic and administrative policies of the University; examine all aspects of professional military education operations; and provide such oversight and advice as is necessary to facilitate high educational standards and cost effective operations. The Board will be reviewing the fiscal plan for next year, the University's Facilities Master Plan, and discussing plans for November elections. It will also receive an update on Amphibious Warfare School relocation during renovation of Geiger Hall, be briefed on the status of the History Division move to Quantico, VA and the status of the review and update of the Board By-laws. All sessions of the meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held on Monday, June 11, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. and on Tuesday, June 12, 2001, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Marine Corps University Research Center, 2040 Broadway Street, Room 164, Quantico, Virginia 22134.
Garry Smith, Executive Secretary, Marine Corps University Board of Visitors, 2076 South Street, Quantico, Virginia 22134, telephone number (703) 784-4037.
Department of the Navy, DOD.
Notice.
The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to Environics, Inc., a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license in the United States and certain foreign countries to practice the Government-owned invention, described in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/275,272 (Navy Case No. 79,555) filed March 23, 1999, entitled “Atmospheric Ozone Concentration Detector”.
Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license must file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than June 19, 2001.
Written objections are to be filed with the Naval Research Laboratory, Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320.
Catherine M. Cotell, Ph.D., Head, Technology Transfer Office, NRL Code 1004, 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20375-5320, telephone (202) 767-7230.
(
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 19, 2001.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the
Responses: 690,000;
Burden Hours: 345,000.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, invites comments on the proposed information collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 19, 2001.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at (202) 708-9266 or via his internet address Joe.Schubart@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 2001.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Acting Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address Lauren_Wittenberg@omb.eop.gov.
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
Responses: 40.
Burden Hours: 2,000.
This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 21, 2001.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Acting Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the internet address
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
This information collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1890-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at (202) 708-6287 or via her internet address Sheila.Carey@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
April 16, 2001.
Take notice that on April 11, 2001, Wisvest-Connecticut, LLC (Wisvest), Bridgeport Harbor Power LLC (BHP), New Haven Harbor Power LLC (NHHP), and NRG Connecticut Power Assets LLC (NRG Connecticut), pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an amendment to their February 16, 2001 application requesting authorization for Wisvest to transfer to NRG Connecticut the 590-MW Bridgeport Harbor Power Station, 466-MW New Haven Harbor Power Station, and associated power sales agreements. At closing, NRG Connecticut would in turn transfer the Bridgeport Harbor Station to BHP and the New Haven Harbor Station to NHHP, but would retain the power sales agreements. By this amendment, the Applicants seek to eliminate the final step of the proposed transaction: NRG Connecticut will retain both the Bridgeport Harbor Power Station and the New Haven Harbor Power Station, that is, NRG Connecticut will not transfer any facilities to BHP or NHHP.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before April 26, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at
Take notice that on April 11, 2001, San Gorgonio Power Corporation (San Gorgonio), Mountain View Power Partners II, LLC (Mountain View II) and SeaWest WindPower, Inc. (SeaWest) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application pursuant to section 203 of the Federal Power Act for authorization of a disposition of jurisdictional facilities whereby San Gorgonio will acquire 100% of the membership interests in Mountain View II. Mountain View II is constructing a 22.2 MW wind power generating plant (Project) located in San Gorgonio Pass of Riverside County, California, and estimated to begin producing test power for sale in April 2001. Mountain View II is currently wholly owned by SeaWest. Pursuant to an acquisition agreement, the Transaction would be consummated after the Project commences commercial operation, which is expected to occur by June 15, 2001. The Transaction is expected to result in the disposition of Commission-jurisdictional facilities consisting of Mountain View II's market-based rate tariff and minor interconnection facilities connecting the Project to the transmission facilities of Southern California Edison. Applicants have requested privileged treatment for the Acquisition Agreement between SeaWest and San Gorgonio.
A copy of this Application was served upon the California Public Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on April 11, 2001, Aroostook Valley Electric Company (the Applicant), with its principal office at 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408, filed with the Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Applicant states that it is a Maine corporation engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning an approximately 31 MW wood-burning generating facility located in Fort Fairfield, Maine. Electric energy produced by the facility will be sold at wholesale or at retail exclusively to foreign consumers.
Take notice that on April 9, 2001, Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. tendered for filing in compliance with the Commission's April 7, 1994 order in the above-referenced proceeding.
Take notice that on April 9, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), pursuant to the Order issued March 15, 2001 in this proceeding, tendered for filing a redesignated Interconnection Service Agreement between PJM and NRG Energy Center Dover LLC (NRG).
Copies of this filing were served upon NRG and the state electric utility regulatory commissions within the PJM control area.
Take notice that on April 5, 2001, Public Service Electric and Gas Company tendered for filing an Interconnection Agreement (IA) with JEDI Linden NB, L.L.C. (Jedi Linden) and Tosco Refining, L.P. (Tosco). Therein PSE&G requested a waiver of the Commission's prior notice requirement to permit an effective dated for the IA as of the date of Initial Operation, as defined in the IA.
This filing was noticed by the Commission on November 2, 2000.
Take notice that on April 6, 2001, Alabama Power Company tendered for filing original tariff sheets for its Rate Schedule No. 165 compliant with the formatting requirements of Commission Order No. 614.
Take notice that on April 6, 2001, Southern Company Services, Inc., as agent for Alabama Power Company (APC), tendered for filing rate schedule sheets compliant with Commission Order No. 614 for Alabama Power Company Rate Schedule FERC No. 145.
Take notice that on April 9, 2001, Central Maine Power Company (CMP), tendered for filing, pursuant to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or the Commission) directive issued March 15, 2001 in the above referenced Docket No., Settlement and Release Agreements between Central Maine Power Company (CMP) and Engage Energy America Corp. (Engage), to comply with Order No. 614, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31, 096 (2000).
CMP respectfully requests that the Commission accept both Settlement and Release Agreements, effective as of December 29, 2000 and without modification or condition, as requested in its initial filing of January 31, 2001.
Take notice that on April 10, 2001, Cordova Energy Company LLC (Cordova) tendered for filing the cover and first page of an Amendment to a Power Purchase Agreement between Cordova and MidAmerican Energy Company designated in compliance with the Commission's Order No. 614 pursuant to an unreported letter order dated March 29, 2001 in the above-captioned docket.
Take notice that on April 11, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing revised sheets to update its currently effective FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1.
Copies of this filing were served upon all PJM Members, and the state electric utility commissions within the PJM control area.
Take notice that on April 10, 2001, American Transmission Systems, Inc.. tendered for filing on behalf of itself and Ohio Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, and The Toledo Edison Company, a Service Agreement for Network Integration Service and Operating Agreement for the Network Integration Transmission Service under the Ohio Retail Electric Program with Advantage Energy, Inc. pursuant to the American Transmission Systems, Inc. Open Access Tariff.
This agreement will enable the party to obtain Network Integration Service under the Ohio Retail Electric Program in accordance with the terms of the Tariff. The proposed effective date under this agreement is April 10, 2001.
Take notice that on April 10, 2001, Idaho Power Company (IPC) tendered for filing Service Agreements for Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between Idaho Power Company and Exelon Generation, LLC.
Take notice that on April 10, 2001, Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO), 300 Liberty Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602, tendered for filing an Interconnection Agreement with Altorfer Inc. for Generation Interconnection and Parallel Operation.
CILCO requested an effective date of June 1, 2001.
Copies of the filing were served on the affected customer and the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Take notice that on April 10, 2001, Idaho Power Company (IPC) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Service Agreements for Firm and Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service between Idaho Power Company and Mirant Americas Energy Marketing, LP.
Take notice that on April 10, 2001, Central Illinois Light Company (CILCO), 300 Liberty Street, Peoria, Illinois 61602, tendered for filing a substitute Index of Network Transmission Service Customers under its Open Access Transmission Tariff and one network service agreement for one existing customer, Corn Belt Energy Corporation.
CILCO requested an effective date of April 1, 2001 for the service agreement.
Copies of the filing were served on the affected customer and the Illinois Commerce Commission.
Take notice that on April 10, 2001, Idaho Power Company tendered for filing under its Market-Based Rates Tariff the Power Purchase Agreement between Idaho Power Company, Doing Business as IDACORP Energy, and the City of Oakland, California, Acting by and through Its Board of Port Commissioners, for Wholesale Electricity Supply and Related Services at the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport and at the Former FISCO Facilities, dated December 28, 2000. Idaho Power Company requests an effective date of June 10, 2001.
Take notice that on April 11, 2001 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing an executed interconnection service agreement between PJM and PEI Power Corporation, and three executed interim interconnection service agreements between PJM and Exelon Corporation and Conectiv Mid-Merit Inc.
PJM requests a waiver of the Commission's 60-day notice requirement to permit the effective dates agreed to by the parties.
Copies of this filing were served upon each of the parties to the agreements the state regulatory commissions within the PJM control area.
Take notice that on April 11, 2001, Monroe Power Company (MPC) tendered for filing an executed Service Agreement with AQUILA Energy Marketing Corporation under the provisions of MPC's Market-Based Rates Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff No. 1.
MPC is requesting an effective date of April 1, 2001 for this agreement.
Copies of the filing were served upon the North Carolina Utilities Commission, the South Carolina Public Service Commission and the Georgia Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on April 2, 2001, Commonwealth Electric Company (Commonwealth) tendered for filing proposed changes to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (OATT) to include a Standard Form of Interconnection Agreements (Interconnection Agreement).
The Interconnection Agreement will govern the rights and responsibilities of Commonwealth and new generators when generators seek to add new generation to Commonwealth's transmission system in compliance with Order No. 614.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the
ERP No. D-AFS-J65329-MT
Rating EC2, Maudlow—Toston Post-Fire Salvage Sale, Harvesting Burnt Timber, Implementation, Helena National Forest, Townsend Ranger District, Broadway County, MT.
ERP No. D-BLM-G70005-NM Rating LO,
Sierra and Otero Counties Resource Management Plan Amendment and Federal Fluid Minerals Leasing and Development, Implementation, Sierra and Otero Counties, NM.
ERP No. F-BLM-K67051-NV, Marigold Mine Expansion Project, Implementation, COE Section 404 Permit, Special-Use-Permit, Humboldt County, NV.
ERP No. F-COE-G11035-00, Programmatic—Fort Bliss Mission and Real Property Master Plan, Revised Land Use and Enhance Management of the Land, Airspace and Infrastructure, El Pasco County, TX and Dona Ana and Otero Counties, NM.
ERP No. F-COE-K40242-CA, Adoption—CA—125 South Route Location, Adoption and Construction, between CA-905 on Otay Mesa to CA-54 in Spring Valley, Funding and COE Section 404 Permit, San Diego County, CA.
ERP No. F-UAF-G11039-TX, Brooks City Base Project, To Improve Mission Effectiveness and Reduce Cost of Quality Installation Support, Implementation, Brooks Air Force Base, Bexar County, TX.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document announces the procedures and minimum opening bids for the upcoming auction of 16 VHF Public Coast licenses and 241 multilateration Location and Monitoring Services licenses scheduled for June 6, 2001.
Auction No. 39 is scheduled for June 6, 2001.
Kenneth Burnley, Legal Branch or Lyle Ishida, Auctions Operations Branch (202) 418-0660; Linda Sanderson, Auction Operations Branch at (717) 338-2888. Keith Fickner, Policy and Rules Branch at (202) 418-7308 or Kim Kleppinger, Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch at (717) 338-2666. Meribeth McCarrick, Media Contact at (202) 418-0654.
This is a summary of a Public Notice released March 26, 2001. The complete text of this Notice, including Attachments A through I, is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257) 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. It may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, Inc. (ITS, Inc.) 1231 20th
Attachment I—Summary of Documents Addressing the Anti-Collusion Rules
1. By Public Notice, DA 01-746 released March 26, 2001 (“
2. Auction No. 39 will be the second auction each for VHF Public Coast and LMS spectrum. The initial VHF Public Coast licenses were awarded in Auction No. 20, which ended on December 14, 1998. The initial LMS licenses were awarded in Auction No. 21, which ended on March 5, 1999.
a.
3. In July 1998, the Commission restructured the licensing framework that governs VHF Public Coast stations. Pursuant to the
b.
4. In 1995, the Commission established rules governing the licensing of the LMS in the 902-928 MHz frequency band. LMS refers to advanced radio technologies designed to support the nation's transportation infrastructure and to facilitate the growth of Intelligent Transportation Systems. The Commission created a new subpart M in part 90 of the Commission's rules for Transportation Infrastructure Radio Services, which includes LMS and like services. Additional information can be found in section I.A.1 of the
5. The licenses available in this auction consist of the following licenses that remained unsold in Auctions No. 20 and No. 21.
a.
6. Sixteen licenses will be available in geographic areas known as VHF Public Coast Areas (VPCs). There are two categories of VPCs: maritime VPCs and inland VPCs. All of the VHF Public Coast licenses to be offered in Auction No. 39 are inland VPC licenses. Inland VPCs are identical to the Commerce Department's Economic Areas, no part of which is within 100 miles of a major waterway. Each VPC license has seven 25 kHz channel pairs, adding up to 350 kHz.
b.
7. Three blocks of spectrum are allocated for LMS systems:
(i) Block A—904.000-909.750 MHz and 927.750-928.000 MHz.
(ii) Block B—919.750-921.750 MHz and 927.500-927.750 MHz.
(iii) Block C—921.750-927.250 MHz and 927.250-927.500 MHz.
8. A geographic licensing area is comprised of each of these spectrum blocks. LMS spectrum is licensed in 176 Economic Areas (EAs). In Auction No. 39, 241 LMS licenses will be available: 117 licenses will be auctioned in Block A, 61 licenses will be auctioned in Block B, and 63 licenses will be auctioned in Block C.
9. A list of licenses available in Auction No. 39 is included in Attachment A of the Public Notice.
a.
10. Prospective bidders must familiarize themselves thoroughly with the Commission's rules relating to the VHF Public Coast Service, contained in title 47, part 80 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and those relating to application and auction procedures, contained in title 47, part 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
11. Prospective bidders must also be thoroughly familiar with the procedures, terms and conditions (collectively, “Terms”) contained in this public notice; the
b.
12. Prospective bidders must familiarize themselves thoroughly with the Commission's rules relating to the Location and Monitoring Service, contained in title 47, part 90 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and those relating to application and auction procedures, contained in title 47, part 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
13. Prospective bidders must also be thoroughly familiar with the procedures, terms and conditions (collectively, “Terms”) contained in this public notice; the
14. The terms contained in the Commission's rules, relevant orders,
15. To ensure the competitiveness of the auction process, the Commission's rules prohibit applicants for the same geographic license area from communicating with each other during the auction about bids, bidding strategies, or settlements. This prohibition begins at the short-form application filing deadline and ends at the down payment deadline after the auction. Bidders competing for licenses in the same geographic license areas are encouraged not to use the same individual as an authorized bidder. A violation of the anti-collusion rule could occur if an individual acts as the authorized bidder for two or more competing applicants, and conveys information concerning the substance of bids or bidding strategies between the bidders he or she is authorized to represent in the auction. Also, if the authorized bidders are different individuals employed by the same organization (
16. However, the Bureau cautions that merely filing a certifying statement as part of an application will not outweigh specific evidence that collusive behavior has occurred, nor will it preclude the initiation of an investigation when warranted. In Auction No. 39, for example, the rule would apply to any VHF Public Coast applicants bidding for the same VPC, and to any LMS applicants bidding for the same EA. Therefore, applicants that apply to bid for any license in a VPC or EA would be precluded from communicating after filing the FCC Form 175 short-form application with any other applicant for a license in the same VPC or EA. However, applicants may enter into bidding agreements
17. A summary listing of documents from the Commission and the Bureau addressing the application of the anti-collusion rules may be found in Attachment I of the Public Notice.
18. The FCC makes no representations or warranties about the use of this spectrum for particular services. Applicants should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in this service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. An FCC auction does not constitute an endorsement by the FCC of any particular services, technologies or products, nor does an FCC license constitute a guarantee of business success. Applicants should perform their individual due diligence before proceeding as they would with any new business venture.
a.
19. Potential bidders are reminded that there are a number of incumbent VHF Public Coast Station licensees and Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) licensees already operating in the 156-162 MHz band. Such incumbents must be protected from harmful interference by VHF Public Coast Station geographic area licensees in accordance with the Commission's rules. These limitations may restrict the ability of such VPC geographic area licensees to use certain portions of the electromagnetic spectrum or provide service to certain areas in their geographic license areas.
20. In addition, potential bidders seeking licenses for geographic areas that are near the Canadian border should be aware of agreements between the United States and Canada that affect the assignment and use of VHF frequencies in certain parts of inland border VPCs. Potential bidders are solely responsible for investigating and evaluating the degree to which these matters may affect spectrum availability in areas where they seek inland border VPC licenses.
21. Potential bidders may obtain information regarding incumbent VHF Public Coast licensees through the Bureau's licensing databases on the World Wide Web at
b.
22. Potential bidders are reminded that LMS operates in the 902-928 MHz frequency band. This band is allocated for primary use by Federal Government radio location systems. Next, in order of priority, are Industrial, Scientific and Medical devices. Federal Government fixed and mobile and LMS systems are secondary to these uses. The remaining uses of the 902-928 MHz band include licensed amateur radio operations and unlicensed equipment under part 15 of the Commission's rules, both of which are secondary to all other uses of the band. Part 15 low power devices include, but are not limited to, those used for automatic meter reading, inventory control, package tracking and
23. The Commission adopted the
24. Potential bidders may obtain information about LMS licenses through the Bureau's licensing databases on the World Wide Web at
25. Potential bidders should also be aware that certain applications (including those for modification), petitions for rulemaking, waiver requests, requests for special temporary authority (“STA”), petitions to deny, petitions for reconsideration, and applications for review may be pending before the Commission that relate to particular incumbent multilateration LMS licensees.
26. Potential bidders should direct questions regarding the search capabilities to the FCC Technical Support hotline at (202) 414-1250 (voice) or (202) 414-1255 (TTY) or via e-mail at
27. Further, potential bidders are strongly encouraged to physically inspect any sites located in, or near, the geographic area for which they plan to bid.
28. Finally, potential bidders are strongly encouraged to conduct their own research prior to Auction No. 39 in order to determine the existence of pending proceedings that might affect their decisions regarding participation in the auction. Participants in Auction No. 39 are strongly encouraged to continue such research during the auction.
29. All applicants must certify on their FCC Form 175 applications under penalty of perjury that they are legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified to hold a license, and not in default on any payment for Commission licenses (including down payments) or delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. Prospective bidders are reminded that submission of a false certification to the Commission is a serious matter that may result in severe penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license revocations, exclusion from participation in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.
30. Information about deceptive telemarketing investment schemes is available from the FTC at (202) 326-2222 and from the SEC at (202) 942-7040. Complaints about specific deceptive telemarketing investment schemes should be directed to the FTC, the SEC, or the National Fraud Information Center at (800) 876-7060. Consumers who have concerns about specific proposals regarding Auction No. 39 may also call the FCC Consumer Center at (888) CALL-FCC ((888) 225-5322).
1. Licensees must comply with the Commission's rules regarding the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more detailed information, please refer to section I.B.5 of the
32. The auction will begin on Wednesday, June 6, 2001. The initial schedule for bidding will be announced by public notice at least one week before the start of the auction. Unless otherwise announced, bidding on all licenses will be conducted on each business day until bidding has stopped on all licenses.
33. Auction No. 39—VHF Public Coast and Location and Monitoring Service
34. The bidding methodology for Auction No. 39 will be simultaneous multiple round bidding. Bidding will be permitted only from remote locations, either electronically (by computer) or telephonically.
35. The following are important events and deadlines related to Auction No. 39:
36. Those wishing to participate in the auction must:
• Submit a short-form application (FCC Form 175) electronically by 6 p.m. ET, May 4, 2001.
• Submit a sufficient upfront payment and a FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159) by 6 p.m. ET, May 18, 2001.
• Comply with all provisions outlined in this public notice.
37. The following is a list of general contact information relating to Auction No. 39:
38. Guidelines for completion of the short-form application (FCC Form 175) are set forth in Attachment D to the public notice. The short-form application seeks the applicant's name and address, legal classification, status, small and very small business bidding credit eligibility, identification of the license(s) sought, the authorized bidders and contact persons. All applicants must certify on their FCC Form 175 applications under penalty of perjury that they are legally, technically, financially and otherwise qualified to hold a license and, as discussed in section II.D., that they are not in default on any payment for Commission licenses (including down payments) or delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency.
39. Progeny suggests that the Commission allow bidders to select all of the available LMS licenses without selecting all available VHF Public Coast licenses. This would be accomplished on the FCC Form 175 through the use of two separate boxes that would allow bidders to select all LMS licenses offered in the auction, or all VHF Public Coast licenses offered in the auction. Progeny also suggests that, because some bidders may desire to bid on both sets of licenses, the Commission should permit bidders to specify both “ALL” boxes. Progeny contends that otherwise the Commission would be creating collusion problems that would not otherwise exist in a normal one-service auction. We agree and will adopt mechanisms consistent with these proposals for Auction No. 39.
40. All applicants must comply with the uniform part 1 ownership disclosure standards and provide information required by §§ 1.2105 and 1.2112 of the Commission's rules. Specifically, in completing the FCC Form 175, applicants will be required to file an Exhibit A providing a full and complete statement of the ownership of the bidding entity. The ownership disclosure standards for the short-form are set forth in § 1.2112 of the Commission's rules.
41. Applicants will be required to identify on their short-form applications any parties with whom they have entered into any consortium arrangements, joint ventures, partnerships or other agreements or understandings which relate in any way to the licenses being auctioned, including any agreements relating to post-auction market structure.
42. A party holding a non-controlling, attributable interest in one applicant will be permitted to acquire an ownership interest in, form a consortium with, or enter into a joint bidding arrangement with other applicants for licenses in the same geographic license area provided that (i) the attributable interest holder certifies that it has not and will not communicate with any party concerning the bids or bidding strategies of more than one of the applicants in which it holds an attributable interest, or with which it has formed a consortium or entered into a joint bidding arrangement; and (ii) the arrangements do not result in a change in control of any of the applicants. While the anti-collusion rules do not prohibit non-auction related business negotiations among auction applicants, bidders are reminded that certain discussions or exchanges could touch upon impermissible subject matters because they may convey pricing information and bidding strategies.
43. Bidding credits are available to small and very small businesses, or consortia thereof, as defined in 47 CFR 80.1252(b)(1)(2) and (5) for VHF Public Coast, and 47 CFR 90.1103(b)(1)(2) for LMS. A bidding credit represents the amount by which a bidder's winning bids are discounted. The size of the bidding credit depends on the average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years of the bidder, together with its affiliates and controlling interests of the bidder and its affiliates:
• A bidder with average annual gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years receives a 25 percent discount on its winning bids for VHF Public Coast and LMS licenses;
• A bidder with average annual gross revenues of not more than $3 million for the preceding three years receives a 35 percent discount on its winning bids for VHF Public Coast and LMS licenses.
44. Bidding credits are not cumulative; qualifying applicants receive either the 25 percent or the 35 percent bidding credit, but not both.
45. To encourage the growth of wireless services in federally recognized tribal lands the Commission has implemented a tribal land bidding credit.
a.
46. On August 14, 2000, the Commission released the
b.
47. The term “control” includes both
• the entity constitutes or appoints more than 50 percent of the board of directors or management committee;
• the entity has authority to appoint, promote, demote, and fire senior executives that control the day-to-day activities of the licensee; or
• the entity plays an integral role in management decisions.
c.
48. In determining which entities qualify as small or very small businesses, the Commission will consider the gross revenues of the applicant, its controlling interest holders, the affiliates of the applicant, and their controlling interest holders. The Commission does not impose specific equity requirements on controlling interest holders. Once principals or entities with a controlling interest are determined, only the revenues of those principals or entities, the applicant and their affiliates will be counted in determining small business eligibility.
49. A consortium of small or very small businesses is a “conglomerate organization formed as a joint venture between or among mutually independent business firms,” each of which
50. Applicants should note that they will be required to file supporting documentation to their FCC Form 175 short-form applications to establish that they satisfy the eligibility requirements to qualify as small or very small businesses (or consortia of small or very small businesses) for this auction.
51. Applicants should further note that submission of an FCC Form 175 application constitutes a representation by the certifying official that he or she is an authorized representative of the applicant, has read the form's instructions and certifications, and that the contents of the application and its attachments are true and correct. Submission of a false certification to the Commission may result in penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license forfeitures, ineligibility to participate in future auctions, and/or criminal prosecution.
52. Entities applying to bid as small or very small businesses (or consortia of small or very small businesses) will be required to disclose on Exhibit C to their FCC Form 175 short-form applications,
53. Each applicant must certify on its FCC Form 175 application that it is not in default on any Commission licenses and that it is not delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any Federal agency. In addition, each applicant must attach to its FCC Form 175 application a statement made under penalty of perjury indicating whether or not the applicant has ever been in default on any Commission licenses or has ever been delinquent on any non-tax debt owed to any federal agency. Applicants must include this statement as Exhibit D of the FCC Form 175. If any of an applicant's controlling interests holders or their affiliates, as defined by § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules (as recently amended in the
54. “Former defaulters”—
55. Auction No. 39 bidders should also note that unjust enrichment provisions apply to winning bidders that use bidding credits and subsequently assign or transfer control of their licenses to an entity not qualifying for the same level of bidding credit.
56. Installment payment plans will not be available in Auction No. 39.
57. Applicants owned by minorities or women, as defined in 47 CFR 1.2110(c)(3), may attach an exhibit (Exhibit E) regarding this status. This applicant status information is collected for statistical purposes only and assists the Commission in monitoring the participation of “designated entities” in its auctions. Applicants wishing to submit additional information may do
58. After the short-form filing deadline (May 4, 2001), applicants may make only minor changes to their FCC Form 175 applications. Applicants will not be permitted to make major modifications to their applications (
59. Applicants have an obligation under 47 CFR 1.65, to maintain the completeness and accuracy of information in their short-form applications. Amendments reporting substantial changes of possible decisional significance in information contained in FCC Form 175 applications, as defined by 47 CFR 1.2105(b)(2), will not be accepted and may in some instances result in the dismissal of the FCC Form 175 application.
60. On Tuesday, April 24, 2001, the FCC will sponsor a free seminar for Auction No. 39 at the Federal Communications Commission, located at 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The seminar will provide attendees with information about pre-auction procedures, conduct of the auction, FCC remote bidding software, and the VHF Public Coast and LMS spectrum and auction rules. The seminar will also provide an opportunity for prospective bidders to ask questions of FCC staff.
61. To register, complete the registration form attached to the
62. In order to be eligible to bid in this auction, applicants must first submit a FCC Form 175 application. This application must be submitted electronically and received at the Commission no later than 6 p.m. ET on May 4, 2001. Late applications will not be accepted.
63. There is no application fee required when filing an FCC Form 175. However, to be eligible to bid, an applicant must submit an upfront payment.
64. Applicants must file their FCC Form 175 applications electronically. Applications may generally be filed at any time beginning at noon on April 24, 2001, until 6 p.m. ET on May 4, 2001. Applicants are strongly encouraged to file early and are responsible for allowing adequate time for filing their applications. Applicants may update or amend their electronic applications multiple times during the filing window until the May 4, 2001 deadline.
65. Applicants must press the “SUBMIT Application” button on the “Submission” page of the electronic form to successfully submit their FCC Forms 175. Any form that is not submitted will not be reviewed by the FCC. Information about accessing the FCC Form 175 is included in Attachment C. Technical support is available at (202) 414-1250 (voice) or (202) 414-1255 (text telephone (TTY)); the hours of service Monday through Friday, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. ET, Saturday, 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. ET, and Sunday, 12 noon to 6 p.m. ET. In order to provide better service to the public,
66. Applicants should carefully review 47 CFR 1.2105, and must complete all items on the FCC Form 175. Instructions for completing the FCC Form 175 are in Attachment D of the public notice. Applicants are encouraged to begin preparing the required attachments for FCC Form 175 prior to submitting the form. Attachments C and D to the public notice provide information on the required attachments and appropriate formats.
67. The FCC Form 175 electronic Search feature may be used to locate and print applicants' FCC Form 175 information. Applicants may also view other applicants' completed FCC Form 175s after the filing deadline has passed and the FCC has issued a public notice explaining the status of the applications. For this reason, it is important that applicants do not include their Taxpayer Identification Numbers (TINs) on any exhibits to their FCC Form 175 applications. There is no fee for accessing this system.
68. After the deadline for filing the FCC Form 175 applications has passed, the FCC will process all timely submitted applications to determine which are acceptable for filing, and subsequently will issue a public notice identifying: (i) Those applications accepted for filing (including FCC account numbers and the licenses for which they applied); (ii) those applications rejected; and (iii) those applications which have minor defects that may be corrected, and the deadline for filing such corrected applications. As described more fully in the Commission's rules, after the May 4, 2001, short-form filing deadline, applicants may make only minor corrections to their FCC Form 175 applications.
69. In order to be eligible to bid in the auction, applicants must submit an upfront payment accompanied by an FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159). After completing the FCC Form 175, filers will have access to an electronic version of the FCC Form 159 (Revised 2/00) that can be printed and faxed to Mellon Bank in Pittsburgh, PA. All upfront payments must be received at Mellon Bank by 6 p.m. ET on May 18, 2001.
Please note that:
• All payments must be made in U.S. dollars.
• All payments must be made by wire transfer.
• Upfront payments for Auction No. 39 go to a lockbox number different from the lockboxes used in previous FCC auctions, and different from the lockbox number to be used for post-auction payments.
• Failure to deliver the upfront payment by the May 18, 2001, deadline
70. Wire transfer payments must be received by 6 p.m. ET on May 18, 2001. To avoid untimely payments, applicants should discuss arrangements (including bank closing schedules) with their banker several days before they plan to make the wire transfer, and allow sufficient time for the transfer to be initiated and completed before the deadline. Applicants will need the following information:
The BNF and Lockbox number are specific to the upfront payments for this auction; do not use BNF or Lockbox numbers from previous auctions.
71. Applicants must fax a completed FCC Form 159 (Revised 2/00) to Mellon Bank at (412) 209-6045 at least one hour before placing the order for the wire transfer (but on the same business day). On the cover sheet of the fax, write “Wire Transfer—Auction Payment for Auction Event No. 39.” Bidders should confirm timely receipt of their upfront payment at Mellon Bank by contacting their sending financial institution.
72. A completed FCC Remittance Advice Form (FCC Form 159, Revised 2/00) must be faxed to Mellon Bank in order to accompany each upfront payment. Proper completion of FCC Form 159 (Revised 2/00) is critical to ensuring correct credit of upfront payments. Detailed instructions for completion of FCC Form 159 are included in Attachment E to the public notice. An electronic version of the FCC Form 159 is available after filing the FCC Form 175. The FCC Form 159 can be completed electronically, but must be filed with Mellon Bank via facsimile.
73. In the
•
•
74. Only one commenter addressed whether the Bureau should adopt its proposed formulae for calculating upfront payments for VHF Public Coast and LMS. Havens contends that the proposed formulae for calculating upfront payments for LMS is reasonable given the shared nature, encumbrances, issues and formative stage of LMS. In addition, Havens contends that proposed upfront payments for VHF Public Coast licenses should not exceed 50 percent of the initial upfront payments in the first VHF Public Coast auction,
75. We adopt our proposed formulae for calculating upfront payments for VHF Public Coast and LMS. Upon review of prices for licenses awarded in the previous VHF Public Coast and LMS auctions, we find that the proposed upfront payments are appropriate when compared with the final prices of awarded licenses and bids received prior to the highest bids which were subsequently withdrawn (
76. The Commission will use wire transfers for all Auction No. 39 refunds. To ensure that refunds of upfront payments are processed in an expeditious manner, the Commission is requesting that all pertinent information as listed be supplied to the FCC. Applicants can provide the information electronically during the initial short-form filing window after the form has been submitted. Wire Transfer Instructions can also be manually faxed to the FCC, Financial Operations Center, Auctions Accounting Group, ATTN: Tim Dates or Gail Glasser, at (202) 418-2843 by May 4, 2001. The refund will be returned to the payer of record as identified on the FCC Form 159, unless otherwise indicated by such payer. For additional information, please call (202) 418-1995.
Eligibility for refunds is discussed in Part V.E.
77. Approximately ten days before the auction, the FCC will issue a public notice announcing all qualified bidders for the auction. Qualified bidders are those applicants whose FCC Form 175 applications have been accepted for filing and have timely submitted upfront payments sufficient to make them eligible to bid on at least one of the licenses for which they applied.
78. All qualified bidders are automatically registered for the auction. Registration materials will be distributed prior to the auction by two separate overnight mailings, each containing a portion of the confidential identification codes required to place bids. These mailings will be sent only to the contact person at the contact address listed in the FCC Form 175.
79. Applicants that do not receive both registration mailings will not be able to submit bids. Therefore, any qualified applicant that has not received both mailings by noon on Friday, June 1, 2001, should contact the Auctions Hotline at (717) 338-2888. Receipt of both registration mailings is critical to participating in the auction and each applicant is responsible for ensuring it has received all of the registration material.
80. Qualified bidders should note that lost login codes, passwords or bidder identification numbers can be replaced only by appearing
81. Qualified bidders are allowed to bid electronically or telephonically. If choosing to bid electronically, each bidder must purchase their own copy of the remote electronic bidding software. Electronic bids will only be accepted from those applicants purchasing the software. However, the software may be copied by the applicant for use by its authorized bidders at different locations. The price of the FCC's remote bidding software is $175.00 and must be ordered by Monday, May 21, 2001. For security purposes, the software is only mailed to the contact person at the contact address listed on the FCC Form 175. Please note that auction software is tailored to a specific auction, so software from prior auctions will not work for Auction No. 39. If bidding telephonically, the telephonic bidding phone number will be supplied in each Federal Express mailing containing the confidential login codes. Qualified bidders that do not purchase the software may only bid telephonically. To indicate your bidding preference, a FCC Bidding Preference/Remote Software Order Form can be accessed when submitting the FCC Form 175. Bidders should print this form, complete it, and fax it to (717) 338-2850. A manual copy of this form is also included as Attachment F in the public notice.
82. All qualified bidders will be eligible to participate in a mock auction on Monday, June 4, 2001. Details will be announced by public notice.
83. The first round of bidding for Auction No. 39 will begin on Wednesday, June 6, 2001. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in a public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction.
84. In the
85. In the
86. For Auction No. 39 we will adopt this proposal. The amount of the upfront payment submitted by a bidder determines the initial maximum eligibility (in bidding units) for each bidder. Note again that upfront payments are not attributed to specific licenses, but instead will be translated into bidding units to define a bidder's initial maximum eligibility. The total upfront payment defines the maximum number of bidding units on which the applicant will be permitted to bid and hold high bids.
87. In order to ensure that the auction closes within a reasonable period of time, an activity rule requires bidders to bid actively throughout the auction, rather than wait until the end before participating. Bidders are required to be active on a specific percentage of their maximum eligibility during each round of the auction.
88. A bidder's activity level in a round is the sum of the bidding units associated with licenses on which the bidder is active. A bidder is considered active on a license in the current round if it is either the high bidder at the end of the previous bidding round and does not withdraw the high bid in the current round, or if it submits an acceptable bid in the current round (
89. In the
90. Based upon our experience in previous auctions, we adopt our proposal that each bidder be provided five activity rule waivers that may be used in any round during the course of the auction.
91. In the
92. We conclude that the auction will be composed of two stages, which are each defined by an increasing activity rule. We will adopt our proposals for the activity rules. Listed are the activity levels for each stage of the auction. The FCC reserves the discretion to further alter the activity percentages before and/or during the auction.
Because the foregoing procedures have proven successful in maintaining proper pace in previous auctions, we adopt them for Auction No. 39.
93. In the
94. We adopt our proposal. Thus, the auction will start in Stage One. Under the FCC's general guidelines, the auction will start in Stage One and it will advance to the next stage (Stage Two) when, in each of three consecutive rounds of bidding, the high bid has increased on approximately 30 percent or less of the licenses being auctioned (as measured in bidding units). However, the Bureau will retain the discretion to regulate the pace of the auction by announcement. This determination will be based on a variety of measures of bidder activity, including, but not limited to, the auction activity level, the percentages of licenses (as measured in bidding units) on which there are new bids, the number of new bids, and the percentage increase in revenue.
95. For Auction No. 39, the Bureau proposed to employ a simultaneous stopping rule. Under this rule, bidding will remain open on all licenses until bidding stops on every license. The auction will close for all licenses when one round passes during which no bidder submits a new acceptable bid on any license, applies a proactive waiver, or withdraws a previous high bid. After the first such round, bidding closes simultaneously on all licenses.
96. The Bureau also proposed a modified version of the simultaneous stopping rule. This modified version will close the auction for all licenses after the first round in which no bidder submits a proactive waiver, a withdrawal, or a new bid on any license on which it is not the standing high bidder. Thus, absent any other bidding activity, a bidder placing a new bid on a license for which it is the standing high bidder will not keep the auction open under this modified stopping rule.
97. The Bureau further proposed retaining the discretion to keep an auction open even if no new acceptable bids or proactive waivers are submitted and no previous high bids are withdrawn in a round. In this event, the effect will be the same as if a bidder had submitted a proactive waiver. Thus, the activity rule will apply as usual, and a bidder with insufficient activity will either lose bidding eligibility or use an activity rule waiver (if it has any left).
98. In addition, we proposed that the Bureau reserve the right to declare that the auction will end after a specified number of additional rounds (“special stopping rule”). If the Bureau invokes this special stopping rule, it will accept bids in the final round(s) only for licenses on which the high bid increased in at least one of the preceding specified number of rounds. We proposed to exercise this option only in circumstances such as where the auction is proceeding very slowly, where there is minimal overall bidding activity or where it appears likely that the auction will not close within a reasonable period of time. Before exercising this option, the Bureau is likely to attempt to increase the pace of the auction by, for example, moving the auction into the next stage (where bidders will be required to maintain a higher level of bidding activity), increasing the number of bidding rounds per day, and/or adjusting the amount of the minimum bid increments for the licenses. We received no comment on this issue.
99. Thus, we adopt all of the proposals concerning the auction stopping rules. Auction No. 39 will begin under the simultaneous stopping rule, and the Bureau will retain the discretion to invoke the other versions of the stopping rule. We believe that these stopping rules are most appropriate for Auction No. 39.
100. In the
101. The initial bidding schedule will be announced in the public notice listing the qualified bidders, which is released approximately 10 days before the start of the auction. This public notice will be included in the registration mailings. The round structure for each bidding round contains a single bidding round followed by the release of the round results. Multiple bidding rounds may be conducted in a given day. Details regarding round results formats and locations will also be included in the public notice.
102. The FCC has discretion to change the bidding schedule in order to foster an auction pace that reasonably balances speed with the bidders' need to study round results and adjust their bidding strategies. The FCC may increase or decrease the amount of time for the bidding rounds and review periods, or the number of rounds per day, depending upon the bidding activity level and other factors.
103. In the
•
•
Block B: $0.0005 * MHz * Pops (the result rounded up to the nearest hundred for results less than $10,000) with a minimum of no less than $1,000 per license.
Block C: $0.0005 * MHz * Pops (the result rounded up to the nearest hundred for results less than $10,000 and to the nearest thousand for results greater than $10,000) with a minimum of no less than $1,000 per license.
104. In the alternative, the Bureau sought comment on whether, consistent with the Balanced Budget Act, the public interest would be served by having no minimum opening bid or reserve price.
105. Commenters were divided on whether the Bureau should adopt its proposed formulae for calculating minimum opening bids for LMS. Havens contends that the proposed formulae for calculating minimum opening bids for LMS is reasonable given the shared nature, encumbrances, issues and formative stage of LMS. Progeny contends that the Commission should lower its minimum opening bids. Progeny contends that, since this auction is a second auction and contains many smaller or rural markets that would be of little interest to new LMS entrants, the Commission should therefore err on the side of underestimating demand for this spectrum.
106. One commenter addressed the proposed formulae for calculating minimum opening bids for VHF Public Coast. Havens contends that the proposed formulae for calculating minimum opening bids for VHF Public Coast should be reduced such that they do not exceed fifty percent of the minimum opening bids in the first auction for VHF Public Coast licenses,
107. We will adopt minimum opening bids for Auction No. 39, which are reducible at the discretion of the Bureau. We reiterate that upon review of prices for licenses awarded in the previous VHF Public Coast and LMS auctions, we find that the proposed minimum opening bids are appropriate when compared with the final prices of awarded licenses and bids received prior to the highest bids which were subsequently withdrawn (
108. As a final safeguard against unduly high pricing, minimum opening bids are reducible at the discretion of the Bureau. This will allow the Bureau flexibility to adjust the minimum opening bids if circumstances warrant. We emphasize, however, that such discretion will be exercised, if at all, sparingly and early in the auction,
109. In the
110. We will adopt our proposal for a smoothing formula. The smoothing methodology is designed to vary the increment for a given license between a maximum and minimum value based on the bidding activity on that license. This methodology allows the increments to be tailored to the activity level of a license, decreasing the time it takes for active licenses to reach their final value. The formula used to calculate this increment is included as Attachment G of the
111. We adopt our proposal of initially setting the weighing factor at 0.5, the minimum percentage increment at 0.1 (10 percent of the license value), and the maximum at 0.2 (20 percent of the license value). The Bureau retains the discretion to change the minimum bid increment if it determines that circumstance so dictate. The Bureau will do so by announcement in the Automated Auction System. Under its discretion, the Bureau may also implement an absolute dollar floor for the bid increment to further facilitate a timely close of the auction. The Bureau may also use its discretion to adjust the minimum bid increment without prior notice if circumstances warrant.
112. Each bid will be date- and time-stamped when it is entered into the FCC computer system. In the event of tied high bids (identical gross bid amounts) for a license during a round, the earliest of the tied bids will be the standing high bid at the end of the round. The bidding software allows bidders to make multiple submissions in a round. As each bid is individually date- and time-stamped according to when it was submitted, bids submitted by a bidder earlier in a round will have an earlier date and time stamp than bids submitted later in a round.
113. During a bidding round, a bidder may submit bids for as many licenses as it wishes (subject to its eligibility), withdraw high bids from previous bidding rounds, remove bids placed in the same bidding round, or permanently reduce eligibility. Bidders also have the option of making multiple submissions and withdrawals in each bidding round. If a bidder submits multiple bids for a single license in the same round, the system takes the last bid entered as that bidder's bid for the round, and the date-and time-stamp of that bid reflects the latest time the bid was submitted.
114. Please note that all bidding will take place remotely either through the automated bidding software or by telephonic bidding. (Telephonic bid assistants are required to use a script when entering bids placed by telephone. Telephonic bidders are therefore reminded to allow sufficient time to bid by placing their calls well in advance of the close of a round. Normally, four to five minutes are necessary to complete a bid submission.) There will be no on-site bidding during Auction No. 39.
115. A bidder's ability to bid on specific licenses in the first round of the auction is determined by three factors: (i) the licenses applied for on FCC Form 175, (ii) eligibility restrictions on those licenses, and (iii) the upfront payment amount deposited. The bid submission screens will be tailored for each bidder to include only those licenses for which the bidder applied on its FCC Form 175. A bidder also has the option to further tailor its bid submission screens to call up specified groups of licenses.
116. The bidding software requires each bidder to login to the FCC auction system during the bidding round using the FCC account number, bidder identification number, and the confidential security codes provided in
117. The bid entry screen of the Automated Auction System software for Auction No. 39 allows bidders to place multiple increment bids. Specifically, high bids may be increased from one to nine bid increments. A single bid increment is defined as the difference between the standing high bid and the minimum acceptable bid for a license. The bidding software will display the bid increment for each license.
118. To place a bid on a license, the bidder must increase the standing high bid by one to nine times the bid increment. This is done by entering a whole number between 1 and 9 in the bid increment multiplier (Bid Mult) field in the software. This value will determine the amount of the bid (Amount Bid) by multiplying the bid increment multiplier by the bid increment and adding the result to the high bid amount according to the following formula: Amount Bid = High Bid + (Bid Mult * Bid Increment).
119. Thus, bidders may place a bid that exceeds the standing high bid by between one and nine times the bid increment. For example, to bid the minimum acceptable bid, which is equal to one bid increment, a bidder will enter “1” in the bid increment multiplier column and press submit.
120. For any license on which the FCC is designated as the high bidder (
121. In the
122. The Bureau will limit the number of rounds in which bidders may place withdrawals to two rounds. These rounds will be at the bidder's discretion and there will be no limit on the number of bids that may be withdrawn in either of these rounds. Withdrawals during the auction will still be subject to the bid withdrawal payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g). Bidders should note that abuse of the Commission's bid withdrawal procedures could result in the denial of the ability to bid on a market. If a high bid is withdrawn, the license will be offered in the next round at the second highest bid price, which may be less than, or equal to, in the case of tie bids, the amount of the withdrawn bid, without any bid increment. The Commission will serve as a “place holder” on the license until a new acceptable bid is submitted on that license.
123.
124. Once a round closes, a bidder may no longer remove a bid. However, in later rounds, a bidder may withdraw standing high bids from previous rounds using the “withdraw bid” function (assuming that the bidder has not exhausted its withdrawal allowance). A high bidder that withdraws its standing high bid from a previous round during the auction is subject to the bid withdrawal payments specified in 47 CFR 1.2104(g).
125.
126. In the
127. Bids placed during a round will not be published until the conclusion of that bidding period. After a round closes, the Commission will compile reports of all bids placed, bids withdrawn, current high bids, new minimum accepted bids, and bidder eligibility status (bidding eligibility and activity rule waivers), and post the reports for public access. Reports reflecting bidders' identities and bidder identification numbers for Auction No. 39 will be available before and during the auction. Thus, bidders will know in advance of this auction the identities of
128. The FCC will use auction announcements to announce items such as schedule changes and stage transitions. All FCC auction announcements will be available on the FCC remote electronic bidding system, as well as on the Internet.
129. As noted in Part II.I., after the short-form filing deadline, applicants may make only minor changes to their FCC Form 175 applications. For example, permissible minor changes include deletion and addition of authorized bidders (to a maximum of three) and certain revision of exhibits. Filers must make these changes on-line, and submit a letter summarizing the changes to: Louis Sigalos, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-A668, Washington, DC 20554.
130. A separate copy of the letter should be mailed to Kenneth Burnley, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 4-B524, Washington, DC 20554. Questions about other changes should be directed to Kenneth Burnley at (202) 418-0660.
131. After bidding has ended, the Commission will issue a public notice declaring the auction closed, identifying the winning bids and bidders for each license, and listing withdrawn bid payments due.
132. Within ten business days after release of the auction closing notice, each winning bidder must submit sufficient funds (in addition to its upfront payment) to bring its total amount of money on deposit with the Government to 20 percent of its net winning bids (actual bids less any applicable small and very small business bidding credits).
133. Within ten business days after release of the auction closing notice, winning bidders must electronically submit a properly completed long-form application and required exhibits for each license won through Auction No. 39. Winning bidders that are small or very small businesses must include an exhibit demonstrating their eligibility for small and very small business bidding credits.
134. A winning bidder that intends to use its license(s) to deploy facilities and provide services to federally-recognized tribal lands that are unserved by any telecommunications carrier or that have a telephone service penetration rate equal to or below 70 percent is eligible to receive a tribal land bidding credit as set forth in 47 CFR 1.2107 and 1.2110(e). A tribal land bidding credit is in addition to, and separate from, any other bidding credit for which a winning bidder may qualify.
135. Unlike other bidding credits that are requested prior to the auction, a winning bidder applies for the tribal land bidding credit
136. For additional information on the tribal land bidding credit, including how the amount of the credit is calculated,
137. Any high bidder that defaults or is disqualified after the close of the auction (
138. All applicants that submitted upfront payments but were not winning bidders for a license in Auction No. 39 may be entitled to a refund of their remaining upfront payment balance after the conclusion of the auction. The refund will be returned to the payer of record as identified on the FCC Form 159, unless otherwise indicated by such payer. No refund will be made unless there are excess funds on deposit from that applicant after any applicable bid withdrawal payments have been paid.
139. Qualified bidders that have exhausted all of their activity rule waivers, have no remaining bidding eligibility, and have not withdrawn a high bid during the auction must submit a written refund request. If you have completed the refund instructions electronically, then only a written request for the refund is necessary. If not, the request must also include wire
140. Bidders are encouraged to file their refund information electronically using the refund information portion of the FCC Form 175, but bidders can also fax their information to the Auctions Accounting Group at (202) 418-2843. Once the information has been approved, a refund will be sent to the party identified in the refund information.
Refund processing generally takes up to two weeks to complete. Bidders with questions about refunds should contact Tim Dates or Gail Glasser at (202) 418-1995.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed continuing information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), this notice seeks comments concerning the National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer Program Application Form.
Public Law 93-498, Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, as amended (The Act), created the National Fire Academy (NFA) to advance the professional development of fire service personnel and allied professionals. The Act provides the conduct of courses and programs of training and education, to train fire services personnel with skills and knowledge that may be useful to advance their ability to prevent and control fires, including tactics and command of firefighting for fire chiefs, commanders, and administration and management of fire services.
Interested persons should submit written comments to Muriel B. Anderson, Chief, Records Management Branch, Program Services Division, Operations Support Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW, Room 316, Washington, DC 20472.
Contact Ms. Anderson at telephone number (202) 646-2625. Facsimile number (202) 646-3524 or by email
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. 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 instruments 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.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 19, 2001.
Comments, which should refer to the OMB control number or agency form number, should be addressed to Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551, or mailed electronically to regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Comments addressed to Ms. Johnson may be delivered to the Board's mailroom between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m., and to the security control room outside of those hours. Both the mailroom and the security control room are accessible from the courtyard entrance on 20th Street between Constitution Avenue and C Street, NW. Comments received may be inspected in room M-P-500 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., except as provided in section 261.14 of the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information, 12 CFR 261.14(a).
A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the Board: Alexander T. Hunt, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3208, Washington, DC 20503.
A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB 83-I), supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below. Mary M. West, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact Capria Mitchell (202) 872-4984, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
Small businesses are not affected.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) its approval authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as per 5 CFR 1320.16, to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board under conditions set forth in 5 CFR 1320 Appendix A.1. 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 instruments 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.
The following information collections, which are being handled under this delegated authority, have received initial Board approval and are hereby published for comment. At the end of the comment period, the proposed information collections, along with an analysis of comments and recommendations received, will be submitted to the Board for final approval under OMB delegated authority. Comments are invited on the following:
a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;
b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, 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 information collection on respondents,
Comments must be submitted on or before June 19, 2001.
Comments, which should refer to the OMB control number or agency form number, should be addressed to Jennifer J. Johnson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551, or mailed electronically to regs.comments@federalreserve.gov. Comments addressed to Ms. Johnson may be delivered to the Board's mailroom between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m., and to the security control room outside of those hours. Both the mailroom and the security control room are accessible from the courtyard entrance on 20th Street between Constitution Avenue and C Street, NW. Comments received may be inspected in room M-P-500 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., except as provided in section 261.14 of the Board's Rules Regarding Availability of Information, 12 CFR 261.14(a).
A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the Board: Alexander T. Hunt, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 3208, Washington, DC 20503.
A copy of the proposed form and instructions, the Paperwork Reduction Act Submission (OMB 83-I), supporting statement, and other documents that will be placed into OMB's public docket files once approved may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below. Mary M. West, Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer (202-452-3829), Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact Capria Mitchell (202) 872-4984, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.
1.
Small businesses are not affected.
2.
Small businesses are not affected.
An important public policy issue for the Federal Reserve has been how to use market discipline to complement
The proposed disclosure of information previously held as confidential is consistent with the existing or proposed treatment afforded to similar information collected on the commercial bank Call Report. Retaining the confidentiality status for Schedule E and Schedule L is consistent to the existing treatment afforded to similar information collected on the Report of Assets and Liabilities of U.S. Branches and Agencies of Foreign Banks (FFIEC 002), and the Foreign Branch Report of Condition (FFIEC 030).
The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections recently submitted to OMB.
1.
OMB Desk Officer: Allison Herron Eydt.
Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
Child Care Subsidy Program, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, Offices of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice of revision to an existing system of records.
In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is publishing a notice of the revision of an existing system of records, 09-90-0200, Child Care Subsidy Program. The revised system will collect family income data from employees in the Health Resources and Services Administration, as well as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Program Support Center (PSC), the Office of the Secretary (OS), the Administration on Aging (AoA), and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) who are already covered by this system, for the purpose of determining their eligibility for child care subsidies, and the amounts of the subsidies. It also will collect information from the employees' child care provider(s) for verification purposes, e.g., that the provider is licensed. Collection of data will be by subsidy application forms submitted by employees.
This revision does not revise the routine uses for this system. This amendment will be effective without further notice on the day of its publication unless comments are received which would result in a contrary determination.
Child Care Subsidy Program Administrator, Office of Human Resources, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 536-E, 200 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20201. The telephone number is 202-690-6191.
The current Notice of System of Records covered only employees of OS, AoA, and SAMHSA, FDA and the PSC. Since that time, HRSA has established a child care subsidy program for its employees. This amendment expands coverage of the Child Care Subsidy Program Records to include employees in HRSA who are eligible for this program. The notice is published below in its entirety, as amended.
Child Care Subsidy Program Records (HHS).
None.
Records are located throughout HHS in offices of agency child care program administrators and in offices of contract employees engaged to administer the subsidy programs. Since there are several sites around the country, contact the appropriate System Manager listed in Appendix A for more details about specific locations.
The individuals in the system are employees of the Administration on Aging (AoA), Office of the Secretary (OS), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Program Support Center (PSC) and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), who voluntarily apply for child care subsidies.
Application forms for a child care subsidy contain personal information, including employee's (parent) name, Social Security Number, grade, home phone number, home address, total income, number of dependent children, and number of children on whose behalf the parent is applying for a subsidy, information on any tuition assistance received from State/County/local child care subsidy, and information on child care providers used, including their name, address, provider license number, and State where license issued, tuition cost, provider tax identification number, and copies of Internal Revenue Form 1040 for verification purposes.
Section 1(a)(3) of Public Law 106-554 (Consolidated Appropriations Act) and Executive Order 9397 (November 22, 1943).
To establish and verify HHS employee's eligibility for child care subsidies in order for HHS to provide monetary assistance to its employees.
1. Disclosure may be made to a Member of Congress or to congressional staff member in response to a request for assistance from the Member by the individual of record.
2. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) may disclose information from this system of records to the Department of Justice, or to a court or other tribunal, when (a) HHS, or any component thereof; or (b) any HHS employee in his or her official capacity; or (c) any HHS employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice (or HHS, where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States or any agency thereof where HHS determines that the litigation is likely to affect HHS or any of its components, is a party to litigation, and HHS determines that the use of such records by the Department of Justice, court or other tribunal is relevant and necessary to the litigation and would help in the effective representation of the governmental party, provided, however, that in each case HHS determines that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
3. HHS intends to disclose information from this system to an expert, consultant, or contractor (including employees of the contractor) of HHS if necessary to further the implementation and operation of this program.
4. Disclosure may be made to a Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where the Department of Health and Human Services is made aware of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
5. Disclosure may be made to the Office of Personnel Management or the General Accounting Office when the information is required for evaluation of the subsidy program.
Information may be collected on paper or electronically and may be stored as paper forms or on computers.
The records are retrieved by name and may also be cross-referenced to Social Security Number.
Disposition of records is according to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) guidelines.
The records of individuals applying for and receiving child care subsidies are managed by System Managers at the various HHS sites listed in Appendix A.
Individuals may submit a request a request with a notarized signature on whether the system contains records about them to the local System Manager.
Request from individuals for access to their records should be addressed to the local System Manager. Requesters should also reasonably specify the record contents being sought. Individuals may also request an accounting of disclosures of their records, if any.
Contact the official at the address specified under Notification Procedures above and reasonably identify the record, specify the information being contested, and state the corrective action sought, with supporting information to show how the record is inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant.
Information is provided by HHS employees who apply for child care subsidies. Furnishing of the information is voluntary.
None.
1. For employees of the Office of the Secretary and the Administration on Aging, nationwide, contact: Child Care Subsidy Program Coordinator, PSC Work/Life Center, Room 1250, 330 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20201.
2. For employees of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, contact: Director, Division of Human Resources Management, Office of Program Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
3. For employees of the Food and Drug Administration, nationwide, contact: Child Care Subsidy Program Coordinator, Office of Human Resources and Management Services, Food and Drug Administration—HFA-410, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
4. For employees of the Program Support Center, contact: Work & Family Coordinator, Program Support Center, Room 1250, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201.
5. For employees of the Health Resources and Services Administration, nationwide, contact: Child Care Subsidy Program
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2001 funds for a grant program with Fletcher Allen Health Care of Burlington, Vermont, to design and implement a state-of-the-art information system to reduce medical errors. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area of Immunization and Infectious Diseases. For additional information on “Healthy People 2010” visit the internet site:
The purpose of the program is to develop and demonstrate clinical information systems to prevent medical errors and improve the quality of healthcare. Integration of information systems will directly attack the issue of medical errors, which can proliferate as patients and data are handed off from one delivery system to another.
Assistance will be provided only to Fletcher Allen Health Care of Burlington, Vermont. No other applications are solicited. Eligibility is limited to Fletcher Allen Health Care because fiscal year 2001 Federal appropriations specifically directs CDC to award this applicant funds to design and implement a state-of-the-art information system to reduce medical errors.
The House of Representatives Conference Report, accompanying the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2000 (H.R. 4577, 106th Cong. (2000)), recognized the Fletcher Allen Health Care's unique qualifications for carrying out the activities specified in this grant (H.R. Rep. 106-1033 2000).
Title 2 of the United States Code, chapter 26, section 1611 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 $253,000 is available in FY 2001 to fund the 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 one year. The funding estimate may change.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the following activities.
1. Develop an information system that includes patient, clinical, encounter, laboratory, and pharmacy data.
2. Configure the information system so that it serves the needs of physicians and other healthcare providers.
3. Expand the information system to support best practice algorithms, clinical trials, outcome studies, and continuous quality improvement protocols.
4. Publish results of project.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. The application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them specifically in laying out the program plan. The narrative should be no more than 25 double-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced font.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0937-0189). Forms are available at the following Internet address: www.cdc.gov/. . . Forms, or in the application kit.
On or before June 1, 2001, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The application will be evaluated against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC:
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a strong understanding of information systems. The extent to which the applicant illustrates the need for this grant program. The extent to which the applicant presents a clear goal for this grant that is consistent with the described need.
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the expertise, facilities, and other resources necessary to accomplish the program requirements, including curricula vitae of key personnel and letters of support from any participating organizations/institutions.
The extent to which the applicant presents clear, time-phased objectives that are consistent with the stated program goal and a detailed operational plan outlining specific activities that are likely to achieve the objectives. The extent to which the plan clearly outlines the responsibilities of each of the key personnel.
The extent to which the applicant presents a plan for monitoring progress toward the stated goals and objectives.
The extent to which the applicant presents a detailed budget with a line-item justification and any other information to demonstrate that the request for assistance is consistent with the purpose and objectives of this grant program.
Provide CDC with the original plus two copies of
1. progress report (semi-annual);
2. financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the application kit.
This program is authorized under Sections 301(a) and 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act [42 U.S.C. Sections 241(a) and 247b(k)(2)], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
This and other CDC announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address:
To obtain additional information, contact: Merlin Williams, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, M/S K75, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: (770) 488-2765), Email address: Mwilliams@cdc.gov.
For program technical assistance, contact: Steve Solomon, M.D., National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Road, NE., M/S A-07, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-6476, Facsimile: (404) 639-6483, Email address: SSolomon@cdc.gov.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2001 funds for a grant program with the Institute for Clinical Evaluation (ICE) to conduct a project to improve the quality of care in flexible sigmoidoscopy. This program addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area of Immunization and Infectious Diseases. For additional information on “Healthy People 2010” visit the internet site:
The purpose of the program is to improve the quality of care and reduce the error rate in patients undergoing sigmoidoscopy by improving the skills of the operator.
The objective of the program is to increase the number and geographic distribution of the flexible sigmoidoscopy simulators to (1) support testing for the credential, (2) allow continued research on the use of the simulation, and (3) offer trainees the opportunity to learn the manual skills associated with the procedure.
Assistance will be provided only to ICE. No other applications are solicited. Eligibility is limited to ICE because fiscal year 2001 Federal appropriations specifically directs CDC to award this applicant funds to conduct a project to improve the quality of care in flexible sigmoidoscopy.
ICE is uniquely qualified to conduct the activities under this program because they are the only independent, non-profit organization offering a credential in flexible sigmoidoscopy to all relevant providers of the service. ICE combines expertise in medicine and psychometrics with years of experience in the development and administration of certification programs as well as knowledge and capability in the development of high quality evaluation devices and assessment systems for the health care professions.
The House of Representatives Conference Report accompanying the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2000 (H.R. 4577, 106th Cong. (2000)), recognized ICE's unique qualifications for carrying out the activities in this grant (H.R. Rep. 106-1033, 2000).
Title 2 of the United States Code, Chapter 26, Section 1611 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 $211,000 is available in FY 2001 to fund the 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 one year. The funding estimate may change.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the following activities.
1. Increase the number of and geographic distribution of the flexible sigmoidoscopy simulators.
2. Conduct simulator testing.
3. Demonstrate that the flexible sigmoidoscopy credential and performance on the simulation reduces medical errors and improves the quality of care.
4. Demonstrate whether the simulation alone can replace the cognitive examination or whether the cognitive examination could be administered on the same computer as the simulation.
5. Locate the simulators in training programs, providing access thereby to candidates for the credential and subjects for the research.
6. Make the simulators available to the training programs for educational purposes.
7. Publish the results of the program demonstrations.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. The application should describe ICE's ability to address the purpose and required activities of this announcement. The application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them specifically in laying out the program plan. The narrative should be no more than 25 double-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced font.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0937-0189). Forms are available at the following Internet address: www.cdc.gov . . . Forms, or in the application kit.
On or before June 1, 2001, submit the application to the Grants management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The application will be evaluated against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC:
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates a strong understanding of the use of flexible sigmoidoscopy simulators. The extent to which the applicant illustrates the need for this grant program. The extent to which the applicant presents a clear goal for this
The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the expertise, facilities, and other resources necessary to accomplish the program requirements, including curricula vitae of key personnel and letters of support from any participating organizations/ institutions.
a. The extent to which the applicant presents clear, time-phased objectives that are consistent with the stated program goal and a detailed operational plan outlining specific activities that are likely to achieve the objective. The extent to which the plan clearly outlines the responsibilities of each of the key personnel. (35 points)
b. The degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes: (1) The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation; (2) The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent; (3) A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted; and (4) A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits. (5 points)
The extent to which the applicant presents a plan for monitoring progress toward the stated goals and objectives.
The extent to which the applicant presents a detailed budget with a line-item justification and any other information to demonstrate that the request for assistance is consistent with the purpose and objectives of this grant program.
Does the application adequately address the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects?
Provide CDC with the original plus two copies of
1. progress report (semi-annual);
2. financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the application kit.
This program is authorized under Sections 301(a) and 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. sections 241(a) and 247b(k)(2)), as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
This and other CDC announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address:
To obtain additional information, contact: Merlin Williams, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000, M/S K-75, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: (770) 488-2765, Email address: mqw6@cdc.gov
For program technical assistance, contact: Steve Solomon, M.D., National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., M/S A-07, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-6476, Facsimile: (404) 639-6483, Email address: SSolomon@cdc.gov
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication.
Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at
Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at
Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 60 days of this notice directly to the HCFA Paperwork Clearance Officer designated at the following address: HCFA, Office of Information Services, Security and Standards Group, Division of HCFA Enterprise Standards, Attention: Dawn Willinghan, HCFA-10036, Room N2-14-26, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.
Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at http://www.hcfa.gov/regs/prdact95.htm, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and HCFA document identifier, to Paperwork@hcfa.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be mailed within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB desk officer: OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Wendy Taylor, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
Health Care Financing Administration.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at
Dated: April 4, 2001.
Health Care Financing Administration.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access HCFA's Web Site address at
Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a list of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-7978.
SAMHSA is funding the Coordinating Center at the Harvard Medical School and six Study Sites, three of which are also HRSA Community Health Centers and receive additional service enhancement funding from HRSA. Furthermore, the VA is funding a Coordinating Center at the Miami VAMC and another five VA Study Sites, following the same protocol, making a total of 11 Study Sites, in 8 States throughout the country. In the intervention, over 50,000 individuals over age 65 are expected to be screened in primary care settings for mental health and substance abuse problems; those in need will receive treatment in either the referral model or the integrated model.
Specifically, the primary purpose of the Aging, MH/SA and Primary Care Program is to specify the conditions under which integrated and referral models are most effective in terms of access, adherence, consumer outcomes, and system outcomes. The multi-site study will focus on the impact of the treatment models on older adults with depression, anxiety, alcoholism, and alcohol abuse with other drugs, and combinations of the above disorders. It highlights prevention, early identification, early intervention, and brief treatment components of service models; it incorporates a consumer-oriented approach throughout all phases of the study, and cultural competence in all study instruments and methods for a variety of ethnic older populations. This study will seek to expand our knowledge, using the most rigorous available scientific methods available, by measuring the relative effectiveness of service models.
In this context, this study intends to evaluate the role of the providers in the treatment of these older adults with MH/SA disorders, both the Primary Care Providers (PCPs) and MH/SA Providers. Therefore, it will use a questionnaire called a Providers Survey to survey both PCPs and MH/SA Providers to determine their perceptions, attitudes and beliefs about providing these services to older adults under the two service delivery models.
Analysis of this information will assist SAMHSA in documenting communication patterns with, attitudes towards, and perceptions of older adult participants in the study, permitting some understanding of the provider-older adult interactions. In addition, there may be important differences between the integrated and referral service delivery models in the interaction between the PCP and MH/SA Providers. These two sets of interactions may, in turn, have a direct effect or moderating effect on the effectiveness of the service delivery models. Outside, formal comparison groups are not needed, as the main comparisons will be made of the integrated and referral models within each study site.
The 11 Study Sites expect to survey approximately 312 providers for this study, including 158 PCPs and 154 MH/SA Providers. The chart below summarizes complete burden for this project.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: Stuart Shapiro, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
April 20, 2001.
Clifford Taffet, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Notice.
HUD's regulations provide that HUD will periodically publish a
For the Rent Supplement (section 215), section 236, and section 8 programs administered under 24 CFR parts 880, 881, and 883 through 886: Willie Spearmon, Director, Office of Housing Assistance and Grant Administration, Office of Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 6138, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-3000.
For the Section 8 project-based programs administered under 24 CFR part 882 (Rental Certificates, Moderate Rehabilitation) and under part 887 (Rental Vouchers), and the Public Housing Programs: Patricia Arnaudo, Senior Program Manager, Office of Public and Assisted Housing Delivery, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4224, Washington, DC 20410, telephone: (202) 708-0744, or the Public and Indian Housing Resource Center at 1-800-955-2232. (With the exception of the telephone number for the PIH Resource Center, these are not toll-free numbers.) Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access these numbers via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
Any member of the public who becomes aware of any other Federal statute that requires any other benefit to be excluded from consideration as income in these programs should submit information about the statute and the benefit program to one of the persons listed as contacts above or to the Rules Docket Clerk, room 10276. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410.
HUD's regulation at 24 CFR 5.609(c)(17) provides that HUD will periodically publish a
Under several HUD programs (Rent Supplement under part 215; Mortgage Insurance and Interest Reduction Payment for Rental Projects under part 236; section 8 Housing Assistance programs; the Public Housing programs), the definition of income does not include amounts of other benefits specifically exempted by the Federal law. This notice reports that the following are not to be considered as income for purposes of the programs mentioned above: (1) Payments by the Indian Claims Commission to the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation or the Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation; (2) allowances, earnings and payments to individuals participating in AmeriCorps; (3) the first $2,000 of income received by individual Indians derived from interests in trusts or restricted lands; (4) any allowance paid under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1805 to a child suffering from spina bifida who is the child of a Vietnam veteran; (5) any amount of crime victim compensation that the applicant (under the Victims of Crime Act) receives through crime victim assistance (or payment or reimbursement of the cost of such assistance) as determined under the Victims of Crime Act because of the commission of a crime against the applicant; and (6) payments received under programs funded in whole or in part under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998.
Under certain HUD subsidized housing programs, annual income is a
Public Law 95-433, approved October 10, 1978, excludes payments by the Indian Claims Commission to the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation or the Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation. The law provides:
Any part of any judgment funds referred to in the first section of this Act 25 U.S.C. 609c-1 that may be distributed per capita to, or held in trust for the benefit of, the members of a tribe, including minor's shares shall not be subject to Federal or State income tax, and the per capita payment shall not be considered as income or resources when determining the extent of eligibility for assistance under the Social Security Act, or any other Federal or federally assisted program.
The effective date of this provision is October 10, 1978. This exclusion is added to the list as paragraph (xv).
Section 177 of the National and Community Service Act of 1990, as amended by the National and Community Trust Act of 1993 provides:
Allowances, earnings, and payments to individuals participating in programs that receive assistance under this subchapter [42 U.S.C. 12511
The effective date of this provision is October 1, 1993. This provision, which excludes amounts paid to AmeriCorps participants, is added to the list as paragraph (xvi).
Paragraph (viii) is revised to clarify that the interest and investment income, up to $2000, accrued on funds held in trust or restricted land shall not be considered as income and it adds a new provision. Section 13736 of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103-66) (25 U.S.C. 1408), approved August 10, 1993 provides that:
[I]nterest of individual Indians in trust or restricted lands shall not be considered a resource, and up to $2000 per year of income received by individual Indians that is derived from such interests shall not be considered income, in determining eligibility for assistance under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301
The effective date of this provision is January 1, 1994. This exclusion is added to the list as part of paragraph (viii).
Section 1805 of the VA, HUD Appropriations Act of 1997 (Pub.L. 104-204; 38 U.S.C. 1805), approved October 1, 1997, provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the allowance paid to a child under this section not be considered income or resources in determining eligibility for or the amount of benefits under any Federal or federally assisted program. Any allowance paid under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1805 to a child suffering from spina bifida who is the child of a Vietnam veteran is excluded from income.
The effective date of this provision is October 1, 1997. This exclusion is added to the list as paragraph (xvii).
Section 10602(c) of the Victims of Crime Act (42 U.S.C. 10602) provides: Notwithstanding any other law, for the purpose of any maximum allowed income eligibility requirement in any Federal, State, or local government program using Federal funds that provides medical or other assistance (or payment or reimbursement of the cost of such assistance) that becomes necessary to an applicant for such assistance in full or in part because of the commission of a crime against the applicant, as determined by the Director, any amount of crime victim compensation that the applicant receives through a crime victim compensation program under this section shall not be included in the income of the applicant until the total amount of assistance that the applicant receives from all such programs is sufficient to fully compensate the applicant for losses suffered as a result of the crime.
The effective date of this provision is October 1, 1999. This exclusion is added to the list as paragraph (xviii).
Section 181 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220), approved August 7, 1998, provides that:
Allowances, earnings and payments to individuals participating in programs under this title shall not be considered as income for the purposes of determining eligibility for and the amount of income transfer and in-kind aid furnished under any Federal or federally assisted program based on need, other than as provided under the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 301
This exclusion is added to the list as paragraph (xix).
The following updated list of federally mandated exclusions supersedes that notice published on August 3, 1993. The following list of program benefits is the comprehensive list of benefits that currently qualify for the income exclusion stated in 24 CFR 5.609(c)(17) :
(i) The value of the allotment provided to an eligible household under the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2017(b));
(ii) Payments to Volunteers under the Domestic Volunteer Services Act of 1973 (42 U.S.C. 5044(g), 5058);
(iii) Payments received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1626(c));
(iv) Income derived from certain submarginal land of the United States that is held in trust for certain Indian tribes (25 U.S.C. 459e);
(v) Payments or allowances made under the Department of Health and Human Services' Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (42 U.S.C. 8624(f));
(vi) Payments received under programs funded in whole or in part under the Job Training Partnership Act (29 U.S.C. 1552(b); (effective July 1, 2000, references to Job Training Partnership Act shall be deemed to refer to the corresponding provision of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2931);
(vii) Income derived from the disposition of funds to the Grand River Band of Ottawa Indians (Pub. L. 94-540, 90 Stat. 2503-04);
(viii) The first $2000 of per capita shares received from judgment funds awarded by the Indian Claims Commission or the U.S. Claims Court, the interests of individual Indians in trust or restricted lands, including the first $2000 per year of income received by individual Indians from funds derived from interests held in such trust or restricted lands (25 U.S.C. 1407-1408);
(ix) Amounts of scholarships funded under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, including awards under Federal work-study program or under the Bureau of Indian Affairs student assistance programs (20 U.S.C. 1087uu);
(x) Payments received from programs funded under Title V of the Older
Americans Act of 1985 (42 U.S.C. 3056(f));
(xi) Payments received on or after January 1, 1989, from the Agent Orange Settlement Fund or any other fund
(xii) Payments received under the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1980 (25 U.S.C. 1721);
(xiii) The value of any child care provided or arranged (or any amount received as payment for such care or reimbursement for costs incurred for such care) under the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 9858q);
(xiv) Earned income tax credit (EITC) refund payments received on or after January 1, 1991 (26 U.S.C. 32(j));
(xv) Payments by the Indian Claims Commission to the Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Indian Nation or the Apache Tribe of Mescalero Reservation (Pub. L. 95-433);
(xvi) Allowances, earnings and payments to AmeriCorps participants under the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12637(d));
(xvii) Any allowance paid under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 1805 to a child suffering from spina bifida who is the child of a Vietnam veteran (38 U.S.C. 1805);
(xviii) Any amount of crime victim compensation (under the Victims of Crime Act) received through crime victim assistance (or payment or reimbursement of the cost of such assistance) as determined under the Victims of Crime Act because of the commission of a crime against the applicant under the Victims of Crime Act (42 U.S.C. 10602); and
(xix) Allowances, earnings and payments to individuals participating in programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2931).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior (Lead Agency).
Notice of intent.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy) are preparing a programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/R) on implementation of a regional eradication and/or control program for nonnative, invasive
A public scoping meeting to solicit comment on possible alternatives for the eradication and/or control on nonnative, invasive
Information or comments related to the NEPA process should be submitted to Wayne White, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825. Written comments may also be sent by facsimile to (916) 414-6713. All comments, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be released.
Questions regarding the NEPA process, including scoping, may be directed to Ms. Marla Macoubrie, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825 (telephone (916) 414-6600). For questions concerning the CEQA process, please contact Ms. Maxene Spellman, California State Coastal Conservancy, 1330 Broadway, 11th Floor, Oakland, California, 94612 (telephone (510) 286-0332).
This EIS/R will evaluate the environmental effects of adopting and implementing a regional program, the Invasive Spartina Project, being established to eradicate and/or control invasive species of
The primary goal of the Invasive Spartina Project is to eradicate and/or control invasive
It is estimated that eradication of
An ongoing project in Washington State provides preliminary information to this effort on six methods to control and/or eradicate invasive
• Covering
• Mowing
• Physical removal of
• Chemical control of
• Temporary diking of wetlands;
• Prescribed burns; and
• Combinations of the above methods (such as mowing and herbicide application).
The EIS/R will evaluate individual and cumulative impacts of alternatives based on the above control methods, as well as the no project/no action alternative, in accordance with NEPA and CEQA. Additional methods may be
The following actions and approvals are anticipated to be necessary to implement
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit(s) for Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbor Act and Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act;
• Federal and State Endangered Species Act consultations;
• California State Coastal Conservancy Plan approval;
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Encroachment permit(s);
• DFG Streambed Alteration Agreement(s), Section 1601 of the DFG Code;
• California State Regional Water Quality Control Board 401 Certification(s) and/or Discharge permit(s);
• California State Bay Area Air Quality Management District permit(s);
• Certified Unified Program Agency permit(s) (CUPA Fire Department coordination);
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission permit(s); and
• Local agency approval of specific implementation of projects.
The geographic scope of the Invasive Spartina Project includes intertidal zones of 10 Bay Area counties bordering and including the San Francisco Bay. Seven of these counties have known populations of nonnative, invasive
Distribution of invasive
The direct effects of physical and mechanical eradication/control measures may include disruption of soil/sediment, potentially resulting in erosion, increased water turbidity, and related adverse effects on aquatic biota. These measures also may have the potential to cause accidental mortality of non-target species, including sensitive species such as the California clapper rail (
Any possible chemical measures (herbicides) have the potential to kill non-target plant species such as native salt marsh plants, eelgrass, and algae. This could result in adverse indirect impacts to the salt marsh community in general, including sensitive species such as the California clapper rail, California black rail, salt marsh harvest mouse, and others. Loss of eelgrass and other marine flora, if occurring as a result of these measures, could provide for the loss of nursery and feeding habitat for many species of fish and invertebrates, including sensitive species such as the winter-run chinook salmon (
The EIS/R will be prepared in compliance with NEPA and the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA Regulations, contained in 40 CFR parts 1500-1508; and with CEQA, Public Resources Code Sec 21000 et. seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, as amended. Because requirements for NEPA and CEQA are somewhat different, the document must be prepared to comply with whichever requirements are more stringent. The Service will be the lead agency for the NEPA process and the Conservancy will be the lead agency for the CEQA process. In accordance with both CEQA and NEPA, these lead agencies have the responsibility for the scope, content, and legal adequacy of the document. Therefore, all aspects of the EIS/R scope and process will be fully coordinated between the two agencies.
The draft EIS/R will incorporate public concerns associated with the project alternatives identified in the scoping process and will be distributed for at least a 45-day public review and comment period. During this time, both written and verbal comments will be solicited on the adequacy of the document. The final EIS/R will address the comments received on the draft EIS/R during public review and will be made available to all commenters on the draft EIS/R and anyone requesting a copy during the 45-day public review period. The final EIS/R shall (1) provide a full and fair discussion of the proposed action's significant environmental impacts, and (2) inform the decision-makers and the public of the reasonable measures and alternatives that would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.
The final step in the Federal EIS process is preparation of a Record of Decision (ROD), a concise summary of the decision(s) made by the Service. The
This notice is provided pursuant to regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40 CFR 1506.6).
Notice; request for comments.
The FGDC is conducting a public review of the draft Address Data Content Standard. An interagency team under the FGDC Subcommittee on Cultural & Demographic Data developed this draft standard over several years and the FGDC Coordination Group comprised of representatives from Federal agencies approved releasing this standard for public review. The FGDC invites software vendors and data users and producers in public and private sectors to comment on this standard to ensure that the standard meets their needs.
Comments that address specific issues/changes/additions may result in revisions to the draft NSDI Address Data Content Standard. After comments have been evaluated, participants will receive notification of how their comments were addressed. After formal endorsement of the standard by the FGDC, the standard and a summary analysis of the changes will be made available to the public.
Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2001.
The draft standard may be downloaded via Internet address
Request for printed copies of the standard should be addressed to “Address Data Content Standard,” FGDC Secretariat (attn: Julie Binder Maitra), U.S. Geological Survey, 590 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192 or facsimile 703-648-5755 or Internet at
Reviewer's comments may be sent to FGDC via Internet mail to gdc-address@
Following is information about the draft Address Data Content Standard, submitted by the FGDC Subcommittee on Cultural and Demographic Data (SCDD):
Addresses are widely used by many organizations. Addresses reference and uniquely identify particular points of interest, are used to access and deliver information to specific locations, and can serve as the basis for aggregating data by location.
Many organizations maintain address lists or have databases and datasets that contain addresses. Organizations typically have detailed specifications about the structure of their address information but documentation about the content of the address information is limited. Knowledge of both structure and content is required to successfully share information.
The purpose of this standard is to facilitate the sharing of address information. The Address Data Content Standard (the Standard) accomplishes this by providing a method for documenting the content of address information and simplifies the documentation process by recognizing some commonly used discrete units of address information.
The Standard additionally standardizes some commonly used discrete units of address information, referred to as “descriptive elements”. It provides standardized terms and their definitions to alleviate inconsistencies in the use of the descriptive elements and to simplify the documentation process.
The Standard is applicable to addresses that reference and uniquely identify particular points of interest. The standard is applicable to the following address types: geographic, mailing, or physical. It specifically excludes electronic addresses.
The Standard is applicable to shared addresses. The Standard does not require addresses be shared and does not provide guidelines for determining whether addresses can be shared. Some organizations cannot share addresses or some part of address information due to requirements for confidentiality and security. However, the principles of the Standard can be extended to all addresses, including addresses maintained within an organization that are not shared.
The Standard places no requirement on internal organization use of address data.
Notice; request for comments.
The FGDC is conducting a public review of the draft NSDI Framework Transportation Identification Standard. An interagency team under the FGDC Ground Transportation Subcommittee developed this draft standard over several years and the FGDC Coordination Group comprised of representatives from Federal agencies approved releasing this standard for
Comments that address specific issues/changes/additions may result in revisions to the draft NSDI Framework Transportation Identification Standard. After comments have been evaluated, participants will receive notification of how their comments were addressed. After formal endorsement of the standard by the FGDC, the standard and a summary analysis of the changes will be made available to the public.
Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2001.
The draft standard may be downloaded via Internet address
Request for printed copies of the standard should be addressed to “NSDI Framework Transportation Identification Standard,” FGDC Secretariat (attn: Julie Binder Maitra), U.S. Geological Survey, 590 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192 or facsimile 703-648-5755 or Internet at
Reviewer's comments may be sent to FGDC via Internet mail to gdc-transportation@
Following is information about the draft NSDI Framework Transportation Identification Standard, submitted by the FGDC Ground Transportation Subcommittee:
The proposed standard specifies methods for identifying linear geospatial features that can be implemented within existing data structures. The standard defines a transportation segment independent of cartographic representation, scale, network topology, and attributes that can change over time. The standard relates multiple cartographic and topological network database representations to uniquely identified transportation segments in the real world, and provides the domain for transferring application attributes across linear referencing and cartographic systems.
The model consists of a set of one-dimensional Framework Transportation Segments (FTSeg) that have zero-dimensional Framework Transportation Reference Points (FTRP) at their termini. FTRP and FTSeg are highly stable, unambiguously identified, and recoverable in the field. The standard specifies a mandatory set of attributes for each FTSeg and mandatory attributes for each FTRP.
The standard specifies a format for a unique identification code to be assigned to each FTSeg and each FTRP. It also specifies a process for assigning, modifying and recording FTRP and FTSeg identification codes, and proposes a national registry for their identification. Establishment of stable transportation segment identifies will facilitate the exchange of information, e.g., improved geospatial coordinates, feature attributes like road names, controls to various linear referencing methods mile points, or low and high address values, between databases.
This proposed standard has widespread applicability for public sector and commercial database developers and data users. It will facilitate data exchange among different users by providing well-defined common reference segments tied to the physical transportation feature, rather than to any cartographic or network abstraction of that feature. It will allow users to create customized topological networks from the reference segments without modifying the properties of the reference segments themselves, and to make transactional updates to framework transportation databases.
There has been no standard approach for documenting the relationship between a digitized transportation segment and the physical transportation feature that it represents. There has been no national standard for identifying, segmenting, or representing transportation segments in digital geospatial databases. Consequently, the exchange of attribute information between two different transportation databases representing the same geographic area is difficult, time consuming, and error prone.
Notice; request for comments.
The FGDC is conducting a public review of the draft U.S. National Grid standard. An interorganizational team sponsored by the FGDC Standards Working Group developed this draft standard over several years and the FGDC Coordination Group comprised of representatives from Federal agencies approved releasing this standard for public review. The FGDC invites software vendors and data users and producers in public and private sectors to comment on this standard to ensure that the standard meets their needs.
Comments that address specific issues/changes/additions may result in revisions to the draft U.S. National Grid Standard. After comments have been evaluated, participants will receive notification of how their comments were addressed. After formal endorsement of the standard by the FGDC, the standard and a summary analysis of the changes will be made available to the public.
Comments must be received on or before June 22, 2001.
The draft standard may be downloaded via Internet address
Request for printed copies of the standard should be addressed to “U.S. National Grid Standard,” FGDC Secretariat (attn: Julie Binder Maitra), U.S. Geological Survey, 590 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192 or facsimile 703-648-5755 or Internet at
Reviewer's comments may be sent to FGDC via Internet mail to gdc-usgrid@
Following is information about the draft U.S. National Grid, submitted by the FGDC Standards Working Group:
There are a number of coordinate reference systems that can be used either in location service appliances or on printed maps for the purpose of establishing a location. Within automated location service appliances, the conversion of coordinates based on one well-defined reference system to coordinates based on another can be both automatic and transparent to the user. These devices can support multiple coordinate reference systems with little difficulty. However, it is not easy for users to work in multiple reference systems and to convert between systems without the aid of location service appliances, calculators, or conversion tables. Furthermore, it is difficult for users to accurately determine a location coordinate from paper maps when spherical coordinate reference systems, like latitude and longitude, are used because they do not appear square on the flat map. As a consequence paper maps created for the general public frequently have a square reference grid that overlays the non-rectangular coordinate reference system. It is computationally difficult, labor intensive, and time consuming to convert the reference grid coordinate obtained from one printed map to another printed map with a different grid even when both grid reference systems are well defined. It can be impossible when proprietary grids are used. This situation greatly limits the ability of users to use location service devices with traditional printed maps. Subsequently, location based services in this country have been limited to totally digital environments, restricting the number of users and uses and retarding the development of the location based service industry.
This standard seeks to improve the current situation by identifying a single nationally consistent, humanly facile grid reference system as the preferred U.S. National Grid (USNG) and promoting its use within the NSDI.
This standard is not applicable to the collection of geospatial data, either remote sensed data collection or field surveys. This standard is not applicable to the internal data storage structure of any GIS or location service appliance or to the transfer of coordinates between databases or appliances.
Use of USNG grid coordinates may be useful or even desirable within some systems or enterprises. The decision to use USNG grid coordinates or some other coordinate system internal to geographic information systems or location service appliances is left to the discretion of the system developer as long as the user interface provides for USNG grid coordinate readout as one option.
The USNG is not applicable to surveying. This standard does not attempt to replace the State Plane Coordinate Systems (SPCS) established by the National Geodetic Survey specifically for field surveying. The SPCS is specifically designed to meet the requirements of surveyors and engineers in determining location and boundaries and most states mandate its use by law especially for cadastral surveys. The USNG does not address those needs. SPCS coordinates can be readily converted to USNG grid coordinates for subsequent use within the NSDI.
The USNG is interoperable with the MGRS. This will be of critical importance to safety of life during times of disaster relief operations.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of approved Tribal-State compact.
Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the
This action is effective April 20, 2001.
George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of amendment to an approved Tribal-State Compact.
Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the
This action is effective April 20, 2001.
George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of approved Tribal-State Compact extension.
Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the
This action is effective April 20, 2001.
George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
The following public land in Garfield County, Utah, has been Congressionally directed under section 201(d) of Public Law 105-355 as amended, to be conveyed to Garfield County School District and/or Tropic, Utah, in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of the Act of June 14, 1926, as amended, 43 U.S.C. 869
The area described contains 198.16 acres.
Darrell “Butch” Olsen, Realty Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 225, Escalante, Utah 84726, 435-826-5611.
The purpose of the classification and application for conveyance of this land is for Garfield County School District to use 24.90 acres for development of a multi-use educational/recreational complex, and for the town of Tropic to use the remaining 173.26 acres for development of a cultural/natural history museum, interpretive trail network, equestrian park and golf course.
1. The patents when issued will contain reservations to the United States for ditches, canals and all minerals, and will be subject to all valid existing rights and reservations.
2. Upon publication of this notice in the
Notice of availability of environmental assessment.
Pursuant to the Council of Environmental Quality regulations and National Park Service policy, this notice announces the availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) for Athletic Field Construction and Renovation at Fort Reno Park in Washington, DC.
There will be a 30-day public review for comment on this document. Comments on the draft EA should be received on or before May 21, 2001.
Comments on the EA should be submitted to: Adrienne Coleman, Superintendent, Rock Creek National Park, 3545 Williamsburg Lane NW., Washington, DC 20008. Copies of the EA will be available at the following locations: Klingle Mansion, Rock Creek Park Headquarters, 3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW., Washington, DC 20008; Tenley-Friendship Branch Library, 4450 Wisconsin Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20016; and Rock Creek Nature Center, 5001 Glover Road, NW., Washington, DC.
Adrienne Coleman, Superintendent, Rock Creek National Park, 3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW., Washington, DC 20008; phone number (202) 282-1063. A limited number of copies of the draft EA are available on request.
The EA on the proposed athletic field construction and renovation at Fort Reno Park describes the proposed design concepts for the proposed work, and analyzes pertinent environmental, archeological, cultural and park use impacts of its establishment and construction and possible mitigation measures for the identified impacts.
The Draft Environmental Assessment analyzes (4) alternatives for the proposed athletic field construction and renovation at Fort Reno Park located in Rock Creek National Park. The first Alternative is no-action, the second is improving the existing soccer/baseball field and provides for an additional soccer/baseball field to the east of the existing field. Alternative (3) improves the existing soccer/baseball field and provides construction of a combination
The action alternatives would potentially involve a Phase Two archeological study of the area to preserve archeological resources. The cost of the study is estimated at $75,000.
The Draft Environmental Assessment evaluates the environmental and cultural consequences of the alternatives on visitor experience, archeological and historical resources, impacts on local communities, landowners, and natural ecosystems.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Alagnak Wild River Management Plan, Alaska.
Under the provisions of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act, the National Park Service is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Alagnak Wild River Management Plan. The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of December 2, 1980, designated the Alagnak River (including the Nonvianuk River) from the outlets at Kukaklek and Nonvianuk Lakes to the west boundary of township 13 south, range 43 west, Seward Meridian, as a wild river under the provisions of the 1968 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Wild and Scenic River Act directs the administering agency (National Park Service) to manage components of the system in such a manner as to protect and enhance the values for which the river was designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses that do not adversely impact or degrade those values.
A braided navigable river, the Alagnak drains from lakes of unusually high elevation for the area, resulting in a corridor that runs from alpine habitats, through tundra and boreal forest systems, to the coast. A diversity and abundance of wildlife along with a rich cultural heritage is found within the river corridor, thus making the area important to Alaska Natives, as well as to subsistence and recreational users.
The purpose of a new Alagnak Wild River Management Plan is to provide comprehensive management direction over the next 15-20 years to protect and enhance the values for which the Alagnak Wild River was designated. This new management plan will replace the 1983 Alagnak Wild River Management Plan and amend the 1986 General Management Plan for Katmai National Park and Preserve (1986 GMP). A new management plan is needed because both the 1983 River Management Plan and the 1986 GMP are based on outdated assumptions about the levels and types of use on the river and related management and development approaches. Furthermore, neither the 1983 River Management Plan nor the 1986 GMP adequately describes strategies for resource protection and management, long-term monitoring, and management along a river corridor with a complex pattern of land ownership.
During the ensuing planning process, a reasonable range of alternatives will be developed and analyzed in the river management plan and EIS, including no-action and an agency preferred alternative. A preliminary list of planning issues that the alternatives need to address has been identified and includes:
• How can the important natural and cultural resources best be protected and enhanced, while providing for continued use of the river by present and future generations?
• What level and type of use is appropriate and consistent with the purpose for which the river was designated under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act?
• What facilities are necessary to meet the goals of the river management plan and appropriate to the wild river classification?
In the agency-preferred alternative and other action alternatives, some of the above issues will be addressed by the development and allocation of specific management zones along the Alagnak Wild River. The use of zones will enable the National Park Service to provide a range of quality user experiences and resource conditions consistent with the mandates of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
Public scoping for the Alagnak Wild River Management Plan and EIS begins with this Notice of Intent. The National Park Service requests input from federal and state agencies, Native groups, local governments, private organizations, recreational and subsistence users, local landowners, members of the community, and the general public. Further information on this planning process will be made available to the public in April 2001 through the distribution of a newsletter, the development of a Web page, and public open houses and meetings. Specific dates, times, and locations of scoping sessions will be announced in area newspapers, via radio announcements, and on community bulletin boards. Preliminary alternatives will be developed based on the issues identified and comments gathered. The public will be provided with an opportunity to comment on the preliminary alternatives before they are incorporated into the draft EIS.
The draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public review in spring 2002. The anticipated release of the final EIS/Alagnak Wild River Management Plan is winter 2002/03.
Those interested in submitting additional planning issues or providing input to this initial phase of developing the Alagnak Wild River Management Plan and EIS are invited to do so by sending such comments to the point of contact identified below.
Jane Bacchieri, Alagnak Wild River Project Coordinator, Katmai National Park & Preserve, PO Box 7, King Salmon, AK 99613. (907) 246-2148. (907) 246-4286 Fax.
The Alagnak Wild River Project Coordinator should receive comments no later than 90 days from the publication of this Notice of Intent.
The practice of the National Park Service is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations and businesses, and from
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-109 section 102(c)), the National Park Service (NPS) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the General Management Plan for Boston African American National Historic Site (NHS), located in the city of Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. The purpose of the EIS is to assess the impacts of alternative management strategies that will be described in the General Management Plan for Boston African American NHS. A range of alternatives will be formulated for natural and cultural resource protection, visitor use and interpretation, facilities development, and operations.
The NPS will hold a series of public meetings in the spring and summer of 2001 which will provide an opportunity for public input into the scoping for the GMP/EIS. The date, time, and location of these meetings will be announced through local media as they will be held at various places in the Boston area. The purpose of these meetings is to obtain both written and verbal comments concerning the future direction and development of Boston African American NHS. Those persons who wish to comment verbally or in writing should contact Kenneth Heidelberg, Site Manager, Boston African American National Historic Site, 14 Beacon Street, Suite 506, Boston, MA 02108 (617) 742-5415 or Ruth Raphael, Park Planner, Boston National Historical Park, Charlestown Navy Yard, Boston, Massachusetts 02129-4543, (617) 242-5691. The draft GMP/EIS is expected to be completed and available for public review in Summer 2002. After public and interagency review of the draft document comments will be considered, and a final EIS will be prepared, followed by a Record of Decision.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Commission Act that a meeting of the Death Valley National Park Advisory Commission will be held May 22 and 23, 2001 at the Furnace Creek Inn within Death Valley National Park.
The main agenda will include:
• Updates on wilderness boundaries;
• Water monitoring;
• Grapevine DCP
• Resources update
• Update on EIS for Travertine/Texas Springs
• Appropriate field trips within Death Valley National Park.
The Advisory Commission was established by Pub. L. 03-433 to provide for the advice on development and implementation of the General Management Plan.
Members of the Commission are Janice Allen, Michael Dorame, Mark Ellis, Pauline Esteves, Stanley Haye, Sue Hickman, Cal Jepson, Joan Lolmaugh, Gary O'Connor, Alan Peckham, Michael Prather, Wayne Schulz, and Gilbert Zimmerman.
This meeting is open to the public.
National Park Service, Interior.
Announcement of Subsistence Resource Commission meeting.
The Superintendent of Denali National Park and Preserve and the Chairperson of the Denali Subsistence Resource Commission announce a forthcoming meeting of the Subsistence Resource Commission for Denali National Park and Preserve. The following agenda items will be discussed:
(1) Call to order.
(2) Roll call—Confirm Quorum.
(3) Welcome and introductions.
(4) Approval of last meeting minutes.
(5) Additions and corrections to agenda.
(6) Business:
(a) Denali Backcountry Management Plan
(b) Updates on Federal Subsistence Management Program
(c) NPS Reports and Briefing Session
(7) SRC Work Session/Develop Recommendations
(8) Public and other agency comments.
(9) Set time and place of next SRC meeting.
(10) Adjournment.
The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on Monday, April 30th, 2001, and conclude around 5 p.m.
Hollis Twitchell, Subsistence and Cultural Branch, PO Box 9, Denali Park, Alaska 99755, Phone (907) 683-9544 or (907) 456-0595.
The Subsistence Resource Commissions are authorized under Title VIII, section 808, of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Pub. L. 96-487, and operates in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committees Act. Note that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), transcripts of any person giving public comments may be made available under a FOIA request.
The National Park Service has been working to establish boundaries for all National Historic Landmarks for which no specified boundary was identified at the time of designation and therefore are without a clear delineation of the property involved.
In accordance with the National Historic Landmark program regulations 36 CFR part 65, the National Park Service notifies owners, public officials and other interested parties and gives them an opportunity to comment on the proposed boundary documentation.
The 60-day comment period on the National Historic Landmark listed below has ended and the boundary documentation has been approved. Copies of the documentation of the landmark and its boundaries, including maps, may be obtained from the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Suite NC 400, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Sarah Pope (phone: 202-343-9546; e-mail:
The National Park Service has been working to establish boundaries for all National Historic Landmarks for which no specified boundary was identified at the time of designation and therefore are without a clear delineation of the property involved.
In accordance with the National Historic Landmark program regulations 36 CFR part 65, the National Park Service notifies owners, public officials and other interested parties and gives them an opportunity to comment on the proposed boundary documentation.
Comments on the proposed documentation for the National Historic Landmark listed below and the boundaries it defines will be received for 60 days from the date of this notice. Please address comments to Carol D. Shull, Chief of the National Historic Landmarks Survey and Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, National Register, History and Education, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Suite NC 400, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Sarah Pope (phone: 202-343-9534; e-mail:
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before April 7, 2001. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded to the National Register, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., NC400, Washington, DC 20240. Written comments should be submitted by May 7, 2001.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, Harrison, NE.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2(c). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the National Park Service unit that has control or possession of these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The Assistant Director, Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships is not responsible for the determinations within this notice.
A detailed assessment and inventory of the human remains was made by National Park Service professional staff in consultation with the representatives of the Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington.
At some time before 1909, human remains representing one individual were discovered by former lighthouse keeper H. F. Argyle, near Rocky Point on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The human remains were subsequently acquired by J.E. Standley, a curio dealer in Seattle, WA, who sold them to James Cook of the Agate Springs Ranch, NE. The human remains consist of a single cranium. The flattened forehead is indicative of a particular type of cradle commonly used by tribes in the Pacific Northwest. Non-destructive analysis of the remains indicates that they are Native American, probably a male in his early 50s. No individual was identified. A projectile point was inserted into a “wound” in the cranium, apparently post-mortem, and is not considered to be an associated funerary object.
This skull was a prominent feature of James Cook's and his son's collection of Indian and fossil artifacts that they maintained at the Agate Springs Ranch until giving it to the National Park Service in 1965. The skull was remembered by many ranch visitors, and was featured in an article in the November/December 1911 issue of Records of the Past.
In 1995, based on documentary materials, Dr. Daniel L. Boxberger, professor of anthropology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, concluded that the skull was culturally affiliated with the localized Canadian group of the Klallam tribe (Beecher Bay Nation) that currently lives in the Rocky Point area of Vancouver Island. The Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington has requested that the skull be repatriated to them on behalf of their relatives from Beecher Band Nation. Historically, there were no boundaries between Klallam people living in what are now the United States and Canada across the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Many of the Beecher Bay members are very closely related to the Lower Elwha Community families, and they are culturally interconnected.
Based on the above-mentioned information, the superintendent of Agate Fossil Beds National Monument has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. The superintendent of Agate Fossil Beds National Monument also has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(e), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and the Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington.
This notice has been sent to officials of the Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains should contact Superintendent Ruthann Knudson, Agate Fossil Beds National Monument, 301 River Road, Harrison, NE 69346-2734, telephone (308) 668-2211, fax (308) 668-2318, e-mail ruthann_knudson@nps.gov, no later than May 21, 2001. Repatriation of the human remains to the Lower Elwha Tribal Community of the Lower Elwha Reservation, Washington may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2(c). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by American Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, the Seneca Nation of New York, and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York.
In 1907, human remains representing a minimum of three individuals were collected by Alanson B. Skinner, as part of a museum expedition, from Gandougarae, East Bloomfield, Ontario County, NY. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
These individuals have been identified as Native American based on American Museum of Natural History documentation that refers to the site and its inhabitants as “Seneca.” According to both museum documentation and scholarly literature, the Gandougarae site was a post-contact village occupied until 1671. Apparently this village was also called St. Michel. The manner of interment is consistent with post-contact Seneca practices of inhumation (in clan cemeteries).
Based on the above-mentioned information, officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of a minimum of three individuals of Native American ancestry. Also, officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(e), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, the Seneca Nation of New York, and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York.
This notice has been sent to officials of the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, the Seneca Nation of New York, and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains should contact Martha Graham, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192, telephone (212) 769-5846, before May 21, 2001. Repatriation of the human remains to the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, the Seneca Nation of New York, and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians of New York may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2(c). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations within this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by American Museum of Natural History professional staff in consultation with representatives of the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York.
Prior to 1924, Professor Felix Von Luschan acquired human remains representing a minimum of three individuals from an unknown locale. The American Museum of Natural History has no information on the circumstances of Professor Von Luschan's acquisition of these remains. Mr. Felix Warburg purchased these remains from Professor Von Luschan and, in 1924, donated them to the American Museum of Natural History. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
These individuals have been identified as Native American based on American Museum of Natural History documentation that refers to the remains as “Mohawk.”
Based on the above-mentioned information, officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of a minimum of three individuals of Native American ancestry. Also, officials of the American Museum of Natural History have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(e), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York.
This notice has been sent to officials of the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains should contact Martha Graham, Director of Cultural Resources, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024-5192, telephone (212) 769-5846, before May 21, 2001. Repatriation of the human remains to the St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians of New York may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Badlands National Park, Interior, SD.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2(c). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the National Park Service unit that has control or possession of these Native American human remains and
A detailed inventory and assessment of the human remains has been made by professional staff of the National Park Service in consultation with representatives of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation; Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana; Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Devils Lake Sioux Tribe of the Devils Lake Sioux Reservation, North Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Cheyenne Tribe; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
In November 1958, human remains representing one individual were discovered eroding out of a cut bank on park property. Evidence of a hearth was noticed adjacent to where the remains were discovered. A partial skull with five intact maxillary teeth and a fragmentary vertebra were removed by the park's chief ranger and formally accessioned into the park's museum collection on June 28, 1959. The rest of the remains were left in place.
The skull exhibits retreating zygomatics, a canine fossa, lack of keeling, and rapid occlusal attrition, all traits common in American Indian populations. Though the oval window is also visible, the remains are most likely Native American. This individual was probably between 16-22 years old at the time of death, based on the eruptions of the third molars, molar root development, dental attrition, and basilar suture closure. The orbital margin, mastoid process, nuchal area, and tooth size indicate that the individual may have been male. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human occupation of the Badlands National Park area is believed to date back approximately 11,000 years. The archeological record and oral traditions indicate that the Arikara people camped in the secluded valleys of Badlands National Park year round. Eroding out of the stream banks today are the rocks and charcoal of their campfires. About 150 years ago, the Great Sioux Nation displaced many of the other tribes from the northern prairie.
Based on the above mentioned information, the superintendent of Badlands National Park has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. The superintendent of Badlands National Park also has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(e), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Devils Lake Sioux Tribe of the Devils Lake Sioux Reservation, North Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Cheyenne Tribe; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
This notice has been sent to officials of the Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Reservation; Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Tribe of Montana; Devils Lake Sioux Tribe of the Devils Lake Sioux Reservation, North Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Cheyenne Tribe; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains should contact William R. Supernaugh, Superintendent, Badlands National Park, P.O. Box 6, Route 240, Interior, SD 57750, telephone (605) 433-5280, before. Repatriation of the human remains to the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Devils Lake Sioux Tribe of the Devils Lake Sioux Reservation, North Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Cheyenne Tribe; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; and Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the completion of the inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cape Cod National Seashore, South Wellfleet, MA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2(c). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the National Park Service unit that has control or possession of these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The Assistant Director, Cultural Resources Stewardship and Partnerships is not responsible for the determinations within this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by National Park Service professional staff in consultation with the Wampanoag Confederation, whose membership consists of the Federally-recognized Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
In 1981, human remains representing one individual were recovered during a legally authorized National Park Service archeological survey in the area of the Salt Pond, located within park boundaries in Eastham, MA. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. A Jack's Reef corner-notched point found at the survey site, along with radiocarbon samples from nearby test pits, indicate that the human remains are dated to the Middle Woodland period (A.D. 100-1000)
On July 13, 1983, human remains representing one individual were collected by visitors to the park from an eroding dune area on Griffin Island in Wellfleet, MA. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present. On the basis of the state of preservation of the remains as well as material from other archeological survey sites in the immediate area, these remains are dated to the Middle to Late Woodland period (A.D. 500.0-1600). Archeological evidence indicates a continuity of occupation during the Middle and Late Woodland to the Historic period. Historical documentation indicates that the Nauset people occupied the outer Cape Cod area in the early 1600s. Some descendants of the Nausets are believed to have been absorbed by the Wampanoag people in the 1700s.
Based on the above-mentioned information, the Cape Cod National Seashore superintendent has determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry. The Cape Cod National Seashore superintendent also has determined that, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and the Wampanoag Confederation, whose membership consists of the Federally-recognized Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and the non-Federally-recognized Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation and the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council.
This notice has been sent to officials of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation, and Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains should contact Maria Burks, Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, South Wellfleet, MA 02667, telephone (508) 349-3785, before May 21, 2001. Repatriation of the human remains to the Wampanoag Confederation, whose membership consists of the Federally- recognized Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and the non-Federally-recognized Assonet Band of the Wampanoag Nation and the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribal Council, may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the Nevada State Museum, Carson City, NV.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2(c). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations within this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by Nevada State Museum professional staff in consultation with Leland Bliss, chairman of the Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada.
In the early 1900s, human remains representing one individual were removed from the vicinity of Lovelock, NV, by John T. Reid. These remains were donated to the Nevada Historical Society after Mr. Reid's death by his brother, Paul Reid, in 1941. The Nevada Historical Society is an agency within the Nevada State Division of Museums and History. No known individual was identified. The seven associated funerary objects are a rifle barrel, a metal pipe, cloth, shoes, a mammal bone, and wood fragments.
Osteological evidence indicates that these human remains represent a Native American. The dental patterns are characteristic of post-1840s diet. The presence of a rifle and Euro-American clothing also date the remains to the post-1840s. The location where the human remains were found is within the known historic territory of the Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada. Both tribal oral history and historical evidence document that this group has occupied the Lovelock area since before the 1840s.
In the early 1900s, human remains representing one individual were removed from the vicinity of Lovelock, NV, by John T. Reid. These remains were donated to the Nevada Historical Society after Mr. Reid's death by his brother, Paul Reid, in 1941. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Morphological evidence indicates that this individual is a Native American. The teeth exhibit caries, a condition common in post-contact Native American remains, which are rare in prehistoric individuals from western Nevada. The location where the human remains were found is within the known historic territory of the Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada. Both tribal oral history and historical evidence document that this group have occupied the Lovelock area since before the 1840s.
In the early 1900s, human remains representing one individual were removed from the vicinity of Lovelock, NV, by John T. Reid. These remains were donated to the Nevada Historical Society after Mr. Reid's death by his brother, Paul Reid, in 1941. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Osteological evidence indicates that these human remains are Native American. A piece of glass found in the vicinity of the remains tentatively dates the remains to a post-1840s time period. The location where the human remains were found is within the known historic territory of the Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada. Both tribal oral history and historical evidence document that this group has occupied the Lovelock area since before the 1840s.
Based on morphological evidence, these human remains are determined to be Native American. Dental characteristics and objects from the vicinity of the burials provisionally date the remains to a post-1840s context. The locations of all of the burials are within the known historic territory of the Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada. Tribal oral history and historic records document the presence of this group in this region of Nevada prior to Euro-American contact.
Based on the above-mentioned information, officials of the Nevada State Museum have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry. Officials of the Nevada State Museum also have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(2), the seven objects listed above are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony. Lastly, officials of the Nevada State Museum have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(e), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects and the Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada.
This notice has been sent to officials of the Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains and associated funerary objects should contact Dr. Alanah Woody, Nevada Division of Museums and History NAGPRA Coordinator, 600 North Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701, telephone (775) 687-4810, extension 229, before May 21, 2001. Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects to the Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony, Nevada may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
United States International Trade Commission.
April 25, 2001 at 11 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street S.W., Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1. Agenda for future meeting: none.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Inv. No. 731-TA-924 (Preliminary) (Mussels from Canada)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination to the Secretary of Commerce on April 26, 2001; Commissioners' opinions are currently scheduled to be transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce on May 3, 2001.)
5. Inv. No. 731-TA-706 (Review) (Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand)—briefing and vote. (The Commission is currently scheduled to transmit its determination and Commissioners' opinions to the Secretary of Commerce on May 8, 2001.)
6. Outstanding action jackets: none.
In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on March 29, 2001, amendments to the Consent Decree filed in
In this action against Marine Shale Processors, Inc., (“MSP”) the United States sought to recover civil penalties and enjoin violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6901
These amendments extend the deadline by which a new company, GTX, Inc. must purchase the assets and liabilities of MSP to September 11, 2001. The amendments also extend the “Continuing Election” provision of the Consent Decree. Section V of the original Consent Decree provided that GTX may make a “Continuing Election” that an Order vacating the Consent Decree not issue “within ten (10) days after the eighteen months from entry of the Consent Decree” if GTX has not obtained the “Necessary Permits” by that date. The amendments to Section V provide that the “Continuing Election” deadline will run prior to sixty days after the “Final Effective Date,” as defined in the Consent Decree in Section I.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to
The consent decree amendments may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Hale Boggs Federal Building, 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, LA 70130, at U.S. EPA Region VI, 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75202-2733, and at the Consent Decree Library, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. A copy of the consent decree amendments may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, PO Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $1.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that, on March 8, 2001, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The nature and objectives of the venture are to engage in activities consistent with and in furtherance of its Specific Purposes (“Specific Purposes”). The Specific Purposes for which the Alliance is formed are: (i) To promote the growth and development of streaming rich media (video, audio and associated data) over the Internet; (ii) to promote the growth and development of the industry related to Streaming Rich Media over the Internet; (iii) to define, establish, revise, and support specification(s) (“Specifications”) that contribute to the development of interoperable, efficient, end-to-end solutions that promote or facilitate Streaming Rich Media over the Internet as well as over private networks, and to foster the voluntary and rapid adoption of the Specifications by developers of related products and services; (iv) to provide a forum whereby interested parties may meet to approve Specifications and to suggest revisions and enhancements to Specifications; to make appropriate submissions to established agencies and bodies with the purpose of ratifying all or part of the Specifications as an international standard; and to provide a forum whereby users may meet with developers and providers of Streaming Rich Media products and services to identify requirements for interoperability and general usability; (v) to educate the business and consumer communities as to the value of products and services based on or related to the Specifications through public statements, publications, trade shows demonstrations, seminar sponsorships, and other programs established by the Alliance, and to thereby promote market demand for products based on or related to the Specifications; (vi) to protect the needs of consumers and increase competition among vendors by supporting the voluntary creation and implementation of uniform, industry-standard conformance or compliance test procedures and process which assure the interoperability of products and services based on or related to the Specifications; (vii) to maintain relationships and liaison with educational institutions, government research institutes, other technology consortia, and other organizations that support and contribute to the development of specifications and standards for Streaming Rich Media over the Internet; (viii) to foster competition in the development of new products and services based on or related to the Specifications, in conformance with all applicable antitrust laws and regulations; and (ix) to do anything reasonably necessary to achieve or promote these Specific Purposes.
In furtherance of the above stated Specific Purposes, the Alliance may, among other things, engage in theoretical analysis; experimentation; systematic study; research; development; testing; the extension of investigative findings or theory of a scientific or technical nature into practical application; the collection, exchange and analysis of research or production information; and any combination of the foregoing.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice of town hall meetings.
The Department of Labor is giving notice of the fifth and final in a series of Town Hall Meetings to provide interested individuals an opportunity to comment on the Department of Labor's approach to the implementation of changes to the Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP), which were occasioned by the revisions to title V of the Older Americans Act (OAA) by the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-501) (November 13, 2000). We have held Town Hall Meetings in various locations throughout the country, in order to facilitate the participation of interested individuals. Town Hall Meetings have been held in Atlanta, Georgia, 66 FR 6678 (January 22, 2001), Washington, DC and New Orleans, Louisiana, 66 FR 10919 (February 20, 2001), and in Pasadena, California, 66 FR 16068 (March 23, 2001).
The Town Hall Meeting being announced in this Notice will be held on Tuesday, May 15, 2001, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. in Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting will be held as a pre-conference activity in conjunction with the 2001 Heartland Conference.
The Town Hall Meeting will be held in the Washington Park 2 Room (on the Lower Level) at the Westin Crown Center Hotel, One Pershing Road, Kansas City, Missouri.
Mr. Erich W. (“Ric”) Larisch, Division of Older Workers' Program, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N4644, Washington, DC 20210, Telephone: (202) 693-3742 (voice), TTY (202) 693-2871 (these are not toll-free numbers).
The purpose of the Town Hall Meeting is to provide each interested individual with an opportunity to comment on the Department of Labor's approach to the implementation of changes to the SCSEP occasioned by the revisions to title V of the Older Americans Act (OAA) by the Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-501) (November 13, 2000). Each attendee is welcome to offer comments on a variety of subjects, including: (1) Issues and concerns that should be addressed in regulations; (2) issues and concerns that should be addressed in policy guidance; (3) suggestions and comments on the overall implementation plan, such as consultation strategies; (4) specific suggestions on the approach that should be taken in implementing any or all of the new title V provisions; and (5) suggestions on revisions that should be
All interested parties are invited to attend the Town Hall Meeting. Persons wishing to make statements or presentations at the Town Hall Meeting should limit oral statements to 5 minutes, but extended written statements may be submitted for the record within 30 days after the Town Hall meeting date. Written statements may also be submitted without presenting oral statements. Individuals may submit written comments to the Employment and Training Administration, Division of Older Worker Programs, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N4644, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: Mr. Erich W. (“Ric”) Larisch.
Minutes of all Town Hall Meetings and summaries of other documents will be available to the public on the SCSEP website
Individuals with disabilities who are planning to attend one of the Town Hall Meeting should contact Ms. Karen Davis of the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Division of Older Worker Programs at (202) 693-3761 (this is not a toll-free number), if special accommodations are needed.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and are based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR Part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR Part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decision, and modifications and supersedeas decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
This is to advise all interested parties that the Department of Labor is withdrawing, from the date of this notice, General Wage Determination Nos. WV010001 and WV010005 dated March 2, 2001. See WV010002.
Contracts for which bids have been opened shall not be affected by this notice. Also, consistent with 29 CFR 1.6(c)(2)(i)(A), when the opening of bids is less than ten (10) days from the date of this notice, this action shall be effective unless the agency finds that there is insufficient time to notify bidders of the change and the finding is documented in the contract file.
The number of decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
None.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under The Davis-Bacon And Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts are available electronically at no cost on the Government Printing Office site at
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Space Science Advisory Committee, Astrobiology Task Force.
Monday, April 30, 2001, 8:15 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Tuesday, May 1, 2001, 8:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 300 E Street, SW, Conference Room 3H46, Washington, DC 20546.
Carl Pilcher, Code S, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2150.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors will be requested to sign a visitor's register.
National Communications System (NCS).
Notice of Meeting.
A meeting of the President's National Security Telecommunications
• Call to Order/Welcoming Remarks.
• Briefings from three perspectives: National, Department of Defense, and industry, on national security challenges resulting from changing technology and dependence upon privately operated infrastructures.
• National Communications System Manager's Report.
• Industry Executive Subcommittee Report.
• Adjournment.
Due to the potential requirement to discuss classified information in conjunction with the issues listed above, the meeting will be closed to the public in the interest of National Defense.
Telephone (703) 607-6215 or write the manager, National Communications System, 701 South Court House Road, Arlington, VA 22204-2198.
National Communications System (NCS).
Notice of meeting.
A meeting of the Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) System Oversight Committee will convene Tuesday, May 8, 2001 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The meeting will be held at 701 South Court House Road, Arlington, VA in the NCS conference room on the 2nd floor.
Anyone interested in attending or presenting additional information to the Committee, please contact Ms. Deborah Bea, Office of Priority Telecommunications, (703) 607-4933.
The National Endowment for the Humanities.
Notice of meetings.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 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, D.C. 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.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, as amended) the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by June 19, 2001. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-7318.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. R-33, issued to the General Electric Company (the licensee or GE) for operation of the General Electric Nuclear Test Reactor (NTR or the facility) located in Sunol, California.
The proposed action would renew the license for the NTR for 20 years from the date of issuance of the license amendment. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated September 30, 1997, as supplemented on June 18, 1999, August 23, 1999, June 1, 2000, and October 5, 2000. The licensee submitted an Environmental Report for license renewal.
The proposed action is needed to allow continued operation of the NTR beyond the current term of the license in order to continue research and development using neutrons for experimental purposes.
The NTR is in Building 105 within the approximately 1600 acre (6.4 square kilometers) Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC) near Pleasanton, California. GE owns the VNC site for nuclear research and development. GE normally leases about 1500 acres (6.1 km
On October 24, 1957, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued Construction Permit No. CPRR-19, to GE. This permit authorized GE to construct the NTR at its VNC site in Southern Alameda County, California. On October 31, 1957, the AEC issued Facility Operating License No. R-33, authorizing GE to operate the reactor at steady-state power levels up to 30 kW(t). The reactor first reached criticality on November 15, 1957. On July 22, 1969, the license was amended authorizing GE to operate the reactor at steady-state power levels not in excess of 100 kW(t), and renewing the license. The facility license was renewed again on December 28, 1984, with an expiration date of October 31, 1997. The licensee applied for renewal on September 30, 1997, and, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the license remains in effect. At each renewal, the facility description, organization and safety evaluation were updated. The reactor has operated about 139 megawatt-days for the first 39 years since initial licensing (Safety Analysis Report (SAR) section 4.4.1). Facility modifications have been minor. The licensee has not indicated any plans to change the design or usage significantly. The radioactive releases from the NTR have been well within regulatory limits of 10 CFR Part 20. The facility typically has 1 liter per year of radioactive liquid waste (SAR section 11.1.1.2) that is due to sampling. This liquid waste is transferred to monitored tanks. Solid radioactive releases are estimated to be less than 3 cubic feet or 0.085 cubic meters per year (SAR section 11.1.1.3). The radioactive content of this waste is measured in the millicurie or 10
The NRC concludes that conditions are not expected to change and that the radiological effects of the continued operation will continue to be minimal. The radiological exposures for facility operations have been and are expected to remain within regulatory limits.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase to occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non radiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non radiological facility effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
In addition, the environmental impact associated with operation of research reactors has been generically evaluated by the staff and is discussed in the attached generic evaluation. This evaluation concludes that no significant environmental impact is associated with the operation of research reactors licensed to operate at power levels up to and including 2 megawatts thermal. The NRC staff has determined that this generic evaluation is applicable to operation of the NTR and that there are no special or unique features that would preclude reliance on the generic evaluation.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the “no-action” alternative). If the NRC denied license renewal, NTR operations would stop and decommissioning would be required with no significant benefit to the environment. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternative are similar.
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the safety analysis and evaluation for operating license renewal in 1984 and the “Environmental Assessment for the General Electric Company—Nuclear Test Reactor License No. R-33, Docket No. 50-73,” dated November 9, 1984.
On October 24 and 27, 2000, the staff consulted with the California Department of Health Official, Steve Hsu, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comment.
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated September 30, 1997, as supplemented on June 18, 1999, August 23, 1999, June 1, 2000, and October 5, 2000. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will also be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
This discussion deals with research reactors and critical facilities which are designed to operate at low power levels, 2 MWt and lower, and are used primarily for basic research in neutron physics, neutron radiography, isotope production, experiments associated with nuclear engineering, training and as a part of a nuclear physics curriculum. Operation of such facilities will generally not exceed a 5-day week, 8-hour day, or about 2000 hours per year. Such reactors are located adjacent to technical service support facilities with convenient access for students and faculty.
Sited most frequently on the campuses of large universities, the reactors are usually housed in already existing structures, appropriately modified, or placed in new buildings that are designed and constructed to blend in with existing facilities. However, the environmental considerations discussed herein are not limited to those which are part of universities.
There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or mechanical structures or transmission lines attached to or adjacent to the facility other than for utility services, which are similar to those required in other similar facilities, specifically laboratories. Heat dissipation is generally accomplished by use of a cooling tower located on the roof of the building. These cooling towers typically are on the order of 10′ × 10′ × 10′ and are comparable to cooling towers associated with the air-conditioning systems of large office buildings.
Make-up for the cooling system is readily available and usually obtained from the local water supply. Radioactive gaseous effluents are limited to Ar-41 and the release of radioactive liquid effluents can be carefully monitored and controlled. Liquid wastes are collected in storage tanks to allow for decay and monitoring prior to dilution and release to the sanitary sewer system. Solid radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped offsite for storage at NRC-approved sites. The transportation of such waste is done in accordance with existing NRC-DOT regulations in approved shipping containers.
Chemical and sanitary waste systems are similar to those existing at other similar laboratories and buildings.
Construction of such facilities invariably occurs in areas that have already been disturbed by other building construction and, in some cases, solely within an already existing building. Therefore, construction would not be expected to have any significant effect on the terrain, vegetation, wildlife or nearby waters or aquatic life. The societal, economic and aesthetic impacts of construction would be no greater than those associated with the construction of a large office building or similar research facility.
Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less than 2 MWt will not have a significant effect on the environment. This small amount of waste heat is generally rejected to the atmosphere by means of small cooling towers. Extensive drift and/or fog will not occur at this low power level.
Release of routine gaseous effluents can be limited to Ar-41, which is generated by neutron activation of air. Even this will be kept as low as practicable by using gases other than air for supporting experiments. Yearly doses to unrestricted areas will be at or below established guidelines in 10 CFR Part 20 limits. Routine releases of radioactive liquid effluents can be carefully monitored and controlled in a manner that will ensure compliance with current standards. Solid radioactive wastes will be shipped to an authorized disposal site in approved containers. These wastes should not require more than a few shipping containers a year.
Based on experience with other research reactors, specifically TRIGA reactors operating in the 1 to 2 MWt range, the annual release of gaseous and liquid effluents to unrestricted areas should be less than 30 curies and 0.01 curies, respectively.
No release of potentially harmful chemical substances will occur during normal operation. Small amounts of chemicals and/or high-solid content water may be released from the facility through the sanitary sewer during periodic blowdown of the cooling tower or from laboratory experiments.
Other potential effects of the facility, such as aesthetics, noise, societal or impact on local flora and fauna are expected to be too small to measure.
Accidents ranging from the failure of experiments up to the largest core damage and fission product release considered possible result in doses that are less than 10 CFR Part 20 guidelines and are considered negligible with respect to the environment.
The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involve the materials used in construction that cannot be recovered and the fissionable material used in the reactor. No adverse impact on the environment is expected from either of these unavoidable effects.
To accomplish the objectives associated with research reactors, there are no suitable alternatives. Some of these objectives are training of students in the operation of reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct experiments.
The long-term effects of research facilities are considered to be beneficial as a result of the contribution to scientific knowledge and training. Because of the relatively small amount of capital resources involved and the small impact on the environment, very little irreversible and irretrievable commitment is associated with such facilities.
The costs are on the order of several millions of dollars with very little environmental impact. The benefits include, but are not limited to, some combination of the following: conduct of activation analyses, conduct of neutron radiography, training of operating personnel, and education of students. Some of these activities could be conducted using particle accelerators or radioactive sources which would be more costly and less efficient. There is no reasonable alternative to a nuclear research reactor for conducting this spectrum of activities.
The staff concludes that there will be no significant environmental impact associated with the licensing of research reactors or critical facilities designed to operate at power levels of 2 MWt or lower and that no environmental impact statements are required to be written for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilities.
In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.
The form prescribed by the RRB for filing an appeal under the RRA or RUIA is form HA-1, Appeal Under the Railroad Retirement Act or Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. The form asks the applicant to furnish the basis for the appeal and what additional evidence, if any, is to be submitted. Completion is voluntary, however if the information is not provided the RRB cannot process the appeal.
The RRB proposes no changes to Form HA-1. The completion time for the HA-1 is estimated at 20 minutes per response. The RRB estimates that approximately 1,000 Form HA-1's are completed annually.
To request more information or to obtain a copy of the information collection justification, forms, and/or supporting material, please call the RRB Clearance Office at (312) 751-3363. Comments regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 20549.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17a-4, Records to be Preserved by Certain Exchange Members, Brokers and Dealers, requires approximately 7,525 active, registered exchange members, brokers and dealers (“broker-dealers”) to preserve for prescribed periods of time certain records required to be made by Rule 17a-3 and other Commission rules, and other kinds of records which firms make or receive in the ordinary course of business. Rule 17a-4 also permits broker-dealers to employ, under certain conditions, electronic storage media to maintain these required records. The records required to be maintained under Rule 17a-4 are used by examiners and other representatives of the Commission to determine whether broker-dealers are in compliance with, and to enforce their compliance with, the Commission's rules.
The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary for each broker-dealer to comply with Rule 17a-4 is 250 hours annually.
General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be directed to the following persons: (i) Deck Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW. Washington, DC 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within thirty days of this notice.
On November 2, 1999, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-99-12) pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”).
The rule change provides for the substitution of a successor index for an underlying index. Because substitution of a successor index for an underlying index may require changes to the terms of outstanding options, the rule change explicitly grants OCC the authority to make adjustments to such terms as necessary to reflect the substitution. While OCC believes such substitution and adjustment are already implicitly provided for under the provisions of OCC's By-Laws at Article XVII, Section 4 (“Unavailability or Inaccuracy of Current Index Value”), OCC seeks to clarify its authority through the rule change.
New paragraph (d) of Article XVII, Section 3 provides that a successor index may be substituted for an underlying index in the event that the underlying index's publication is discontinued, when the underlying index is replaced with another index, or when an index's composition or method of calculation has so materially changed that it is deemed to be a different index. As in the case of other adjustments, the determination to substitute a successor index and the selection of the index will be made by an adjustment panel. The successor index is to be an index which is deemed to be reasonably comparable to the index for which it substitutes.
Article XVII, Section 3, paragraph (c), which is applicable to adjustments to index options generally, is amended to provide for adjustments as necessary to accommodate a successor index. In addition paragraph (c) is amended to expand the rule in other respects to cover a broader range of potential changes in the calculation of index values and to give added flexibility to OCC in making appropriate adjustments to reflect such changes.
These amendments grant OCC the authority to adjust outstanding options in the event that an exchange increases or decreases the index multiplier for any index option contract or in the event that any change in the method of calculation of an underlying index creates a discontinuity or change in the level of the index that does not reflect a change in the prices or values of the index's constituent securities. Such a change would occur, for example, if the value of an index were reset from 10,000 to 1,000, which would create a discontinuity that would affect all outstanding options.
Changes to Article 1, Section 1 and to Article XVII, Section 1, both definitional sections, are designed to clarify and conform the terminology to usage as it has developed since the index options provisions were originally drafted.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
The rule change allows OCC to substitute a successor index for an underlying index when the underlying index is no longer viable for use. The rule change also enables OCC to adjust outstanding options in the event that an exchange increases or decreases the index multiplier for any index option contract or in the event that any change in the method of calculation of an underlying index creates a discontinuity or change in the level of the index that does not reflect a change in the prices or values of the index's constituent securities. The rule change refines and amplifies existing OCC rules that have proven effective in promoting the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and in safeguarding securities and funds. Therefore, the Commission finds that the rule change is consistent with OCC's obligation to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and to assure the safeguarding of securities and funds which are in the custody or control of the clearing agency or for which it is responsible.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by May 8, 2001, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant(s) and/or declarant(s) at the address(es) specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After May 8, 2001, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (“Maine Yankee” or “Applicant”), 321 Old Ferry Road, Wiscasset, Maine 04578, an indirect subsidiary company of Energy East Corporation (“Energy East”), National Grid Group Plc (“National Grid”), National Grid USA and Northeast Utilities (“NU”), all registered public utility holding companies, has filed with this Commission a declaration under section 12(c) of the Act and rules 42, 46, and 54 under the Act.
Maine Yankee proposes to redeem from its stockholders 99% of its presently outstanding Common Stock.
Maine Yankee operated as a pressurized water nuclear-powered electric generating plant in Wiscasset, Maine (the “Plant”) from 1972 to 1997. In 1997, the Plant was permanently removed from service. The Plant is currently being dismantled and decommissioned.
The following sponsoring utility companies of Maine Yankee are subsidiaries of registered public utility holding companies and own Common Stock of Maine Yankee in the percentages shown in the parenthetical following the name of the utility: (1) Central Maine Power Company (38%), an Energy East subsidiary; (2) New England Power Company (24%), a subsidiary of National Grid and National Grid USA; (3) The Connecticut Light and Power Company (12%), a NU subsidiary; (4) Public Service Company of New Hampshire (5%), a NU subsidiary; and (5) Western Massachusetts Electric Company (3%), a NU subsidiary.
Specifically, Main Yankee proposes to redeem
The redemption price per share of Common Stock for each redemption shall be equal to the amount obtained by dividing (1) the sum of the aggregate par value of the Common Stock then outstanding plus the capital surplus, including without limitation other paid-in capital (less any deficit in earned surplus) immediately prior to the redemption by (2) the number of shares of Common Stock outstanding immediately prior to the redemption. As of December 31, 2000, Applicant states that the sum determined in accordance with clause (1) is $66,218,585 and the number of shares determined in accordance with clause (2) is 500,000. Therefore, the redemption price would be $132.437 per share. After all redemptions are completed, Maine Yankee will maintain minimal equity until it ultimately prepares to liquidate and wrap up its affairs.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
On October 26, 1999, The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-99-14) pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”).
OCC proposes to amend Rule 601 (relating to margining of equity options) and Rule 602 (relating to margining of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F)
The proposed amendments to Rule 601 and Rule 602 to set marking prices at the last sale price, adjusted to the highest bid if the last sale price is below the highest bid or adjusted to the lowest offer if the last sale price is above the lowest offer should result in a more accurate assessment of risk and a more appropriate margin requirement thus further assuring the safeguarding of securities and funds within OCC's control. In addition the proposed rule change should provide consistency with the marking practices of clearing members, the majority of whom are believed to use the method currently proposed. This should further promote more prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions for OCC and its members.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and in particular Section 17A of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
There will be a public meeting of a study group of the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Private International Law on Saturday, April 28, 2001, to consider a draft UNCITRAL Model Law on Conciliation. The meeting will be held from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. in the Alexandria room of the Marriott Crystal Gateway Hotel, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia.
The purpose of the Study Group meeting is to assist the Department of State prepare the U.S. position for the upcoming session of the UNCITRAL Working Group on Arbitration. The UNCITRAL Working Group is meeting May 21-June 1 in New York.
The study group meeting will consider a draft of the Model Law on Conciliation (Doc. A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.113/Add.1) prepared by the UNCITRAL Secretariat based on the discussion of the Working Group at its last meeting in November 2000. A report of the November session of the Working Group is also available (Doc. A/CN.9/485). Persons interested in the work of the study group or in attending April 28 meeting in Virginia may request copies of the documents from Ms. Rosie Gonzales by fax at 202-776-8482, by telephone at 202-776-8420 (you may leave your request, name, telephone number, email, or mailing address on the answering machine), or by email at <gonzaler@ms.state.gov>. Email is the quickest and most efficient way to transmit the documents.
The study group meeting is open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. Any person who is unable to attend, but wishes to have his or her views considered, may send comments to Ms. Gonzales at the above fax number or email address, or may address them to the Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law (L/PIL), Suite 203, South Building, 2430 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037-2851.
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Proposed collection; comment request.
The proposed information collection described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended). The Tennessee Valley Authority is soliciting public comments on this proposed collection as provided by 5 CFR Section 1320.8(d)(1). Requests for information, including copies of the information collection proposed and supporting documentation, should be directed to the Agency Clearance Officer: Wilma H. McCauley, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street (EB 5B), Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801; (423) 751-2523.
Comments should be sent to the Agency Clearance Officer no later than June 19, 2001.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of intent.
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an individual impact statement will be prepared for a proposed highway project within Maricopa County, Arizona.
Kenneth H. Davis, District Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, 234 North Central Avenue, Suite 330, Phoenix, AZ 85004, telephone (602) 379-3646.
The FHWA, in cooperation with the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to study the proposed South Mountain Corridor in Maricopa County, Arizona. The proposed project will involve construction of a new multilane freeway in the metropolitan Phoenix area extending approximately 25 miles from I-10 west of Phoenix to I-10 southeast of Phoenix to form a southwest loop. The proposed project will evaluate potential impacts to mountain preserve land, residential and commercial development, Tribal lands, cultural resources, historic roads and canals, Endangered Species, jurisdictional water of the U.S., air and noise quality, and hazardous waste.
Improvements to the corridor are considered necessary to provide for the existing and projected traffic demand. A full range of reasonable alternatives will be considered including (1) taking no action; (2) using alternate travel modes; (3) limited access parkway; (4) major urban arterial with transportation system management improvements; and (5) a freeway.
A Final State Environmental Assessment was completed for the South Mountain Corridor. At that time, a recommended alternative was selected and an accompanying Design Concept Report was completed in September 1988. Due to the elapsed time and changed conditions that have occurred since completion of these documents, new studies are required.
Letters describing the proposed action and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State and local agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona Game & Fish Department, City of Phoenix, Town of Laveen, City of Avondale, and the Gila River Indian Tribe. Letters will also be sent to interested parties including, the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee, Laveen Village Planning Committee and Estrella Village Planning Committee.
A series of public meetings will be held in the communities within the proposed study area. In addition, a public hearing will be held. Public notice will be given advising of the time and place of the meetings and hearing. A formal scoping meeting is planned between Federal, State, city and Tribal stakeholders.
To insure that the full range of issues related to this proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments, and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of intent to deny petitions for rulemaking; request for comments.
The FMCSA announces its intent to deny petitions for rulemaking from the Manufactured Housing Institute (MHI) and Multinational Legal Services, PLLC (Multinational) concerning overloading of tires used for the transportation of manufactured homes. Currently, these tires may be loaded up to 18 percent over the load rating marked on the sidewall of the tires, or in the absence of such a marking, 18 percent above the load rating specified in publications of certain organizations specializing in tires. The termination date of the rule allowing 18-percent overloading of these tires was originally set for November 20, 2000, but was delayed until December 31, 2001, to provide the agency time to complete its review of the MHI's petition to allow 18 percent overloading on a permanent basis. The agency has now completed its review of the MHI's data and believes that there should be no further delay in the termination date. The agency has also completed its analysis of Multinational's petition to rescind the final rule which delayed the termination date until December 31, 2001, and determined on a preliminary basis that the petition should be denied. Denial of both petitions would result in transporters of manufactured homes being prohibited from operating such units on overloaded tires on or after January 1, 2002.
We must receive your comments by May 21, 2001. We will consider comments received after the comment closing date to the extent practicable.
You can mail, fax, hand deliver or electronically submit written comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, FAX (202) 493-2251, on-line at
Mr. Larry W. Minor, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, MC-PSV, (202) 366-4009, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 400 Seventh
On February 18, 1998, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) jointly published a final rule amending, respectively, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) and an interpretation of the Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards (see 63 FR 8330). The FHWA and HUD actions reduced the amount of tire overloading allowed (at the time up to 50 percent above the tire manufacturer's load rating) on tires used to transport manufactured homes. As a result of the rulemaking, the maximum amount of loading on a manufactured home tire was reduced so that it cannot exceed the tire manufacturer's load rating by more than 18 percent. Manufactured homes transported on tires overloaded by 9 percent or more may not be operated at speeds exceeding 80 kilometers per hour (km/hr)(50 mph). The final rule allowed 18-percent overloading for a two-year period. The two-year period began on November 16, 1998, the effective date of the final rule, and was scheduled to end on November 20, 2000.
In publishing the final rule and interpretative bulletin, the agencies indicated there was sufficient data to support the premise that overloading tires may be potentially unsafe. The agencies also indicated that unless both of them were persuaded by the end of the two-year period that 18-percent overloading did not pose a risk to the traveling public, or have an adverse impact on safety or the ability of motor carriers to transport manufactured homes, any overloading of tires beyond their design capacity would be prohibited.
On August 7, 2000, the MHI filed a petition for rulemaking with the FMCSA and HUD to initiate a joint rulemaking to amend the agencies' rules concerning manufactured home tires to enable the manufactured home industry to continue to exceed the tire manufacturer's load rating by up to 18 percent, indefinitely. The MHI requested that: (1) The FMCSA amend 49 CFR 393.75(g); and (2) HUD revise Interpretative Bulletin J-1-76 to 24 CFR part 3260. MHI recognized that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the FMCSA and HUD to act on the petition and, if granted, complete the rulemaking before November 20, 2000. Therefore, the MHI also petitioned the FMCSA and HUD to provide interim regulatory relief from the November 20, 2000, deadline until the agencies acted on the petition for rulemaking. A copy of the MHI's petition for rulemaking and request for an exemption are included in the docket referenced at the top of this document.
The MHI indicated that during the first 18 months of the two-year period for 18-percent overloading, it sponsored studies of the safety risk associated with tire overloading. This work included a study of the movement of manufactured homes under actual operating conditions and a survey of principal manufacturers, transporters and suppliers. The study involved observing and recording the results of 503 shipments of manufactured homes during a 12-month period from June 1999 through June 2000. The MHI believes the results of the study demonstrate that tire performance improved when the industry operated under the 18-percent overloading rule.
The MHI indicated that of the 3,708 tires used on the 503 manufactured home sections transported, there were 81 tire failures (a 2.2 percent tire failure rate). The MHI believes that only a fraction of these failures were attributable, in whole or in part, to the tires being overloaded. Of the 81 tires that failed, 62 (76.5 percent) were used tires, indicating that repeated usage of tires may be more of a factor in the tire failure rate than overloading. The MHI believes the 2.2 percent tire failure rate represents a significant improvement given the estimated eight percent tire failure rate the FHWA and HUD presented in the April 23, 1996, notice of proposed rulemaking (61 FR 18014). None of the 81 tire failures resulted in an accident causing damage to a manufactured home, other property, or personal injury. The 81 tire failures occurred on 61 of the 503 sections transported. The MHI stated:
The dramatic decrease in tire failures attributable, in whole or in part, to tire over-loading beyond tire load ratings and the total absence of any accidents resulting in damage to the manufactured home, other property, or personal injury, based upon a representative sampling of manufactured homes transported throughout the country, demonstrates the lack of any safety risk associated with the permanent removal of the November 20, 2000 “sunset” date for the 118% Rule.
On November 21, 2000, the FMCSA published a final rule delaying the termination date of the rule allowing overloading of manufactured home tires (65 FR 70218). The FMCSA indicated that it had met with officials from HUD to discuss the MHI's request. Both agencies believed that MHI's petition and its supporting documentation warranted a thorough review, but because relevant staff were otherwise committed, neither was able to complete such an analysis before November 20, 2000, the termination date established by the 1998 final rule. On November 21, 2000, HUD amended Interpretative Bulletin J-1-76 to remove a paragraph that referenced the November 20, 2000, termination date.
On January 16, 2001, Multinational filed a petition with the FMCSA and HUD requesting that the FMCSA and HUD rescind their actions relating to overloading of manufactured home tires. A copy of Multinational's petition is included in the docket referenced at the beginning of this document. Multinational argued that the FMCSA and HUD actions delaying the termination date are contrary to both Federal law and the public interest. Multinational believes that the FMCSA violated 5 U.S.C. 553(b) by publishing the final rule without prior notice and request for public comment. Multinational believes the agencies could have requested public comment when the MHI submitted its preliminary data on July 7, 2000. Multinational argues that the “good cause” exception to the requirement for requesting public comment prior to issuing a final rule should not apply in this case.
In addition, Multinational believes the delay in the termination date was issued in violation of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113, 110 Stat. 775) which requires that Federal agencies use standards established by voluntary consensus standards organizations unless the adoption of the voluntary standards would be impractical or inconsistent with law.
Multinational argues that delaying the termination date is contrary to the public interest.
The FMCSA has reviewed the MHI's and Multinational's petitions and believes that both should be denied.
The MHI's petition requesting that 18 percent overloading be allowed on a permanent basis is not supported by the data submitted. The MHI provided detailed data (on-the-road performance data which included the amount of tire
Although information was collected on 503 shipments of manufactured home sections, individual wheel weights were measured on only 53 of these shipments. The information gathered from the remaining 450 trips is important for looking at the overall tire failure rate but not for examining the percentage of tire failures attributable in whole, or in part, to tire overloading.
Another factor complicating the analysis of tire failures is that both the number of tires overloaded, and the amount of overloading on those tires, varies from trip to trip. Not all manufactured home tires are overloaded by 18 percent on every trip. Because of the variability in the amount of overloading per tire and the number of tires that are typically overloaded on a given shipment, it is extremely difficult to draw inferences on the performance of overloaded tires. This is especially the case when an extremely small sample size is involved.
Despite the inadequacy of the MHI data for some kinds of analysis, one figure is hard to ignore: tire failures occurred on 12 percent of the trips involving sections of manufactured housing (61 of 503). Although the incidence of tire failure seems to have declined since overloading was limited to 18 percent in 1998, the fact that 12 percent of the trips examined by the MHI were still marred by tire failure—for whatever reason—is not reassuring. This is a far higher number than other segments of the motor carrier industry experience. The manufactured housing industry may not have been involved in any recent fatalities or property-damage accidents, but with a tire-failure rate that high one cannot be optimistic about the future. Even if a tire failure does not send the affected combination out of control, tire fragments can cause other vehicles to swerve, perhaps triggering a secondary accident. When units of manufactured housing are stopped for tire replacement, other vehicles will usually slow down to look, increasing the risk of rear-end accidents in the traffic stream. Finally, because drivers typically orient themselves by following other cars or trucks, drivers who are fatigued or distracted sometimes fail to distinguish between moving vehicles and parked vehicles, with disastrous consequences. While the FMCSA cannot identify the exact role of tire overloading in the failure rate experienced by the manufactured housing industry, we have concluded that this rate is too high and that the agency should take what actions it can to lower the rate. We have therefore decided to end the allowance of overloaded tires on manufactured housing.
The FMCSA requests comments on the adequacy of the sample size used by the MHI in its data collection, and on the analysis and interpretation of that data. The agency also requests comments on its own analysis and conclusions.
The FMCSA does not consider its actions to be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act or the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995. Furthermore, our actions were not contrary to the public interest.
The FMCSA was not required to place the information it received from the MHI in the docket until it issued its November 21, 2000, final rule. Doing so earlier would not have served as a request for public comment, or provided information about the agency's evaluation of the petition, or accelerated the agency's analysis of the MHI data. The period from August 7 to November 20, 2000, was not long enough to allow the agency, occupied with a wide variety of prior commitments, to prepare a notice that discussed the issues in meaningful detail, review the public comments submitted, and issue a final decision. Therefore, the agency stands by its previous determination that notice and comment were impracticable.
The FMCSA believes notice and comment were unnecessary because the November 21, 2000, delay in the termination date did not change the substance of 49 CFR 393.75(g). The agency relied on its expertise in transportation safety to delay the termination date until December 31, 2001. The agency is not aware of any accidents (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5) involving manufactured homes prior to the 1998 final rule, or subsequent to the publication of that rule. The agency believes the data presented by the MHI is an acceptable indicator that the overall tire failure rate decreased after tire overloading was reduced from 50 percent to 18 percent. The MHI's estimate of a decrease in the overall tire failure rate justified the conclusion that the level of safety had improved (in terms of reducing the potential for an accident attributable to tire failure) since the publication of the February 18, 1998, final rule. The only uncertainty was whether the level of safety was comparable to, or better than, what would be expected if all overloading of manufactured tires were prohibited. The postponement of the termination date did not increase the safety risks to the traveling public. The actions of the agency were not contrary to public interest.
With regard to the Multinational's other point, neither the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, nor the Office of Management and Budget's Circular No. A-119, which provides executive direction to Federal agencies in implementing the statutory requirements, is applicable to the debate about overloading manufactured home tires. The FMCSA's did not establish a government-unique standard for the design of manufactured home tires, or a government-unique standard concerning the use of such tires. Furthermore, the agency's actions did not ignore a private-sector “consensus standard” as defined in OMB's Circular No. A-119.
The FMCSA has carefully reviewed the Tire and Rim Association, Inc.'s “Year Book” to determine whether the publication could be construed as a consensus standard establishing guidelines that differ from the agency's final rule. The “Year Book” states:
The purposes of the Tire and Rim Association, Inc., include the establishment and promulgation of interchangeability standards for tires, rims and allied parts for the guidance of manufacturers of such products, designers and manufacturers of motor vehicles, aircraft and other wheeled vehicles and equipment, and governmental and other regulatory bodies.
The Tire and Rim Association, Inc., has no responsibility or involvement with respect to the utility or performance of any tire, rim or allied part which may be manufactured in conformity to such standards.
The Tire and Rim Association publication provides information on interchangeability standards for tires and rims—the ability to replace components, parts, or equipment of one manufacturer with those of another, without losing function or suitability. Furthermore, the organization disclaimed all responsibility or involvement with respect to the use or performance of any tire. Therefore, the Tire and Rim Association's “Year Book”
With regard to Multinational's concerns about the public interest, the FMCSA worked with HUD to require the manufactured housing industry to alter its practice of overloading tires by up to 50 percent above the tire manufacturer's load rating. The agencies have reduced the amount of overloading to 18 percent presently, and through the denial of the MHI's petition, transporters of manufactured homes would be prohibited from overloading tires. Transporters of manufactured homes would be required to adhere to the same standards as anyone else subject to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. The delay in the termination date does not, in and of itself, change the substance of 49 CFR 393.75(g).
Through this notice the agency is making clear its preliminary intention not to grant the MHI's petition to allow 18 percent overloading on a permanent basis. The agency intends to bring to an end the industry practice of transporting manufactured homes on overloaded tires, albeit approximately 13 months later than originally planned. The agency does not believe the delay in the termination date is contrary to the public interest because the level of safety provided by the November 21, 2000, final rule is no different than the level of safety provided prior to the delay.
The FMCSA requests comments from all interested parties concerning overloading of tires used in the transportation of manufactured homes. The agency encourages commenters to discuss any of the specific issues mentioned above and any other issues the commenters believe may be relevant. Depending on the comments received, the agency will issue a notice denying the MHI's and Multinational's petitions.
Federal Transit Administration, DOT.
Notice of request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the following new information collection: 49 CFR Part 611 Major Capital Investment Projects.
Comments must be submitted before June 19, 2001.
All written comments must refer to the docket number that appears at the top of this document and be submitted to the United States Department of Transportation, Central Dockets Office, PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. All comments received will be available for examination at the above address from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Those desiring notification of receipt of comments must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard/envelope.
Mr. John Day, Office of Budget and Policy, (202) 366-1671.
Interested parties are invited to send comments regarding any aspect of this information collection, including: (1) The necessity and utility of the information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the FTA; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the collected information. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation was issued on April 7, 1999, (64 FR 17062). The docket was open for public comment through July 6, 1999, though late-filed comments were accepted through July 19, 1999. Comments were received from a total of 41 individuals and organizations. During the comment period, FTA held three additional public outreach workshops to solicit comments on the proposed rule: one in Toronto, Ontario, on May 24, 1999, in conjunction with the 1999 American Public Transit Association's Commuter Rail/Rapid Transit Conference; one in Oakland, California, on June 3, 1999; and one in Washington, D.C., on June 8, 1999. Notes from these workshops have been placed in the docket for this rule (Docket No. FTA-99-5474-48).
The Final Rule was issued on December 7, 2000, (65 FR 76864) noting that a separate burden analysis would be published for public comment and that FTA would seek a control number from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) authorizing FTA to collect the required information. This notice serves that purpose.
It is important to note that while the new starts project evaluation and rating regulation is new, the requirements for project evaluation and data collection for the new starts program are not. FTA's requirement to evaluate proposed new starts against a prescribed set of statutory criteria is longstanding. The Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (STURAA) established in law a set of criteria that proposed projects had to meet in order to be eligible for federal funding. The requirement for summary project ratings has been in place since 1998.
In general, the information used by FTA for new starts project evaluation and rating purposes should arise as a part of the normal planning process. Prior to this Rule, FTA collected project evaluation information from project sponsors under a Paperwork Reduction Act request (OMB No. 2132-0529) approved under the joint FTA/FHWA planning regulations. However, as the project evaluation criteria have expanded under TEA-21, it has become apparent that some information required under this Rule may be beyond the scope of ordinary planning activities. Further, while FTA has long required the reporting of information for project evaluations, there has never been a regulatory requirement until TEA-21. Finally, this Rule adds a new
It is also important to note that since this is a new regulatory requirement, the burden estimates include all data collection efforts required by this Rule, regardless of whether or not the same data would have been required under the previous, policy statement-driven process. Thus, the total burden estimate includes items that would have been required whether this regulation had been issued or not. These estimates were also provided in the preamble to the Final Rule dated December 7, 2000.
Bajaj Auto, Ltd., an Indian corporation, through Rex Products, Inc. of South San Francisco, CA, dba Bajaj USA, has applied for a temporary exemption of two years from a requirement of S5.2.1 (Table 1) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 123
We are publishing this notice of receipt of an application in accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30113(b)(2). This action does not represent any judgment of the agency on the merits of the application.
Bajaj has applied on behalf of its Saffire motor scooters (“scooters”) with automatic clutches. The scooters are defined as “motorcycles” for purposes of compliance with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. According to Bajaj, the Saffire has a 90cc engine and a top speed of 60 km/h.
If a motorcycle is produced with rear wheel brakes, S5.2.1 of Standard No. 123 requires that the brakes be operable through the right foot control, though the left handlebar is permissible for motor driven cycles (Item 11, Table 1). Bajaj would like to use the left handlebar for the rear brake control for the scooters. Standard No. 123 specifies the left handlebar as the location for the manual clutch or integrated clutch and gear change, but there is no clutch on the automatic scooters.
Bajaj argues that the overall level of safety of the scooters equals or exceeds that of a motorcycle that complies with the brake control location requirement of Standard No. 123. Although “it is true that the human foot can apply much more force than can the hand, the foot is much less sensitive to travel distance. With the lever/cable operated brake system used on the Saffire, there is more than enough brake actuation force available to the hand of even the smallest rider.”
Bajaj intends to begin sales in the United States “for market testing purposes during the 2001 sales year” and would like to include the Saffire in its product line; without an exemption it would be unable to do so.
Bajaj anticipates sales of not more than 2500 scooters a year while an exemption is in effect. It believes that an exemption would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of traffic safety because it is intended for low-speed urban use, in “congested traffic conditions,” and “has been tested by long use in India and the rest of the world.” The petitioner states that “neither consumer groups nor governmental authorities have raised any safety concerns as a result of this design.” The scooter provides “environmentally clean and fuel efficient * * * urban transportation.” Specifically, “the exhaust, crankcase, and evaporative emissions of the motor scooter's very small engine have been demonstrated to be lower than alternative means of transportation such as large motorcycles.” If the exemption is granted, “the American consumer will be provided with a broader range of choice of low-cost, efficient, transportation.”
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the application described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and the notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated below will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. The Docket Room is open from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered.
Notice of final action on the application will be published in the
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) has filed a notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1152 Subpart F—
UP has certified that: (1) No local traffic has moved over the line for at least 2 years; (2) there is no overhead traffic moving over the line; (3) no formal complaint filed by a user of rail service on the line (or by a state or local government entity acting on behalf of such user) regarding cessation of service over the line either is pending with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) or with any U.S. District Court or has been decided in favor of complainant within the 2-year period; and (4) the requirements at 49 CFR 1105.7 (environmental reports), 49 CFR 1105.8 (historic reports), 49 CFR 1105.11 (transmittal letter), 49 CFR 1105.12 (newspaper publication), and 49 CFR 1152.50(d)(1) (notice to governmental agencies) have been met.
As a condition to this exemption, any employee adversely affected by the abandonment and discontinuance shall be protected under
A copy of any petition filed with the Board should be sent to applicant's representative: James P. Gatlin, General Attorney, Union Pacific Railroad Company, 1416 Dodge Street, Room 830, Omaha, NE 68179.
If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
UP has filed an environmental report which addresses the effects, if any, of the abandonment and discontinuance on the environment and historic resources. SEA will issue an environmental assessment (EA) by April 27, 2001. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the EA by writing to SEA (Room 500, Surface Transportation Board, Washington, DC 20423) or by calling SEA, at (202) 565-1545. Comments on environmental and historic preservation matters must be filed within 15 days after the EA becomes available to the public.
Environmental, historic preservation, public use, or trail use/rail banking conditions will be imposed, where appropriate, in a subsequent decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2), UP shall file a notice of consummation with the Board to signify that it has exercised the authority granted and fully abandoned its line. If consummation has not been effected by UP's filing of a notice of consummation by April 20, 2002, and there are no legal or regulatory barriers to consummation, the authority to abandon will automatically expire.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
Decided: April 10, 2001.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), DOT.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics invites the general public, industry and other governmental parties to comment on the continuing need for and usefulness of DOT requiring large certificated air carriers to file “On-Time Flight Performance Reports” and “Mishandled-Baggage Reports” pursuant to 14 CFR 234.4 and 234.6. These reports are used to monitor the quality of air service that major air carriers are providing the flying public.
Written comments should be submitted by June 19, 2001.
Comments should be directed to: Office of Airline Information, K-25, Room 4125, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, FAX NO. 366-3383 or EMAIL
Comments should identify the OMB # 2138-0041. Persons wishing the Department to acknowledge receipt of their comments must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: Comments on OMB # 2138-0041. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned.
Bernie Stankus, Office of Airline Information, K-25, Room 4125, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4387.
Part 234 gives air travelers information concerning their chances of on-time flights and the rate of mishandled baggage by the eleven largest scheduled domestic passenger carriers.
The Federal Aviation Administration uses part 234 data to pinpoint and analyze air traffic delays. Wheels-up and wheels-down times are used in conjunction with departure and arrival times to show the extent of ground delays. Actual elapsed flight time, wheels-down minus wheels-up time, is compared to scheduled elapsed flight time to identify airborne delays. The reporting of aircraft tail number allows the FAA to track an aircraft through the air network, which enables the FAA to study the ripple effects of delays at hub airports. The data can be analyzed for airport design changes, new equipment purchases, the planning of new runways or airports based on current and projected airport delays, and traffic levels.
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
Written comments should be received on or before May 21, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Delegation of authority.
Extension of Time for Making Certain Elections. The text of the delegation order appears below.
Sharon Horn, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate), Sharon.Y.Horn@m1.irscounsel. treas.gov; (202) 622-7700 (Not a toll-free call); Frank Inserra, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (General Legal Services), Francis.C.Inserra@m1. irscounsel.treas.gov, (202) 283-7900 (not a toll-free call), 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20024.
Effective Date: April 20, 2001.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11) To the extent that the authority previously exercised consistent with this order may require ratification; it is hereby approved and ratified. This order supersedes Delegation Order No. 183 (Rev. 7), effective August 23, 1996 (as amended).
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 19, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 19, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail comments to
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
OMB Control Number: 2900-0133.
By direction of the Secretary:
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before June 19, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail irmnkess@vba.va.gov. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0011” in any correspondence.
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By Direction of the Secretary.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA.
Notice of request for proposals and request for input.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) announces the availability of grant funds and requests proposals for the Fund for Rural America (FFRA) for fiscal year (FY) 2001 to support competitively awarded research, extension and education grants addressing key issues that contribute to economic diversification and sustainable development in rural areas. The amount available for support of this program in FY 2001 is approximately $9,500,000.
This notice sets out the objectives for these projects, the eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, the application procedures, and the set of instructions needed to apply for an FFRA grant.
By this notice, CSREES additionally solicits stakeholder input from any interested party regarding the FY 2001 FFRA Request for Proposals (RFP) for use in development of any future RFPs for this program.
Proposals must be received on or before 5:00 p.m., June 19, 2001. Proposals received after this date will not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this RFP are invited for six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Fund for Rural America; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 1307, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone: 202-205-0241.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Fund for Rural America; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2245.
Written stakeholder comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: RFP-OEP@reeusda.gov. (This e-mail address is intended only for receiving comments regarding this RFP and not for requesting information or forms.) In your comments, please state that you are responding to the FY 2001 FFRA RFP.
Dr. Phillip Schwab, Program Co-Director FFRA, telephone: 202-720-4423, e-mail: pschwab@reeusda.gov, or Dr. Elizabeth Tuckermanty, Co-Director FFRA, telephone: 202-205-0241, e-mail: etuckermanty@reeusda.gov, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2241; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2241; telephone: 202-205-0241, e-mail: etuckermanty@reeusda.gov.
CSREES is requesting comments regarding the Fund for Rural America FY 2001 RFP from any interested party. In your comments, please include the name of the program and the fiscal year RFP to which you are responding. These comments will be considered in the development of the next RFP for the program. Such comments will be used in meeting the requirements of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 7613(c). Comments should be submitted as provided in the
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number for this program is 10.224.
The Fund for Rural America, authorized under section 793 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act) (7 U.S.C. 2204(f)), is established as an account in the Treasury of the United States. The Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998 amended the FAIR Act to provide $60 million on October 1 in each FY until FY 2003 for rural development activities and a competitive grant program for research, education, and extension activities. Not less than one-third of the funds will be available for research, education, and extension activities, one-third will be available for the Department's rural development activities, and one-third will be allocated between the rural development and research activities according to the Secretary's discretion. Section 722 of the FY 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 106-387) allowed for the expenditure of $30 million of FY 2000 funds for the FY 2001 FFRA. Of these available funds, the Secretary of Agriculture has determined that $10 million (prior to reductions for administrative costs) will be available for competitive grants for research, education and extension activities in FY 2001.
Grants are to be awarded on the basis of merit, quality, and relevance to advancing the purposes of federally supported agricultural research, extension, and education provided in section 1402 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977, as amended (7 U.S.C. 3101). Section 1402 identifies the following purposes:
(1) enhance the competitiveness of the United States agriculture and food industry in an increasingly competitive world environment;
(2) increase the long-term productivity of the United States
(3) develop new uses and new products for agricultural commodities, such as alternative fuels, and develop new crops;
(4) support agricultural research and extension to promote economic opportunity in rural communities and to meet the increasing demand for information and technology transfer throughout the United States agriculture industry;
(5) improve risk management in the United States agriculture industry;
(6) improve the safe production and processing of, and adding of value to, United States food and fiber resources using methods that maintain the balance between yield and environmental soundness;
(7) support higher education in agriculture to give the next generation of Americans the knowledge, technology, and applications necessary to enhance the competitiveness of United States agriculture; and
(8) maintain an adequate, nutritious, and safe supply of food to meet human nutritional needs and requirements.”
Section 793(c)(2)(A) of the FAIR Act authorizes the Secretary to use FFRA for competitive research, education, and extension grants to:
(i) increase international competitiveness, efficiency, and farm profitability;
(ii) reduce economic and health risks;
(iii) conserve and enhance natural resources;
(iv) develop new crops, new crop uses, and new agricultural applications of biotechnology;
(v) enhance animal agricultural resources;
(vi) preserve plant and animal germplasm;
(vii) increase economic opportunities in farming and rural communities; and
(viii) expand locally-owned, value-added processing.
Congress established FFRA in 1996 to develop, adapt, and apply science-based knowledge to the expected challenges faced by American farmers and rural communities as reforms to Federal farm programs were enacted such as commodity program deficiency payments phase outs. FFRA was first administered in 1997 and funded grants which focused on (1) international agricultural competitiveness, (2) environmental stewardship, and (3) improved quality of life in rural areas.
In 1998, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) was established to address critical emerging issues in production agriculture including priority mission areas relating to agricultural genomics and biotechnology, food safety and human nutrition, new uses, farm profitability, and natural resources management. CSREES will administer the FY 2001 FFRA and IFAFS programs in a coordinated manner, with the FFRA emphasizing knowledge that contributes to economic diversification and sustainable development in rural areas, and IFAFS focusing on efficiency, use, and consequences of agricultural production. Thus, this RFP solicits research, education and extension to address two of the statutory purposes of FFRA: increase economic opportunities in farming and rural communities and expand locally-owned value-added processing.
There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or to make a specific number of awards. Approximately $9,500,000 is available in FY 2001 to award standard grants of up to a total of $600,000 over four years in the following priority areas: (1) Rural Community Innovation; and (2) Harnessing Demographic Change to Increase Rural Opportunity.
Not less than 15 percent of the funds awarded under this program will be used for grants to smaller institutions as defined in section I. C.
For this program, the following definitions apply:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
Proposals may be submitted by Federal research agencies, national laboratories, colleges and universities and research foundations maintained by a college or university, and private research organizations. National laboratories include Federal laboratories that are government-owned contractor-operated or government-owned government-operated. If the applicant is a private organization, documentation must be submitted evidencing that the private organization has an established and demonstrated capacity to perform research or technology transfer. Documentary evidence shall provide specific information regarding relevant staff or organizational experience, including publications, credentials, and past or current projects. A programmatic decision on the eligibility status of the private organization will be made based on the information submitted.
A grant awarded for applied research that is commodity-specific and that is not of national scope must be matched by the recipient with equal funds from a non-Federal source. The matching requirement may be satisfied through cash and in-kind contributions for allowable costs incurred by the recipient or subrecipient.
In FY 2001, all projects must be submitted as New Proposals. A new proposal is a project proposal that has not been previously submitted to the FFRA Program. All new proposals will be reviewed competitively using the selection process and evaluation criteria described in Part IV. Review Process.
FFRA funds may not be used for the renovation or refurbishment of research spaces; the purchase or installation of fixed equipment in such spaces; or the planning, repair, rehabilitation, acquisition, or construction of buildings or facilities.
Economically healthy rural communities are a key factor in maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. The FFRA was, in part, designed to direct resources to the development of research, education and extension programs which can help rural communities and citizens improve their economic outlook and devise effective approaches to community and rural development. Dramatic demographic changes and recent innovations in agricultural practices and community development methods offer new challenges and opportunities. An aging population, the arrival of new immigrant populations, youth retention and workforce development are all having an impact on the rural economy. Rural communities need to understand these demographic forces and develop capacity to turn them into economic promise. Communities also must develop the capacity to translate on- and off-farm innovations into economic growth and community prosperity. Value-added processing, e-commerce, distance learning, niche markets and new industries can help rural communities share more fully in economic opportunities, especially where they are part of holistic approaches to community development. CSREES is offering a two part program with the expectation that the agency will award up to 15 grants not to exceed $600,000 each to form the long-term, multi-state networks and develop programs to address these critical issues facing rural America.
The FFRA will be available for cutting-edge research and technology development, extension and related outreach, and education projects which will result in breakthrough solutions to critical, well-defined problems. Projects will be awarded for short- and intermediate-term application of research and development through integration of research, extension and education activities. The FFRA program emphasizes the importance of systems-based, outcome-oriented approaches to problem solving. Projects should involve relevant stakeholders such as producers, entrepreneurs, environmentalists, community organizations, and non-governmental organizations, and should address issues of national, regional, or multi-state importance. Therefore, CSREES will give priority to projects that are designed and proposed by eligible recipients in collaboration with institutions, organizations and communities of interest. Strong partnerships will be critical to apply research, education and extension to address user needs and solve community-defined problems. In assessing proposals, priority will be given for systems-based, inter-disciplinary, integrated approaches that leverage prior research investments and include innovative collaborations and partnerships with the goal of improving the quality of life in rural America. The two FFRA program areas for FY 2001 are “Rural Community Innovation” and “Harnessing Demographic Change to Increase Rural Opportunity”.
This program area seeks research, education, and extension proposals that will help rural communities address existing and new problems in innovative ways. Proposals should focus on two broad areas: holistic systems-based community development and the connections between agriculture and community development. The goals are to generate and share new knowledge to assist rural communities to diversify their economies, develop and maintain profitable farms and businesses, build community leadership and decision-making capacity, and create new strategies for improving community services.
Applications are encouraged that will increase knowledge and build capacity for holistic community development by seeking to understand the ways different kinds of community assets are related including human, social, natural and financial capital, by applying a new generation of information technology and computer based tools to community planning, development, and decision-making, and by increasing the capacity for citizens in communities to lead the development process.
Applications are encouraged that will increase knowledge and build capacity about the connections between innovative, entrepreneurial agriculture and community development by understanding the relationships among farms, businesses, and community institutions, by understanding the community implications of moving to a bio-based economy, by furthering the linkages among value-added agriculture, the regional economy and local communities, and by including farmers in local and regional economic development planning. Applicants should demonstrate that the results of their work will expand economic opportunities in agriculture as well as opportunities in non-agricultural rural economic sectors.
Projects should contribute to new models of rural development and contribute to core understandings of factors that lead to rural and community
This program area seeks proposals that incorporate elements of research, education and extension that will help communities understand the phenomena of demographic change in rural America, develop new knowledge to address these issues and educate rural citizens on how to adapt and capitalize on these changes.
Applications are expected to address at least one of the following areas: (a) The aging of rural America, including the development of service economies to serve an aging and retirement-oriented population, involving senior citizens in economic activities, and community planning programs to address housing, leadership and infrastructure issues affected by an aging population; (b) increased immigration to rural America and developing new immigrants as agents of economic vitality, assisting new immigrants to access basic financial, health and employment services, assisting rural communities to adjust to the cultural diversity resulting from the arrival of new immigrants and assisting new immigrant farmers with an understanding of the agricultural markets, risk management and environmental stewardship; and (c) improving youth retention and workforce development including the development of programs to prepare young people for new economy jobs, including e-business training, language skill development and health care education, citizenship and leadership development, and new farmer programs emphasizing new marketing opportunities, financial risk management and technological innovation.
A proposal should include specific and substantive evidence of the ability of the investigators to work within the target communities. This ability should include appropriate language skill ability, experience working with all collaborators, and long-standing and substantive links to the target community. Unique partnerships between rural and urban/suburban cooperators or international partners are also encouraged.
Program application materials are available at the CSREES website (www.reeusda.gov/fra). If you do not have access to the CSREES web page or have trouble downloading material, you may contact the Proposal Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/CSREES at (202) 401-5048. When calling the Proposal Services Unit, please indicate that you are requesting forms for the FY 2001 FFRA program. These materials may also be requested via Internet by sending a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and phone number to psb@reeusda.gov. State that you want a copy of the RFP and application materials (orange book) for the FY 2001 program.
The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling reviewers to more easily evaluate the merits of each proposal in a systematic, consistent fashion:
(a) The proposal should be prepared on only one side of the page using standard size (8
(b) Each page of the proposal starting with the Project Description and including the budget pages, required forms, and any appendices, should be numbered sequentially.
(c) The proposal should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner. Do not bind. An original and 14 copies (15 total) must be submitted in one package, along with 10 copies of the “Project Summary” as a separate attachment.
(d) If applicable, proposals should include original illustrations (photographs, color prints, etc.) in all copies of the proposal to prevent loss of meaning through poor quality reproduction.
Each copy of each grant proposal must contain an “Application for Funding,” Form CSREES-661. One copy of the application, preferably the original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing principal investigator(s)/project director(s) (PI/PD) and the authorized organizational representative who possesses the necessary authority to commit the organization's time and other relevant resources to the project. Any proposed PI/PD or co-PI/PD whose signature does not appear on Form CSREES-661 will not be listed on any resulting grant award. Complete both signature blocks located at the bottom of the “Application for Funding” form.
Form CSREES-661 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant database; it is therefore important that it be completed accurately. The following items are highlighted as having a high potential for errors or misinterpretations:
(a) Title of Project (Block 6). The title of the project must be brief (80-character maximum), yet represent the major thrust of the effort being proposed. Project titles are read by a variety of nonscientific people; therefore, highly technical words or phraseology should be avoided where possible. In addition, introductory phrases such as “investigation of,” “research on,” “education for,” or “outreach that” should not be used.
(b) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 7) “FFRA.”
(c) Program Area and Number (Block 8). Either “RCI” for Rural Community Innovation or “HDC” for Harnessing Demographic Change to Increase Rural Opportunity should be inserted in this block.
(d) Type of Award Request (Block 13). Check the block for “new.”
(e) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block 15). The designation of excessive numbers of co-PI/PDs creates problems during final review and award processing. Listing multiple co-PI/PDs, beyond those required for genuine collaboration, is therefore discouraged. Note that providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing of the proposal.
(f) Type of Performing Organization (Block 18). A check should be placed in the box beside the type of organization which actually will carry out the effort. For example, if the proposal is being submitted by an 1862 Land-Grant institution but the work will be performed in a department, laboratory, or other organizational unit of an agricultural experiment station, box “03” should be checked. If portions of the effort are to be performed in several departments, check the box that applies to the individual listed as PI/PD #1 in Block 15.a.
(g) Other Possible Sponsors (Block 22). List the names or acronyms of all other public or private sponsors including other agencies within USDA and other CSREES programs to which your application has been or might be sent. In the event you decide to send
For consistency and ease in locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents just after the cover page. The Table of Contents should contain page numbers for each component of the proposal.
The proposal must contain a Project Summary of 250 words or less on a separate page placed immediately after the Table of Contents and not numbered. The names and institutions of all PI/PDs and co-PI/PDs should be listed on this form, in addition to the title of the project. The summary should be a self-contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on: overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish the project goal(s); and relevance of the project to FFRA goals. The importance of a concise, informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized.
The written text may not exceed 15 single- or double-spaced pages of written text including figures and tables, but excluding citations.
Each proposal's Project Description should contain the following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
All references cited should be complete, including titles and all co-authors, and should conform to an accepted bibliographic format.
Appendices to the Project Description are allowed if they are directly germane to the proposed project and are limited to a total of two of the following: reprints (papers that have been published) and preprints (manuscripts in press); preprints must be accompanied by a letter of acceptance from the publisher.
All key personnel who are expected to be involved in the effort should be clearly identified. For each person the following should be included:
(1) The roles and responsibilities of each PI/PD should be described;
(2) An estimate of time commitment for each PI/PD; and
(3) Vitae of each PI/PD, senior associate and other professional personnel. This section should include vitae of all key persons who are expected to work on the project, whether or not CSREES funds are sought for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages in length, excluding publication lists. A chronological list of all relevant publications during the past four (4) years, including those in press, must be provided for each project member for which a curriculum vitae is provided. All authors should be listed in the same order as they appear on each paper cited, along with the title and complete reference as these usually appear in bibliographies.
A Conflict-of-Interest List must be provided for all individuals identified as key personnel. Each list should be on a separate page and include alphabetically the full names of the individuals in the following categories: (a) All collaborators on projects within the past four years, including current and planned collaborations; (b) all co-authors on publications within the past four years, including pending publications and submissions; (c) all persons in your field with whom you have had a consulting or financial arrangement within the past four years who stand to gain by seeing the project funded; and (d) all thesis or postdoctoral advisees/advisors within the past four years (some may wish to call these life-time conflicts). This form is necessary to assist program staff in excluding from proposal review those individuals who have conflicts-of-interest with the personnel in the grant proposal. The Program Director, under the specific area or sub-area, must be informed of any additional conflicts-of-interest that arise after the proposal is submitted.
If it will be necessary to enter into formal consulting or collaborative arrangements with others, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified. If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal budget narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services, a statement of work to be performed, a resume or curriculum vitae for each consultant, and rate of pay for each consultant. For purposes of proposal development, informal day-to-day contacts between key project personnel and outside experts are not considered to be collaborative arrangements and thus do not need to be detailed.
All anticipated subcontractual arrangements also should be explained and justified in this section. A proposed statement of work and a budget for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third party must be provided. A budget narrative for all budget categories where
If you expect to enter into subcontractual arrangements, please note that the provisions contained in 7 CFR Part 3019, USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grant and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and the general provisions contained in 7 CFR Part 3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to subrecipients. In addition, required clauses from 7 CFR 3019.40 through 3019.48 (“Procurement Standards”) and Appendix A (“Contract Provisions”) to 7 CFR Part 3019 should be included in final contractual documents, and it is necessary for the subawardee to make a certification relating to debarment/suspension by completing Form AD-1048.
(1)
The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal budget(s):
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
(H)
(I)
(2)
(3)
For those grants requiring matching funds as specified in Part I. E., proposals should include written verification of commitments of any matching support (including both cash and in-kind contributions) from third parties. Written verification means:
(a) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) the dollar amount of the cash donation; and (5) a statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution during the grant period; and
(b) For any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the third party in-kind contribution; and (5) a statement that the donor will make the contribution during the grant period.
The sources and amount of all matching support from outside the applicant institution should be summarized on a separate page and placed in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal immediately following the summary of matching support.
The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Applicants should refer to OMB Circulars A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions; A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments; A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations; and for for-profit organizations, the cost principles in the Federal Acquisition Regulation at 48 CFR Subpart 31.2 (see 7 CFR 3015.194).
All proposals must contain Form CSREES-663 listing other current public or private support (including in-house support) to which key personnel identified in the proposal have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for the person(s) involved is included in the budget. Analogous information must be provided for any pending proposals that are being considered by, or that will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, including other USDA Programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of identical or similar proposals to the possible sponsors will not prejudice proposal review or evaluation by CSREES. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. Note that the project being proposed should be included in the pending section of the form.
A number of situations encountered in the conduct of projects require special assurances, supporting documentation, etc., before funding can be approved for the project. In addition to any other situation that may exist with regard to a particular project, it is expected that some applications submitted in response to these guidelines will involve the following:
a.
b.
c.
Note that by signing Form CSREES-661 the applicant is providing certifications required by 7 CFR Part 3017, regarding Debarment and Suspension and Drug Free Workplace, and 7 CFR Part 3018, regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are included in the application package for informational purposes only. These forms should not be submitted with the proposal since by signing form CSREES-661 your organization is providing the required certifications. If the project will involve a subcontractor or consultant, the subcontractor/consultant should submit a form AD-1048 to the grantee organization for retention in their records. This form should not be submitted to USDA.
As outlined in 7 CFR Part 3407 (the CSREES supplemental regulations implementing NEPA), the environmental data for any proposed project is to be provided to CSREES so that CSREES may determine whether any further action is needed. In some cases, the preparation of environmental data may not be required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the requirements of NEPA.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is needed with respect to NEPA, pertinent information regarding the possible environmental impacts of a particular project is necessary; therefore, Form CSREES-1234, “NEPA Exclusions
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions, CSREES may determine that an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for an activity, if substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may cause such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
Proposals must be received on or before 5:00 P.M., June 19, 2001. Proposals received after this date will not be considered for funding.
An original and 14 copies must be submitted. In addition submit 10 copies of the proposal's Project Summary. All copies of the proposals and the Project Summaries must be submitted in one package.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the USDA. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Fund for Rural America, c/o Proposal Services Unit, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 1307, Waterfront Centre, 800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024, Telephone: 202-205-0241.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Fund for Rural America, c/o Proposal Services Unit, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 2245, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2245, Telephone: 202-205-0241.
The receipt of proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses, where designated, on the Form CSREES-661. If the applicant's e-mail address is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of the proposal by letter.
Once the proposal has been assigned an identification number, please cite that number on all future correspondence. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission deadline, please contact the Program Director.
For research projects CRIS Forms AD-416 and AD-417, will be requested if a proposal is identified for funding. In addition, grantees will be asked to submit annual CRIS progress reports.
Each proposal will be evaluated in a three-part process. First, each proposal will be screened to ensure that it falls within the scope of the request for proposals. Proposals that do not fall within the guidelines as stated in this RFP, including the Program Area Description, will be eliminated from competition and returned to the applicant. Second, proposals that meet these guidelines will be evaluated by a peer review panel which will provide written comments on and discuss each proposal prior to recommending applications for funding.
The peer review panel will be composed of persons who are uniquely qualified by training and experience in their respective fields to render expert advice on the merit, quality and relevance of the proposals. This training and experience includes academic training in research, education and extension as well as practical experience in community-related issues. Peer review panel members will be selected in such a way as to form a diverse group of individuals characterized by the following: (a) Academicians with relevant research, education or extension training and experience; (b) practitioners, including an appropriate mix of producers, entrepreneurs, consumers, community leaders, consultants, etc.); (c) a variety of organizational types (e.g., colleges, universities, industry, state and Federal agencies, private profit and non-profit organizations); (d) a variety of geographic locations; and (e) a broad gender, ethnic, racial, and age representation.
In addition to peer review, the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board will assess the relevance of projects recommended for funding toward achieving the programmatic goals of the FFRA.
The review of applications submitted for funding consideration will consist of a technical evaluation conducted by CSREES using the competitive peer review process. The following evaluation factors will be applied. All evaluation factors will be weighted equally.
1.
2.
3.
During the peer evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to prevent any actual or perceived conflicts-of-interest that may impact review or evaluation. For the purpose of determining conflicts-of-interest, the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution shall be determined by reference to the 2000 Higher Education Directory, published by Higher Education Publications, Inc., 6400 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 648, Falls Church, Virginia 22042. Phone: (703) 532-2305.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as proposal content and peer evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of peer reviewers will remain confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names of reviewers will not be released to applicants. At the end of the fiscal year, names of panelists will be made available in such a way that the panelists cannot be identified with the review of any particular proposal.
Copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of reviewers, will be sent to the applicant PI/PD after the review process has been completed.
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in this RFP. The date specified by the Administrator as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than September 30. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated on the grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so that project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All funds granted by CSREES under this RFP shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's assistance regulations (parts 3015, 3016, and 3019 of 7 CFR).
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFP, if such information has not been provided previously under this or another CSREES program. CSREES will provide copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling these requirements as part of the preaward process.
The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
(a) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to whom the Administrator has awarded a grant under the terms of this request for proposals;
(b) Title of project;
(c) Name(s) and address(es) of principal investigator(s) chosen to direct and control approved activities;
(d) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
(e) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department intends to support the project without requiring recompetition for funds;
(f) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by the Administrator during the project period;
(g) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
(h) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
(i) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to carry out its respective granting activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular grant.
The notice of grant award, in the form of a letter, will be prepared and will provide pertinent instructions or information to the grantee that is not included in the grant award document.
The mechanism by which grants may be awarded is a Standard grant. This is a funding mechanism whereby the Department agrees to support a specified level of effort for a predetermined time period without the announced intention of providing additional support at a future date.
Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant funds.
(a) The permissible changes by the grantee, PI/PD(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other similar aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the PI/PD(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the CSREES Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination.
(b) Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
(c) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes.
(d) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
(e) Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended by CSREES without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project. Institutions of higher education and other non-profit institutions by regulation can receive only one extension for a period not to exceed 12 months, 7 CFR 3019.25(e)(2). Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant, but in no case shall a grant period of performance exceed 5 years.
(f) Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or grant award.
Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant proposals considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR Part 1, subpart A—USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR Part 3—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 regarding debt collection.
7 CFR Part 15, subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
7 CFR Part 3015—USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, implementing OMB directives (i.e., Circular Nos. A-21 and A-122) and incorporating provisions of 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308, as well as general policy requirements applicable to recipients of Departmental financial assistance.
7 CFR Part 3016—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
7 CFR Part 3017—USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).
7 CFR Part 3018—USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying. Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans.
7 CFR Part 3019—USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3052—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-profit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3407—CSREES supplemental regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR Part 15b (USDA implementation of statute)—prohibiting discrimination based upon disability in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200 et seq.—Bayh-Dole Act, controlling allocation of rights to inventions made by employees of small business firms and domestic nonprofit organizations, including universities, in Federally assisted programs (implementing regulations are contained in 37 CFR Part 401).
When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record of CSREES transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within the proposal. The original copy of a proposal that does not result in a grant will be retained by the CSREES for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such a proposal will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.
For the reasons set forth in the final Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0022.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would update and clarify HUD's annual income requirements for its public housing and Section 8 assistance programs. Specifically, the proposed rule would clarify that annual income includes payments under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, but only to the extent such payments qualify as “assistance” under the TANF program regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services and are not otherwise excluded under HUD's regulation. HUD believes that the proposed clarifications will make the annual income requirements easier to understand for both program participants and public housing agencies. The proposed changes would ensure greater conformity between HUD's annual income requirements and the TANF program regulations.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
Patricia Arnaudo, Senior Programs Manager, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Public and Indian Housing, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Room 4222, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-0744 (this is not a toll-free telephone number). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
HUD's regulations at 24 CFR part 5, subpart F establish requirements governing the determination of annual income of families who apply for, or receive assistance under, the Section 8 and public housing programs. The definition of “annual income” for these programs is located at § 5.609. The HUD regulations define “annual income” to mean all amounts, monetary or not, which:
• Go to, or on behalf of, the family head or spouse (even if temporarily absent) or to any other family member;
• Are anticipated to be received from a source outside the family during the upcoming 12 month period; and
• Are not excluded under § 5.609(c).
Paragraph (b) of § 5.609 provides several examples of amounts considered annual income, including “welfare assistance” payments (see § 5.609(b)(6)). Additionally, § 5.609(b)(6) provides rules for determining the amount of income when the welfare assistance payment includes an amount specifically designated for shelter and utilities that is subject to adjustment by the welfare assistance agency in accordance with the actual costs of these items. The term “welfare assistance” is defined at § 5.603, which states the definitions of terms used throughout 24 CFR part 5, subpart F. Specifically, this term is defined to mean “[w]elfare or other payments to families or individuals, based on need, that are made under programs funded, separately or jointly, by Federal, State or local governments.”
HUD's definition of “welfare assistance” at § 5.603 includes assistance provided under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The TANF program was established pursuant to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193, approved August 22, 1996) (PRWORA). This legislation enacted comprehensive reforms that changed the nation's welfare system dramatically. The PRWORA reforms placed a new focus on moving recipients into work and time limits on assistance. The TANF block grant program replaced the existing welfare program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), which provided cash assistance to needy families on an entitlement basis. It also replaced the related programs known as the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program (JOBS) and Emergency Assistance (EA).
The TANF program is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which has issued implementing regulations in parts 260 through 265 of title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The HHS regulations were established by final rule published on April 12, 1999 (64 FR 17720). The HHS final rule followed publication of a November 20, 1997 proposed rule (62 FR 62124) and took into consideration the public comments received on the proposed rule. The final rule became effective on October 1, 1999.
The TANF program regulations define the term “assistance” at 45 CFR 260.31:
(a)(1) The term “assistance” includes cash, payments, vouchers, and other forms of benefits designed to meet a family's ongoing basic needs (i.e., for food, clothing, shelter, utilities, household goods, personal care items, and general incidental expenses).
(2) It includes such benefits even when they are:
(i) Provided in the form of payments by a TANF agency, or other agency on its behalf, to individual recipients; and
(ii) Conditioned on participation in work experience or community service (or any other work activity under 261.30 of this chapter).
(3) Except where excluded under paragraph (b) of this section, it also includes supportive services such as transportation and child care provided to families who are not employed.
The regulation at 45 CFR 260.31(b) also specifies what types of benefits are not considered “assistance” for purposes of the TANF program:
(b) [The term “assistance”] excludes:
(1) Nonrecurrent, short-term benefits that:
(i) Are designed to deal with a specific crisis situation or episode of need;
(ii) Are not intended to meet recurrent or ongoing needs; and
(iii) Will not extend beyond four months.
(2) Work subsidies (i.e., payments to employers or third parties to help cover the costs of employee wages, benefits, supervision, and training);
(3) Supportive services such as child care and transportation provided to families who are employed;
(4) Refundable earned income tax credits;
(5) Contributions to, and distributions from, Individual Development Accounts;
(6) Services such as counseling, case management, peer support, child care information and referral, transitional services, job retention, job advancement, and other employment-related services that do not provide basic income support; and
(7) Transportation benefits provided under a Job Access or Reverse Commute project, pursuant to section 404(k) of [the Social Security] Act, to an individual who is not otherwise receiving assistance.
This proposed rule would make two changes designed to clarify the relationship between HUD's annual income requirements for its Section 8 and public housing programs, and the TANF program definition of “assistance.” First, the proposed rule would clarify that the term “welfare assistance,” for purposes of calculating annual income, includes TANF payments, but only to the extent such payments meet the definition of “assistance” under 45 CFR 260.31 and are not otherwise excluded under § 5.609(c).
The proposed rule would also make a clarifying amendment to the definition of “welfare assistance” at § 5.603. Specifically, the proposed rule would clarify that welfare assistance includes TANF “assistance,” as that term is defined by the HHS regulation at 45 CFR 260.31.
HUD believes that the proposed clarifications will make the annual income requirements easier to understand for program participants and public housing agencies. The proposed amendments will also ensure greater conformity between the annual income requirements and the TANF program regulations.
In May 2000, HUD issued Notice PIH 2000-11 providing guidance (including a model cooperation agreement) on the collaboration between public housing agencies (PHAs) and welfare (TANF) departments to implement the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (Title V of the Fiscal Year 1999 HUD Appropriations Act; Public Law 105-276, approved October 21, 1998) (QHWRA). This guidance was coordinated with HHS and sent to all HUD and HHS field offices, as well as to PHAs and TANF agencies. During 2000, HUD provided training for PHAs and public housing residents on QHWRA, which included Notice PIH 2000-11. HUD invites comments on the use of Notice PIH 2000-11, as well as on whether other guidance and training is needed to effectuate further public housing and welfare coordination.
A Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the environment has been made in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR part 50, which implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4223). The Finding of No Significant Impact is available for public inspection between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC.
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has reviewed and approved this rule and in so doing certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. There are no anti-competitive discriminatory aspects of the rule with regard to small entities, and there are not any unusual procedures that would need to be complied with by small entities.
Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This proposed rule would not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector within the meaning of Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for these programs are 14.850 and 14.871.
Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Claims, Drug abuse, Drug traffic control, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing, Mortgage insurance, Pets, Public housing, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 5 as follows:
1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 5 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d), unless otherwise noted.
2. The authority citation for subpart F continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1437a, 1437c, 1437d, 1437f, 1437n, and 3535(d).
3. In § 5.603(b), revise the definition of
4. Revise § 5.609(b)(6) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(6) Welfare assistance payments.
(i) Welfare assistance payments made under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program are included in annual income only to the extent such payments:
(A) Qualify as assistance under the TANF program definition at 45 CFR 260.31; and
(B) Are not otherwise excluded under paragraph (c) of this section.
(ii) If the welfare assistance payment includes an amount specifically designated for shelter and utilities that is subject to adjustment by the welfare assistance agency in accordance with the actual cost of shelter and utilities, the amount of welfare assistance income to be included as income shall consist of:
(A) The amount of the allowance or grant exclusive of the amount specifically designated for shelter or utilities; plus
(B) The maximum amount that the welfare assistance agency could in fact allow the family for shelter and utilities. If the family's welfare assistance is ratably reduced from the standard of need by applying a percentage, the amount calculated under this paragraph shall be the amount resulting from one application of the percentage.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Commerce.
Notice of applications received.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) previously announced the solicitation of grant applications for the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP). This notice announces the list of applications received and notifies any interested party that it may file comments with the Agency supporting or opposing an application.
William Cooperman, Director, Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, telephone: (202) 482-5802; fax: (202) 482-2156. Information about the PTFP can also be obtained electronically via Internet. The PTFP Internet site can be accessed at
By
In all, the PTFP received 251 applications from 50 states and territories (including the District of Columbia). The total amount of funds requested by the applicants is $168 million. Requests for FY 2001 funds total $123 million with an additional $45 million requested during FY 2002-2003 as part of multi-year digital television applications.
Notice is hereby given that the PTFP received applications from the following organizations. The list includes all applications received. Identification of any application only indicates its receipt. It does not indicate that it has been accepted for review, has been determined to be eligible for funding, or that an application will receive an award. Further information about each application is available on the PTFP Internet site at
Any interested party may file comments with the Agency supporting or opposing an application and setting forth the grounds for support or opposition. PTFP will forward a copy of any opposing comments to the applicant. Comments must be sent to PTFP at the following address: NTIA/PTFP, Room 4625, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Agency will incorporate all comments from the public and any replies from the applicant in the applicant's official file.