Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Technology Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Customs Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for Boeing Model 727-200 airplanes modified by Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing. These modified airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. The modification incorporates the installation of a new electronic air data system, consisting of an electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) and dual air data computers, that performs critical functions. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of these systems from the effects of high-intensity-radiated fields (HIRF). These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The effective date of these special conditions is September 24, 2001. Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2001.
Comments on these special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Transport Airplane Directorate, Attention: Rules Docket (ANM-113), Docket No. NM194, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; or delivered in duplicate to the Transport Airplane Directorate at the above address. All comments must be marked: Docket No. NM194. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Meghan Gordon, FAA, Standardization Branch, ANM-113, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2138; facsimile (425) 227-1149.
The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the approval design and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance.
Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the rules docket number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. The Administrator will consider all communications received on or before the closing date for comments. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to these special conditions must include with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. NM194.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
On February 6, 2001, Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing, 302 Toledo Trail Drive, Georgetown, Texas, 78628, applied for a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) to modify Boeing Model 727-200 airplanes. These airplanes are low-wing, pressurized transport category airplanes with three fuselage-mounted jet engines. They are capable of seating between 170 and 189 passengers, depending upon the model and configuration. The modification incorporates the installation of a new electronic air data system consisting of an electronic Horizontal Situation Indicator (HSI) and dual air data computers. The avionics/electronics and electrical systems installed in this airplane have the potential to be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF).
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing must show that the Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes, as modified to include the new electronic air data system, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A3WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The specific regulations included in the certification basis for the Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes include Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b, as amended by amendment 4b-1 through 4b-11.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Boeing Model 727-200 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
Special conditions, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).
As noted earlier, the Boeing 727-200 airplanes modified by Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing will incorporate a new electronic air data system, consisting of an electronic HSI and dual air data computers, that will perform critical functions. This system may be vulnerable to high-intensity radiated fields. The current airworthiness standards of part 25 do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the protection of this equipment from the adverse effects of HIRF. Accordingly, this system is considered to be a novel or unusual design feature.
There is no specific regulation that addresses requirements for protection of electrical and electronic systems from HIRF. Increased power levels from ground-based radio transmitters and the growing use of sensitive electrical and electronic systems to command and control airplanes have made it necessary to provide adequate protection.
To ensure that a level of safety is achieved that is equivalent to that intended by the regulations incorporated by reference, special conditions are needed for the Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes modified by Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing. These special conditions will require that this system, which performs critical functions, must be designed and installed to preclude component damage and interruption of function due to both the direct and indirect effects of HIRF.
With the trend toward increased power levels from ground-based transmitters, plus the advent of space and satellite communications coupled with electronic command and control of the airplane, the immunity of critical digital avionics systems to HIRF must be established.
It is not possible to precisely define the HIRF to which the airplane will be exposed in service. There is also uncertainty concerning the effectiveness of airframe shielding for HIRF. Furthermore, coupling of electromagnetic energy to flight deck-installed equipment through the cockpit window apertures is undefined. Based on surveys and analysis of existing HIRF emitters, an adequate level of protection exists when compliance with the HIRF protection special condition is shown with either paragraph 1 OR 2 below:
1. A minimum threat of 100 volts rms per meter electric field strength from 10 KHz to 18 GHz.
a. The threat must be applied to the system elements and their associated wiring harnesses without the benefit of airframe shielding.
b. Demonstration of this level of protection is established through system tests and analysis.
2. A threat external to the airframe of the following field strengths for the frequency ranges indicated. Both peak and average field strength components from the Table are to be demonstrated.
The threat levels identified above are the result of an FAA review of existing studies on the subject of HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes modified by Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing to install a new electronic air data system. Should Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A3WE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101(a)(1).
This action affects only certain design features on the Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes modified by Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing to include the new electronic air data system. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplanes.
The substance of the special conditions for these airplanes has been subjected to the notice and comment procedure in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. For this reason, and because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions immediately. Therefore, these special conditions are being made effective upon issuance. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the supplemental type certification basis for the Boeing Model 727-200 series airplanes as modified by Aircraft Systems & Manufacturing.
1.
2. For the purpose of these special conditions, the following definition applies:
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all Airbus Model A340-211 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate ST09092AC-D, that requires modifying the passenger entertainment system (PES) and revising the Flight Crew Operating Manual. This action is necessary to ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the entire PES when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action. Inability to remove power from the PES during a non-normal or emergency situation could result in inability to control smoke or fumes in the airplane flight deck or cabin. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective October 15, 2001.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 15, 2001.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Raytheon Systems Company, Intelligence Information and Aircraft Integration Systems, 7500 Maehre Road, Waco, Texas 76705. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; at the FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Ingrid Knox, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, ASW-150, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137-4298; telephone (817) 222-5139; fax (817) 222-5960.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all Airbus Model A340-211 series airplanes modified by supplemental type certificate (STC) ST09092AC-D was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the single comment received.
The commenter requests that the FAA revise the final rule to omit the references to the Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France. The commenter points out that the PES system that is the subject of the proposed AD was approved by an American STC; thus, the DGAC is not the primary airworthiness authority for the STC as the proposed rule states.
We concur. The references in the proposed rule to the DGAC were included in error. However, the sections that contained the subject references are not restated in this final rule. Therefore, no change to the final rule is necessary.
After careful review of the available data, including the comment noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
None of the airplanes affected by this action are on the U.S. Register. The single airplane included in the applicability of this AD currently is operated by a non-U.S. operator under foreign registry; therefore, it is not directly affected by this AD action. However, the FAA considers that this rule is necessary to ensure that the unsafe condition is addressed in the event that the subject airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it will take approximately 28 work hours to accomplish the modification, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $162,597 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required modification would be $164,277.
Should the affected airplane be imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the future, it will take approximately 1 work hour to accomplish the manual revision, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required manual revision would be $60.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this 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 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.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)
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 otherwise 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 (c) 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 ensure that the flight crew is able to remove electrical power from the entire passenger entertainment system (PES) when necessary and is advised of appropriate procedures for such action, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, do paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.
(1) Modify the PES by replacing the three-unit busbar with a two-unit busbar and installing associated wiring, in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin A340VIP-24-1, dated August 28, 2000.
(2) Revise the Electrical Controls and Indicators section of the Airbus A340 Flight Crew Operating Manual to advise the flight crew that power to the PES can be removed by using the “COMMERCIAL” switch in the flight compartment, by inserting “Electrical Controls and Indicators,” 1.24.20, page 4, Revision 07, dated October 1995, of the Airbus A340 Flight Crew Operating Manual.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install a PES system in accordance with STC ST09092AC-D on any airplane, unless it is modified and the Flight Crew Operating Manual is revised in accordance with this AD.
(c) 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, Fort Worth Airplane 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, Fort Worth ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Fort Worth ACO.
(d) 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.
(e) The actions shall be done in accordance with Raytheon Service Bulletin A340VIP-24-1, dated August 28, 2000; and Airbus A340 Flight Crew Operating Manual “Electrical Controls and Indicators,” 1.24.20, page 4, Revision 07, dated October 1995; as applicable. The Airbus A340 Flight Crew Operating Manual contains the following list of effective pages:
(f) This amendment becomes effective on October 15, 2001.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
An effective date for each SIAP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
Incorporation by reference-approved by the Director of the Federal Register on December 31, 1980, and reapproved as of January 1, 1982.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located; or
3. The Flight Inspection Area Office which originated the SIAP.
1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected airport is located.
Donald P. Pate, Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AMCAFS-420), Flight Technologies and Programs Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd. Oklahoma City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082 Oklahoma City, OK 73125) telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This amendment to part 97 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 97) establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is contained in official FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and § 97.20 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). The applicable FAA Forms are identified as FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, and 8260-5. Materials incorporated by reference are available for examination or purchase as stated above.
The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
This amendment to part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP as contained in the transmittal. Some SIAP amendments may have been previously issued by the FAA in a National Flight Data Center (NFDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for some SIAP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPS, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore-(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Navigation (Air).
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120, 44701; and 14 CFR 11.49(b)(2).
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, ISMLS, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, identified as follows:
The FAA published the following procedures in Docket No. 30264, Amdt. No. 2065 to Part 97 of the Federal Aviation Administration Regulations (
Change the effective on the following procedures to November 1, 2001:
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Department of Commerce.
Final rule; notice of availability of environmental assessment.
NOAA amends the regulations governing activities in the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS or Sanctuary) to prohibit the operation of motorized personal watercraft (MPWC) within the boundaries of the GFNMS. This regulation is necessary to protect sensitive biological resources, to minimize user conflict, and to protect the ecological, aesthetic, and recreational qualities of the Sanctuary. NOAA also announces the availability of an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the rule.
Effective October 10, 2001.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment are available upon request from the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Fort Mason, Building 201, San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 561-6622.
Ed Ueber at (415) 561-6622.
In recognition of the national significance of the unique marine environment of the Gulf of the Farrallones, California, the GFNMS was designated in January 1981. The GFNMS regulations at 15 CFR part 922, Subpart H prohibit a relatively narrow range of activities to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. On April 18, 1996, the Environmental Action Committee (EAC) of West Marin, California, petitioned the GFNMS to ban the use of MPWC in the Sanctuary. Operation of MPWC is currently not regulated under GFNMS regulations. The EAC identified a number of concerns regarding the use of MPWC within the Sanctuary. In its petition, the EAC asserted that: MPWC are completely incompatible with the existence of a marine sanctuary; pose a danger to the biological resources of the sanctuary, such as marine mammals, wildfowl, kelp beds, anadromous fish, and other marine life; create noise, water and air pollution; and threaten mariculture and other commerce throughout the Sanctuary. The EAC also stated that MPWC create a hazard for other Sanctuary users, including swimmers, sailboats, windsurfers, open-water rowing shells and kayaks. NOAA also received 195 letters from members of the public in response to media publicity about the petition. Sixty-four percent opposed regulation of MPWC; 33% supported the EAC's requested ban; one percent expressed no clear opinion.
To supplement existing information on the use and impacts of MPWC, NOAA published a Notice of Inquiry/Request for Information in the Federal Register on August 21, 1997, initiating a 45-day comment period that ended October 6, 1997. NOAA requested information on the following: (1) The number of motorized personal watercraft being operated in the Sanctuary; (2) possible future trends in such numbers; (3) the customary launching areas for motorized personal watercraft in or near the Sanctuary; (4) the areas of use of motorized personal watercraft activity in the Sanctuary, including areas of concentrated use; (5) the periods (e.g., time of year, day) of use of motorized personal watercraft in the Sanctuary, including periods of high incidence of use; (6) studies or technical articles concerning the impacts of motorized personal watercraft on marine resources and other users; (7) first person or documented accounts of impacts of motorized personal watercraft on marine resources and other users; and (8) any other information or other comments that may be pertinent to this issue. NOAA received 160 public comments in response to the notice of inquiry and two signature petitions during the comment period. One hundred fifty-three (96%) supported banning the operation of MPWC within the GFNMS. Two signature petitions were also received; one, with 276 signatures, supported the ban; the second, with 41 signatures, opposed the ban. Forty-four people spoke at a public meeting held to gather information during the comment period, all but one of who supported the petition to ban MPWC operation. Half of the speakers at the public meeting had previously submitted written comments.
Responses to and investigation of the specific questions in the August, 1997 notice revealed that: (1) The number of MPWC currently being operated in Sanctuary waters is believed to be 20 by the proprietors of Lawson's Landing, the primary MPWC launch site in Sanctuary waters, and these users make less than 200 launches per year; (2) the use of MPWC in Sanctuary waters is believed to be increasing; (3) there are two established MPWC launch sites in the Sanctuary, at Bodega Harbor and Lawson's Landing; (4) the areas in the Sanctuary where MPWC are operated are in the vicinity of the mouth of Tomales Bay and the area outside Bodega Harbor-over 95% of MPWC operation that occurs in the Sanctuary occurs in these areas; (5) April through November appear to be the times of highest use of MPWC in Sanctuary waters; (6, 7, and 8) numerous studies, technical articles, and personal documentation such as photos, letters and logs of the impacts of MPWC on marine resources and other users were received and collected.
The following were identified during NOAA's review of this issue: (1) Water-based recreational activity is increasing in the United States; (2) water-based recreational activity has impacted coastal habitats, seabirds, marine mammals and fish; (3) operation of MPWC is a relatively new and increasingly popular water sport; (4) MPWC, are different from other types of motorized watercraft in their structure (smaller size, shallower draft, two-stroke engine, and exhaust venting to water as opposed to air) and their operational impacts (operated at faster speeds, operated closer to shore, make quicker turns, stay in a limited area, tend to operate in groups, and have more unpredictable movements); (5) MPWC have been operated in such a manner as to create a safety hazard to other resource users in the vicinity; (6) MPWC may interfere with marine commercial users; (7) MPWC have disturbed natural quiet and aesthetic appreciation; (8) MPWC have interfered with other marine recreational uses; (9) MPWC have impacted coastal and marine habitats; (10) MPWC have disturbed waterfowl and seabirds; (11) MPWC have disturbed marine mammals; (12) MPWC may disturb fish; (13) other jurisdictions have had problems with MPWC and have proposed and implemented various means of attempting to solve the problems; (14) the Sanctuary has sensitive areas that were deemed worthy of protection by the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary, including five State designated Areas of Special Biological Significance and four semi-enclosed estuarine areas; and (15) MPWC present a present and potential threat to resources and users of the GFNMS.
Based on this information, the NMSP published a proposed rule to prohibit operation of MPWC from the mean high tide line seaward to 1000 yards. The proposed rule was designed to protect Sanctuary resources and minimizing user conflict in the nearshore areas. NOAA received 53 public comments on the proposed rule. Fifty-one commentors (96%) supported a full ban on MPWC within the GFNMS and 2 (4%) opposed the proposed regulations. On June 2, 1999, a public hearing to accept comments on the proposed rule was held in Point Reyes, California. Five people spoke at the public hearing. Three people spoke in favor of a complete ban on MPWC within the GFNMS and two people spoke out against the proposed 1000-yard restriction. Comments received on the April 23 rule and NOAA's responses were included in the preamble to the proposed rule that was published in the
After considering the comments in response to the proposed rule, reviewing new and recent MPWC regulations for agencies with contiguous or overlapping boundaries, and reviewing recent biological information, NOAA concluded that a total prohibition on the operation of MPWC would be necessary to adequately protect Sanctuary resources. On May 22, 2000, NOAA published a notice of
The waters of the Sanctuary are home to a rich diversity of organisms and provide critical habitat for seabirds, marine mammals, fishes, invertebrates, sea turtles and marine flora. The biological importance and uniqueness of Sanctuary waters have been internationally recognized by the incorporation of Sanctuary waters into the United Nations' Man in the Biosphere system as part of the Golden Gate Biosphere Reserve, and the designation of Bolinas Lagoon as a RAMSAR (Convention for Wetlands of International Significance) site.
Because of its unique geology and geography, the biological diversity found within the GFNMS rivals any location along the Pacific coast. Fueled by the strongest coastal upwelling in North America (Bakun, 1973), abundant biological resources thrive in the productive waters of the Gulf's broad, shallow continental shelf. A counter-clockwise eddy that swirls south of Point Reyes in the Gulf of the Farallones concentrates the products of upwelling (Wing et al., 1995) and acts like an incubator for small developing animals. These in turn are food for organisms higher on the food web. The result is a marine system that supports some of the most active commercial fisheries on the west coast, provides food and habitat to support the largest concentration of breeding seabirds in the continental United States and supports roughly 20% of the breeding population of California's harbor seals. The offshore area of the Sanctuary provides important habitat for federally endangered blue, humpback, fin, sei and sperm whales, and provides habitat for up to 50% of all the ashy storm petrels in the world and 90% of all the common murres in their southern range. Harbor porpoise, Steller sea lions, Pacific white sided dolphins, Dall's porpoise, California sea lions, common murres, Cassin's auklets, rhinoceros auklets, three species of cormorants, two species of grebes, tufted puffins, pigeon guillemots, marbled murrelets, black footed albatross, storm petrels, shearwaters, fulmars and many species of seabirds and marine mammals that are less abundant also depend on the offshore areas of the Sanctuary to provide food and shelter.
The Gulf of the Farallones is a destination feeding area for protected white sharks (Klimley and Ainley, 1996) and endangered blue and humpback whales (Kieckhefer, 1992). The sharks aggregate in coastal areas and near the Farallon islands from spring through fall to feed on an abundance of seals and sea lions. The whales travel from Mexico to feed on the concentrations of krill and forage fish found in the Sanctuary. From spring through late summer, krill swarm in the surface layers of the Gulf (Smith and Adams, 1988). It is during these daytime surface swarms that krill are most vulnerable to predators. Endangered whales, seabirds and salmon feed heavily on krill when krill are concentrated in these surface aggregations. Ten percent of California's threatened coho salmon population feed in the outer Sanctuary during the ocean phase of their life history before returning to spawn in Lagaunitas Creek and its tributaries. Recently listed populations of chinook salmon also feed in the Gulf of the Farallones as adults before returning to the Sacramento River drainage to complete their life cycle. Gray whales pass through the Sanctuary twice a year on their migration route between winter calving grounds in Mexico and summertime feeding areas in Alaska. In recent years, more individual gray whales are remaining in the Gulf of the Farallones throughout the year to feed instead of proceeding to the feeding grounds in Alaska.
The protected bays and coastal wetlands of the Sanctuary, such as Bodega Bay, Tomales Bay, Drakes Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio, include intertidal mudflats, sand flats, salt marshes, submerged rocky terraces, and shallow subtidal areas. These areas support large populations of benthic fauna and concentrations of burrowing organisms and organisms living on marine plants. Submerged eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds are prevalent in the northern portion of Tomales Bay and provide crucial feeding habitat for more than 50 resident, breeding, and migratory bird species. These eelgrass beds are also important for many marine invertebrates and for the developing egg masses of herring and other fishes. It is estimated that approximately 30 million herring spawn annually on the eelgrass beds of Tomales Bay (Fox, 1997). The shallow protected bays and estuaries within the Sanctuary, such as Tomales Bay, Drakes Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, and the esteros, are important habitat for anadromous fish, several species of surfperches, sharks, rays and flatfish. Over 150 species of fish are found in the Sanctuary including the federally endangered winter-run Chinook salmon and the federally threatened coho salmon, spring run Chinook salmon, steelhead trout and tidewater goby.
Among the hundreds of bird species that reside in or migrate through the Sanctuary, many are endangered, threatened or of special concern. These include the following species which are found in the Sanctuary and on the Farallon Islands (Key: FE=Federally listed as endangered; FT=Federally listed as threatened; SE=listed in the State of California as endangered; ST=listed in the State of California as threatened; CSC=California species of concern):
There are at least twelve critical marine bird nesting areas along the shoreline of the Sanctuary. More than twelve species of marine birds breed within the Sanctuary and the nesting population on the Farallon Islands is the largest concentration of breeding marine birds in the continental United States. During nesting and rearing of young, these sea birds are especially dependent on the Sanctuary waters for food.
Thirty-three species of marine mammals have been observed in the Sanctuary including six species of pinnipeds, one mustelid and twenty-six species of cetaceans. About 20% of the state's breeding population of harbor seals live within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, and northern fur seals are starting to recolonize historic pupping sites within the Sanctuary for the first time since 1820. Of the twenty-six species of cetaceans that occur in Sanctuary waters, nineteen are migratory, and seven are considered resident species. Many of these marine mammals occur in large concentrations and are dependent on the productive and secluded habitat of the Sanctuary's waters and adjacent coastal areas for breeding, pupping, hauling-out, feeding, and resting during migration. Three areas in the Sanctuary have been identified as critical feeding areas for the threatened Steller sea lion, including the nearshore areas around Point Reyes, the northern half of Tomales Bay and areas adjacent to the Farallon Islands.
Humpback and blue whales migrate to offshore areas of the Sanctuary each summer to feed. Fin, sei and sperm whales also frequent this area when prey are abundant. Harbor seals, elephant seals, California sea lions, Dall's porpoise, harbor porpoise and gray whales are common residents in Sanctuary waters. Gray whales pass through the Sanctuary twice a year on their migration route between winter calving grounds in Mexico and summertime feeding areas in Alaska. In recent years, individuals have remained in the Gulf of the Farallones to feed instead of proceeding to the feeding grounds in Alaska. Since 1999, gray whales have been feeding in Bodega Bay and cow-calf pairs have been entering coastal embayments in unprecedented numbers. Some individuals have acclimated to conditions in the Sanctuary and are now year-round residents. Four species of endangered sea turtles are also known to reside in or migrate through Sanctuary waters. A listing of all threatened and endangered marine mammals and sea turtles follows (Key: FE=Federally listed as endangered; FT=Federally listed as threatened; ST=listed in the State of California as threatened).
Several populations of marine mammals are starting to recover from near extinction after years of human exploitation. As populations begin to rebound, individuals are expanding the populations' distributions back to historic ranges. In many instances, such as the sea otters, gray whales, northern fur seals and elephant seals, animals are using areas that have not been utilized for decades. It is critical for the Sanctuary to provide habitat that was historically available and allow these populations to return to their natural levels.
The offshore waters of the Sanctuary also provide entrance and egress for commercial shipping traffic using ports in San Francisco Bay. Tankers and container ships traverse the Sanctuary in three offshore shipping lanes that direct traffic from different directions in and out of San Francisco Bay. These offshore waters also support an active sport and commercial fishery. Small skiffs and larger commercial vessels troll at constant speeds or drift through the Sanctuary waters fishing for salmon and albacore. Rockfish and urchin boats fish the high spots and reefs closer to shore. On the softer sediment of the continental shelf, crab fishermen lay out their lines of crab pots each one identified with a buoy at the surface. All of these activities have gear in the water that is independent from or is attached but extends some distance from the boat. The gear is not readily apparent to the casual observer. Fishermen are generally aware of how gear types are deployed and operated. In cases where
The nearshore waters of the Sanctuary are the areas most heavily used for recreation. Areas such as Tomales Bay and Dillon Beach in Bodega Bay are used for fishing, sailing, canoeing, rowing, kayaking and swimming. These activities are often conducted very close to shore and may be dependent on calm waters. Other activities conducted in the nearshore area of the Sanctuary that could be affected by MPWC include diving, windsurfing, surfing and bodyboarding.
Several Federal resource agencies have recognized MPWC as a unique type of recreational vessel that is relatively recent in origin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992; NOAA, 1992; U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1998c). MPWC are designed to be operated at high speeds, closer to shore, and to make quicker turns than other types of motorized vessels. MPWC have a disproportional thrust capability and horsepower to vessel length and/or weight, in some cases four times that of conventional vessels (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1998c). Research indicates that impacts associated with MPWC tend to be locally concentrated, producing effects that are more geographically limited yet potentially more severe than motorboat use, due to repeated disruptions and an accumulation of impacts in a shorter period of time (Snow, 1989). MPWC are generally of smaller size, with a shallower draft (4 to 9 inches), and lower horsepower (around 75, as compared to up to 250 for large pleasure craft) than most other kinds of motorized watercraft (Ballestero, 1990; Snow, 1989). The smaller size and shallower draft of MPWC means they are more maneuverable, operable closer to shore and in shallower waters than other types of motorized watercraft. This maneuverability greatly increases the potential for MPWC to disturb fragile nearshore habitats and organisms. Although wakes of MPWC may be smaller than wakes of conventional motorboats, they can be more damaging (e.g., flooding of coastal bird nests; erosion of shoreline) because MPWC are often operated faster, closer to shore and repeatedly in the same area (Snow, 1989).
MPWC are powered by a jet-propelled system that typically involves a two-stroke engine with an exhaust expulsion system that vents into the water. The two-stroke engines found on the vast majority of MPWC in the United States discharge more of their fuel (ranging from 10% to more than 50% of the unburned fuel/oil mixture, depending on manufacturing conditions and operating variables) than four-stroke engines (Tahoe Research Group, 1997). These emissions pose a serious threat to the environment, as two-stroke engines introduce more volatile organic compounds (by as much as a factor of 10) into the water than four-stroke engines (Juttner et al., 1995; Tjarnlund et al., 1995). These emissions can have significant adverse impacts in many areas of the Sanctuary, particularly shallow nearshore coastal areas, estuaries, and open ocean surface waters.
Research indicates that MPWC can increase turbidity and may redistribute benthic invertebrates, and these impacts may be prolonged as a result of repeated use by multiple machines in a limited area. Research has shown that MPWC can foul water with their discharge, and increase local erosion rates by launching and beaching repeatedly in the same locations (Snow, 1989). Research in the Everglades National Park indicated that fishing success dropped to zero when fishing occurred in the same waters used by MPWC, and scientists in the Pacific Northwest have been concerned about the effects of MPWC on spawning salmon (Snow, 1989; Sutherland and Ogle, 1975). Research in Florida indicates that MPWC cause wildlife to flush at greater distances, with more complex behavioral responses than observed in disturbances caused by automobiles, all-terrain vehicles, foot approach, or motorboats. This was partially attributed by the scientists to the typical operation of MPWC, where they accelerate and decelerate repeatedly and unpredictably, and travel at fast speeds directly toward shore, while motorboats generally slow down as they approach shore (Rodgers, 1997). Scientific research also indicates that even at slower speeds, MPWC were a significantly stronger source of disturbance to birds than were motorboats. Levels of disturbance were further increased when MPWC were used at high speeds or outside of established boating channels (Burger, 1998). Research notes that declining nesting success of grebes, coots, and moorhens in the Imperial National Wildlife Refuge were due to the noise and physical intrusion of MPWC (Snow, 1989). In addition, MPWC have been observed flushing wading birds and nesting osprey from their habitats, contributing to abnormally high numbers of abandoned osprey nests on certain islands in the Florida Keys (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). The number of active osprey nests in the lower Florida Keys “backcountry” dropped from five to zero between 1986 and 1990. Biologists believe this was due to MPWC flushing parents from the nests (Cuthbert and Suman, 1995). Research suggests that declines in nesting birds in some states occurred simultaneously with MPWC operation.
Numerous shoreline roost sites exist within the Sanctuary and research has shown that human disturbance at bird roost sites can force birds to completely abandon an area. Published evidence strongly suggests that estuarine birds may be seriously affected by even occasional disturbance during key parts of their feeding cycle, and when flushed from feeding areas, such as eelgrass beds, will usually abandon the area until the next tidal cycle (Kelly, 1997). Seabirds such as common murres and sooty shearwaters often form large aggregations on the surface of the ocean. Feeding aggregations of sooty shearwaters can often number in the thousands and cover significant offshore areas. These feeding flocks are ephemeral in nature and their movement is dictated by the availability of their prey. These seabirds are especially susceptible during these critical periods and disturbance could have negative impacts on them.
There is a general conclusion that marine mammals are more disturbed by watercraft such as MPWC, which run faster, on varying courses, or often change direction and speed, than they are by boats running parallel to shore with no abrupt course or major speed changes. Researchers note that MPWC may be disruptive to marine mammals because they change speed and direction frequently, are unpredictable, and may transit the same area repeatedly in a short period of time. In addition, because MPWC lack low-frequency long distance sounds underwater, they do not signal surfacing mammals or birds of approaching danger until they are very close to them (Gentry, 1996; Osborne, 1996). Possible disturbance effects of MPWC on marine mammals could include shifts in activity patterns and site abandonment by harbor seals and Steller sea lions; site abandonment by harbor porpoise; injuries from collisions; and avoidance by whales (Gentry, 1996; Richardson et al., 1995).
The offshore area of the Sanctuary is a destination feeding ground for endangered blue and humpback whales. Fin, sei, and sperm whales also frequent offshore areas to forage. The recent MPWC bans implemented by PRNS and GGNRA limit the nearshore areas of the Sanctuary where MPWC can be operated and increase the likelihood that MPWC will be used in the Sanctuary's offshore area. The traffic route from the launch site in Bodega Harbor through Bodega Bay to and from this offshore area would put MPWC in offshore feeding areas for federally listed seabirds, marine mammals, and salmon. It would also cross the migration corridor for gray whales and put MPWC in close proximity to gray whale feeding areas in Bodega Bay. Gray whales pass through the Sanctuary twice a year on their migration route between winter calving grounds in Mexico and summertime feeding areas in Alaska.
In 1995, some gray whales began feeding in the Gulf of the Farallones in lieu of completing their yearly migration to Alaskan feeding grounds and some of these animals are beginning to reside in the Gulf year-round. Since 1999, gray whales have been feeding in Bodega Bay in unprecedented numbers. Some individuals have acclimated to conditions in the Sanctuary and are now year round residents. In early summer, gray whales begin foraging in Bodega Bay with the most recent feeding activity documented in early April, 2000 (Dr. Sarah Allen, Point Reyes National Seashore, pers. comm. April 11, 2000).
Historically, there were four launch sites used by MPWC to access Sanctuary waters: Lawson's Landing at Dillon Beach, Millerton Point Park, Inverness, and Bodega Harbor. Millerton Point Park and Inverness are now closed to launching MPWC as a result of the prohibition against MPWC operation in PRNS and GGNRA. Lawson's Landing is in Marin County and was closed to MPWC by the 1999 County ordinance but can be used at the present time because of the tentative ruling by the Marin Superior Court on September 13, 2000, described above. Currently, the only remaining egress into the Sanctuary is from Lawson's Landing and from Bodega Harbor in Sonoma County. Use by MPWC of an egress corridor from Bodega Harbor in Sonoma County would put MPWC in the same vicinity as the feeding whales. Gray whales have not been observed in Bodega Bay when MPWC are using the area. With site affinity not firmly established for gray whales starting to feed in Bodega Bay, it's important that these whales be allowed to forage without repeated disturbance.
Endangered blue whales were also observed feeding two miles off of the Point Reyes headlands during July of 1999. This is unusually close to shore for these animals, whose numbers in the area comprise a major concentration for the world, and who normally forage farther offshore. This unpredictable blue whale feeding activity demonstrates the importance of protecting all of the Sanctuary's waters. As marine mammal populations begin to recover from years of harvesting pressure, it is difficult to predict what areas of the Sanctuary will be utilized. Humpback whales regularly feed in areas outside NOAA's previously proposed 1000 yard buffer (Kiekhefer, 1992). During summer and fall more than 100 humpback whales can be observed moving around the Gulf of the Farallones following concentrations of herring, sardines, or krill that are their favorite prey. Humpbacks use bubble nets and other behavioral adaptations during feeding to drive their prey to the surface where they are trapped by the air-sea interface and captured.
Federally listed Southern sea otter populations are also recovering from near extinction and recolonizing areas within their historic range. Sitings of sea otters in the GFNMS have increased from two individuals in 1992 to 20 animals in 1998 (Dr. Sarah Allen, Point Reyes National Seashore, pers. comm. July, 1999). Prior to the designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, an otter in that area was struck and killed by an MPWC. (NOAA 1990, Volume 1). Operation of MPWC in GFNMS could put these animals at risk in an area that appears to be providing habitat and an opportunity for the species' survival.
In Sanctuary waters beyond three nautical miles are found 11 federally endangered and 7 threatened species of birds, fish, turtles, and marine mammals, and 50% of all the ashy storm petrels in the world and 90% of all the common murres in their southern range. These waters are a destination feeding area for concentrations of endangered blue and humpback whales, feeding summer resident fin, sei and sperm whales, endangered winter run chinook and coho salmon.
MPWC have significant potential to interfere with a large number of other Sanctuary users. Numerous respondents to the Notice of Inquiry/Request for Information and the April 23, 1999, proposed rule and the subsequent revised proposed rule on May 22, 2000, noted that MPWC were interfering with, and often jeopardizing the well-being of, swimmers, kayakers, canoeists, and other boaters and users of the Sanctuary. MPWC have been involved in numerous accidents, and thus pose a hazard to other vessels and water users. Although MPWC make up approximately 11% of vessels registered in the country (U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1998c), Coast Guard statistics show that in 1996 MPWC were involved in 36% of all watercraft accidents (U.S. Coast Guard, 1999). In addition, numerous commentors noted that the operation of MPWC diminishes the aesthetic qualities of many coastal and ocean areas, and may interfere with other economic uses, such as tourism.
In addition, whales are not the only wildlife that inhabit the Sanctuary that are disturbed and negatively impacted by the use of MPWC. A seasonal closure may only offer protection to one or two specific species, but not to the other 33-marine mammals or the hundreds of bird and fish species found throughout the Sanctuary on a year-around basis. Although the concentration of certain species does occur on a seasonal basis, the seasonal overlay among species is continuous throughout the year and a seasonal prohibition would not provide full protection.
A seasonal ban will also not adequately address the other concerns related to MPWC use in the Sanctuary such as noise, conflicts with other Sanctuary users, turbidity, and water quality concerns related to 2-stroke engines. A more detailed explanation of these concerns is found in response to comment numbers 7, 8, and 6.
There is a general conclusion that marine mammals are more disturbed by watercraft such as MPWC, which run faster, on varying courses, or often change direction and speed, than they are by boats running parallel to shore with no abrupt course or major speed change. In addition, because MPWC lack low-frequency long distance sounds underwater, they do not signal surfacing mammals or birds of approaching danger until they are very close to them (Gentry, 1996; Osborne, 1996). Documented disturbance effects of MPWC on marine mammals could include shifts in activity patterns and site abandonment by harbor seals and Steller sea lions; site abandonment by harbor porpoise; injuries from collisions; and avoidance by whales (Gentry, 1996; Richardson et al., 1995).
Additional comments received noted that the operation of MPWC in nearshore areas diminishes the aesthetic qualities of many beach and recreational areas, and may interfere with other economic uses of the areas based upon these aesthetic qualities.
Despite local rider's attempt at self-policing and their efforts to create no ride zones, violations were chronic and regulations were hard to enforce. A total prohibition will provide a clear and simple enforcement rule within the GFNMS, will avoid confusion and will avoid the cost of installation and maintenance of a delineation system.
Delineation of MPWC zones with buoys is in place at the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) and it is needed for enforcement because MPWC lack standard navigational equipment and chart storage. MBNMS's regulation delineates four near harbor areas and bouys are in place to mark the boundary. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) does not have a specific MPWC regulation, however there are a number of small areas that are closed to motorized vessels. These areas are delineated by spar buoys or 30 inch buoys every 400 to 600 feet. The annual cost of maintenance and placement of each buoy is $250-$500 respectively (Upper Keys Manager, Lt.Cdr. David Savage, pers.com. October 3, 2000). These buoys are placed in shallow (1-2 fathoms maximum 12 feet) water. Because of weather and sea conditions, the GFNMS would require a 48 inch or larger buoys placed at a depth of 15-41 fathoms (90-246 feet) at a cost of $2,000 to $5,000 each. These larger buoys are needed because of ground tackle requirements for sea conditions. In addition, if the GFNMS were to place buoys 1,200 feet apart (double the width of the FKNMS placement), a minimum of 4,000 buoys would be required to indicate channels and closed areas (5 buoys per nautical mile to mark 80 nautical miles).
NOAA believes that it has provided sufficient opportunities for members of the public to comment on this issue and has fulfilled all public notice requirements. NOAA is not required to accept electronic comments and does not yet have a formal policy on this issue.
The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary protects a single species and it is not required to address the complexity of the species composition at GFNMS, which has 33 marine mammal, 400 bird, and hundreds of fish species. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) does have a current restriction on MPWC use within 100 yards of residential shoreline to a no-wake speed (including other motorized vessels). However, in October 1999, the FKNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council decided that these strategies had been ineffective and voted to advise the Sanctuary managers to consider new regulations that could result in additional restrictions to MPWC in Florida.
NOAA believes regulations for each National Marine Sanctuary must be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the unique features of each location, including living resources, physical characteristics, and use.
The May 22, 2000,
Other reasons as to why NOAA has proposed a complete ban are delineation and enforcement. As discussed in response to comment 10, NOAA's initial proposed ban of 1,000 yards from shore would be difficult and costly to enforce in terms of personnel and buoy installation and maintenance.
As indicated in the EA, researchers have reported that MPWC may be disruptive to marine mammals because MPWC change speed and direction frequently, are unpredictable, and may transit the same area repeatedly in a short period of time. It is true that MPWC lack low-frequency long distance sounds underwater. However, this does not mean that marine mammals are not adversely impacted by the MPWC noise. Whether the noise is heard at close range or farther away, it still will disturb marine mammals which may cause shifts in activity patterns, site abandonment, or avoidance. Since marine mammals are limited to close range detection of MPWC noise and activity there is a greater chance of collision.
No-wake zones would only provide protection in limited areas but would be very expensive because they would require marker buoys. Sanctuary resources outside of these zones would still be at risk from the effects of MPWC operation.
The regulations for the GFNMS are amended as follows:
The addition to 15 CFR 922.82(a) prohibits operation of MPWC in the Sanctuary. The prohibition includes an exception for the use of MPWC for emergency search and rescue and law enforcement (other than training activities) by Federal, State and local jurisdictions.
The addition to 15 CFR 922.81 provides a definition of “motorized personal watercraft.” “Motorized personal watercraft” will be defined as “a vessel which uses an inboard motor powering a water jet pump as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel”.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration when this rule was proposed that if it was adopted as proposed it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. No comments were received on the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities and, therefore, the basis for the certification has not changed.
Accordingly, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared.
This rule would not impose an information collection requirement subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3500
NOAA has concluded that this regulatory action does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. A draft environmental assessment has been prepared. It is available for comment from the address listed at the beginning of this notice.
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Education, Environmental protection, Marine resources, Penalties, Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Research.
16 U.S.C. 1431
(a) * * *
(7) Operation of motorized personal watercraft, except for the operation of motorized personal watercraft for emergency search and rescue mission or law enforcement operations (other than routine training activities) carried out by National Park Service, U.S. Coast Guard, Fire or Police Departments or other Federal, State or local jurisdictions.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Final rule; technical amendment.
In the
This rule is effective September 10, 2001.
Heather S. Rosecrans, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (HFZ-404), 9200 Corporate Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850, 301-594-1190.
Provisions under section 206 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA) exempt certain class I devices from the premarket notification requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). To implement the new law, FDA evaluated all class I devices to determine which device types should become exempt under the new provisions and which device types should remain subject to the requirements of 510(k) of the act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)). FDA then amended its classification regulations through a series of publications in the
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.30(h) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
FDA has examined the impact of this rule under Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) (as amended by subtitle D of the Small Business Regulatory Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121)), and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that this rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and principles identified in the Executive order. In addition, this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive order and so is not subject to review under the Executive order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. Because this rule does not change the status quo for these devices, the agency certifies that this final rule will not have a significant negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires that agencies prepare a written statement of anticipated costs and benefits before proposing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act does not require FDA to prepare a statement of costs and benefits for the final rule, because the final rule is not expected to result in any 1-year expenditure that would exceed $100 million.
This final rule contains no collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Medical devices.
Medical devices, Radiation protection, X-rays.
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 872 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(b)
3. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 878 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(b)
5. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 880 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
10. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 882 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(b)
(b)
13. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 884 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(a) * * *
(2)
(a) * * *
(2)
16. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 892 continues to read as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.
(b)
(b)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions were submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) to establish and require reasonably available control technology (RACT) for 14 major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxides ( NO
This rule is effective on October 25, 2001, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 10, 2001. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Written comments should be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Air Quality Planning & Information Services Branch, Air Protection Division, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460; and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.
Ray Chalmers at (215) 814-2061, the EPA Region III address above or by e-mail at
Pursuant to sections 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Commonwealth or Pennsylvania) is required to establish and implement RACT for all major VOC and NO
State implementation plan revisions imposing reasonably available control technology (RACT) for three classes of VOC sources are required under section 182(b)(2). The categories are: (1) All sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) document issued between November 15, 1990 and the date of attainment; (2) All sources covered by a CTG issued prior to November 15, 1990; (3) All other major non-CTG rules were due by November 15, 1992. The Pennsylvania SIP has approved RACT regulations and requirements for all sources and source categories covered by the CTGs.
On February 4, 1994, PADEP submitted a revision to its SIP to require major sources of NO
On March 23, 1998 EPA granted conditional limited approval to the Commonwealth's generic VOC and NO
It must be noted that the Commonwealth has adopted and is implementing additional “post RACT requirements” to reduce seasonal NO
On December 7, 1998, February 2, 1999, April 20, 1999, March 23, 2001 (two separate submissions), and July 5, 2001, PADEP submitted revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP to establish and impose RACT for several sources of VOC and/or NO
Aldan Rubber Company (Aldan) has a plant located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which produces custom rubber coated fabric. Several installations at this source are subject to categoric specific SIP-approved RACT requirements adopted by the Commonwealth in accordance with applicable CTGs. The small boiler is subject to the SIP-approved presumptive RACT for NO
Arbill Industries, Inc. (Arbill) has a plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which is an industrial laundry and petroleum based dry-cleaning facility. Arbill is a major source of VOC. The AMS issued Arbill Industries PA-51-3811 to establish RACT. The PADEP submitted PA-51-3811 to EPA as a SIP revision on behalf of the AMS. The facility consists of several VOC emitting sources including 2 heavy-duty petroleum solvent dry cleaning washers, 10 textile dryers with built-in condensers, 3 vacuum stills for petroleum solvent, and 26 hampers. PA-51-3811 requires a RACT program consisting of the reduction of evaporative losses from washing, drying, and transfer operations. This program includes the following: (1) eliminating fugitive emissions from the dryer by replacement of the cooling towers to allow the cooling water in the dryer condensers to be kept at the constant temperatures required for complete recovery; (2) using of petroleum cleaning solvents that have higher flash points; ( 3) retrofitting the Hoyt dryers with three temperature gauges, installed next to the loading door, to measure the temperature of the dryer, of the air exiting the condenser, and of the outlet water from the condenser; (4) maintaining the proper operating temperature range for each dryer; (5) not operating any dryer that is not within the proper operating temperature range; (6) placing covers over all hampers used to transfer textiles after the wash cycle to reduce fugitive emissions; and (7) placing covers over all hampers containing solvent laden textiles awaiting processing. PA-51-3811 requires Arbill to keep records of solvent usage, of solvent chemical composition, of solvent purchases and inventories, of the reconciliation of solvent purchases and inventories with actual usage, of the three temperature readings from each Hoyt dryer (taken once per load per dryer), and of the operating hours of each unit. PA-51-3811 also requires Arbil to keep all records and other data required to demonstrate compliance with the RACT requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.91-129.94.
Bethlehem Lukens Plate (Bethlehem) operates a plant located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania which produces carbon, alloy, and stainless steel plates. Bethlehem is a major source of NO
OP-46-0011 also requires the fuel usage of the furnaces to be limited as per the following Table and the annual NO
In addition, OP-46-0011 also specified that RACT for the furnaces includes maintenance and operation in accordance with manufacturer's specifications as well as in accordance with good air pollution control practices. OP-46-0011 also includes requirements which make four emergency generators rated at 1000, 300, 150, and 125 KW subject to the presumptive NO
Braceland Brothers, Inc. is a printing facility located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Braceland is a major source of VOC. The AMS issued PA-3679 to establish RACT. The PADEP submitted PA-3679 to EPA as a SIP revision on behalf of the AMS. PA-3679 establishes RACT requirements for 1 non-heatset web offset lithographic printing press, 3 heatset web offset lithographic printing presses, and 2 non-heatset sheetfed offset lithographic printing presses. PA-3679 specifies that RACT consists of the use of inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning solutions which meet specified lower VOC content limitations. PA-3679 requires that the VOC fraction of the ink (minus water), as applied to the substrate, shall not exceed 25 percent by weight. PA-3679 also requires that the VOC content of the fountain solutions for the web presses, as applied, shall be maintained at or below 5.0 percent by weight, and that the fountain solutions shall contain no alcohol. PA-3679 also specifies that the VOC content of the fountain solutions for the sheetfed presses, as applied, shall be maintained at or below 5.0 percent by weight or shall be maintained at or below 8.5 percent by weight and refrigerated to 60 degrees F or less. Finally, PA-3679 specifies that cleaning solutions shall either: (1) Have a VOC content, as applied, less than or equal to 30 percent by weight, (2) have a VOC composite partial pressure, as used, less than or equal to 10 mm Hg at 68 degrees F, or (3) be used in amounts which do not exceed 55 gallons over any 12-month rolling period. PA-3679 requires that detailed records to be kept pertaining to the inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning solutions to determine compliance. The PA also specifies that a record of VOC emissions per press, using a mass balance equation, shall be shall be maintained on a rolling 12 month basis. In addition, it requires that material purchases and inventories shall be maintained and reconciled with actual usage. PA-3679 also contains a general requirement to keep all the records and other data needed to demonstrate compliance with the VOC RACT requirements of 25 Pa. Code § 129.91-129.94.
Graphic Arts, Inc. is a lithographic printing facility located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plant is a major source of VOC. The AMS issued PA-2260 to establish and impose RACT. The PADEP submitted PA-2260 to EPA as a SIP revision on behalf of the AMS. PA-2260 establishes RACT for five non-heatset sheetfed lithographic printing presses. PA-2260 requires as the use of: (1) Inks with a VOC fraction of no more than 25 percent by weight; (2) fountain solutions with a VOC fraction of no more than 20 percent by volume; and (3) cleaning solutions with either a VOC content (as applied) less than or equal to 30 percent by weight, or a VOC composite partial pressure (as used) less than or equal to 10 mm Hg at 68 degrees F, or which are used in quantities which do not exceed 55 gallons over any 12-month rolling period. To determine compliance with these requirements, PA-2260 requires detailed records to be kept pertaining to the inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning solutions. The permit also contains a general requirement to keep all the records and other data needed to demonstrate compliance with the VOC RACT requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.91-129.94.
International Business Systems, Inc. (International Business Systems) is a printing facility located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The plant is a major source of VOC. PADEP issued OP-46-0049 to establish and impose RACT. OP-46-0049 includes RACT requirements for 10 non-heatset web offset lithographic printing presses, eight tinting units, and miscellaneous units. OP-46-0049 requires that the VOC emissions from the presses be limited to 18 tons per year on a 12-month rolling basis, and limits the VOC emissions from clean-up solvents to 16 tons per year on a 12-month rolling basis. The permit also requires all inks used to be non-heatset inks containing less than 35 percent VOC by weight. Further, OP-46-0049 requires the VOC content of the wetting/fountain solutions when using UV cured inks to be 8 percent or less as applied. However, the permit provides that an “alternative” fountain solution which does not exceed 10% VOC by weight may be used if the company notifies the PADEP that compliance wetting /fountain solutions are not available. The use of the alternative fountain solution is allowed only until an appropriate lower VOC content fountain solution becomes available. OP-46-0049 limits emissions from the tinting units to 30 tons per year on a 12 month rolling basis. In addition, the permit specifies that operation and maintenance of all VOC emitting units must be in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and good air pollution control practices. Finally, OP-46-0049 specifies that all solvent laden containers shall be closed at all times except during filling or draining, and that all solvent laden towels shall be placed in closed containers immediately after use and then disposed of to minimize VOC emissions. The facility also has some additional miscellaneous VOC emitting equipment, including 1 film and 2 plate processors, 7 collating machines, an alcohol storage tank, 4 parts washers, several space heaters, and a natural gas fired emergency electric generator. The permit limits VOC emissions from these source groups to less than 3 pounds per hour, 15 pounds per day, or 2.7 tons per year. It also requires operation and maintenance in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and good air pollution control practices. OP-46-0049 requires detailed records to be kept pertaining to the inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning solutions. The permit also requires that records be kept in accordance with 25 Pa. Code 129.95.
McWhorter Technologies Inc. (McWhorter), located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, produces specialty resins used by the coatings industry. McWhorter is a major source of VOC. The AMS issued PA-51-3542 to establish RACT. The PADEP submitted PA-51-3542 to EPA as a SIP revision on behalf of the AMS. PA-51-3542 establishes RACT requirements for reactor vessels, storage tanks, thinning tanks, a scrubber, boilers, space heaters and other combustion equipment. RACT is specified as the: (1) Use of temperature controllers on packed columns to prevent excess vapor loss in reactors, (2) use of an automatic caustic feed system for the scrubber, (3) use of conservation vents on all fixed roof tanks, (4) use of a heat exchanger in the
Montenay Montgomery Limited Partnership operates a municipal waste combustor in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. The facility is a major source of NO
Newman and Company (Newman) is a paperboard production facility located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plant is a major source of NO
Northeast Foods, Inc. (Northeast Foods),located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, produces hamburger rolls and English muffins. The plant is a major source of VOC emissions. PADEP issued OP-09-0014 to establish and impose RACT. OP-09-0014 establishes RACT requirements for three natural gas-fired griddles used to bake English Muffins, a natural gas-fired oven used to bake rolls, and two natural gas-fired boilers with heat input ratings of 6.3 MMBtu/hr each. OP-09-0014 establishes VOC RACT as operation in accordance with manufacturer's specifications and good air pollution control practices. In addition, the permit requires muffin griddle line 3 to remain shutdown and the natural gas line to that oven be turned off. OP-09-0014 specifies that reactivation of this muffin line will require the company to comply with 25 Pa. Code, Chapter 127. The permit requires the company to keep records demonstrating compliance in accordance with its requirements and 25 Pa. Code 129.95. Among other things, the permit requires the Company to record the types and amounts of product produced monthly, the initial yeast content and total yeast action time for each product produced monthly, the spike yeast content and spiking time for each product produced monthly, and the monthly operating hours of each of the ovens.
The Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant , which is operated by the Philadelphia Water Department, is a publicly owned wastewater treatment plant. The plant is a major source of VOC and NO
O'Brien (Philadelphia) Cogeneration, Inc. (O'Brien), located at the City of Philadelphia's Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant, generates electricity. The AMS issued PA-1533 to establish and impose RACT. The PADEP submitted PA-1533 to EPA as a SIP revision on behalf of the AMS. PA-1533 limits the non-methane hydrocarbons from the facility to 1.12 grams per brake horsepower, 31 pounds per hour, and 21tons per year. PA-1533 does establish and impose NO
O'Brien (Philadelphia) Cogeneration, Inc. (O'Brien) also operates another cogeneration plant at the City of Philadelphia's Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant. The AMS issued PA-1534 to establish and impose RACT for NO
Pearl Pressman Liberty (Pearl Pressman) operates a printing facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The facility is a major source of VOC. The AMS issued PA-7721 to establish and impose RACT. The PADEP submitted PA-7721 to EPA as a SIP revision on behalf of the AMS. PA-7721 establishes VOC RACT for 5 non-heatset sheet-fed offset lithographic presses. PA-7721 requires as RACT that this facility use: (1) Inks with a VOC fraction of no more than 25 percent by weight; (2) fountain solutions with a VOC fraction of no more than 20 percent by volume; and (3) cleaning solutions with a VOC content (as applied) less than or equal to 30 percent by weight, or a VOC composite partial vapor pressure (as used) less than or equal to 10 mm Hg at 68 degrees F, or be used in an amount that does not exceed 55 gallons over any 12-month rolling period (except at the automatic blanket cleaner associated with press #1). PA-7721 specifies that the Company may use cleaning solutions at the automatic blanket cleaner associated with press #1 which do not meet the above VOC content or partial vapor pressure requirements if the VOC emissions from the cleaning solutions are not greater than 5 tons per rolling 12 month period. To determine compliance with these requirements, PA-7721 requires detailed records to be kept pertaining to the inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning solutions. The permit also contains a general requirement to keep all the records and other data needed to demonstrate compliance with the VOC RACT requirements of 25 Pa. Code 129.91-129.94.
EPA is approving Pennsylvania's RACT SIP submittals because the AMS and PADEP established and imposed these RACT requirements in accordance with the criteria set forth in the SIP-approved RACT regulations applicable to these sources. The AMS and PADEP have also imposed record-keeping, monitoring, and testing requirements necessary to be able to determine compliance with the applicable RACT determinations.
EPA is approving the SIP revisions to the Pennsylvania SIP submitted by PADEP to establish and require VOC and/or NO
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.” See 66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001. This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 9, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action approving the Commonwealth's source-specific RACT requirements to control VOC and/or NO
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(185) Revisions to the Pennsylvania Regulations, Chapter 129 pertaining to VOC and NO
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Letters submitted by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection transmitting source-specific VOC and/or NO
(B) Plan approvals (PA), Operating permits (OP) issued to the following sources:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(ii) Additional Materials—Other materials submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in support of and pertaining to the RACT determinations for the sources listed in (c)(185)(i)(B).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving the small Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) units section 111(d) negative declarations submitted by the states of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. These negative declarations certify that small MWC units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) do not exist in these states.
This direct final rule will be effective November 9, 2001 unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 10, 2001. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Comments may be mailed to Wayne Kaiser, 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.
Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.
Section 111(d) of the CAA requires states to submit plans to control certain pollutants (designated pollutants) at existing facilities (designated facilities) whenever standards of performance have been established under section 111(b) for new sources of the same type, and EPA has established emission guidelines for such existing sources. A designated pollutant is any pollutant for which no air quality criteria have been issued, and which is not included on a list published under section 108(a) or section 112(b)(1)(A) of the CAA, but emissions of which are subject to a standard of performance for new stationary sources.
Emission guidelines for small MWC units were originally promulgated in December 1995 but were vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in March 1997. In response to the 1997 vacature, on August 30, 1999, EPA proposed to reestablish emission guidelines for small MWC units. On December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76378), EPA finalized the section 111(d) emission guidelines for existing small MWC units. The emission guidelines contained in this final rule are equivalent to the 1995 emission guidelines for small MWC units. The emission guidelines are codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB.
Subpart B of 40 CFR part 60 establishes procedures to be followed and requirements to be met in the development and submission of state plans for controlling designated pollutants. Part 62 of the CFR provides the procedural framework for the submission of these plans. When designated facilities are located in a state, a state must develop and submit a plan for the control of the designated pollutant. However, 40 CFR 62.06 provides that if there are no existing sources of the designated pollutant in the state, the state may submit a letter of certification to that effect, or negative declaration, in lieu of a plan. The negative declaration exempts the state from the requirements of subpart B for that designated pollutant.
The states of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska have determined there are no existing sources in their states subject to the small MWC units emission guidelines. Consequently, each state has submitted a letter of negative declaration certifying this fact. We are taking final action to approve these negative declarations.
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. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state negative declarations as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no 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 state plan submissions, 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 state submissions for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews state submissions, to use VCS in place of state submissions that otherwise satisfy 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” issued under the Executive Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 9, 2001. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Municipal waste combustion units, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Letter from the Iowa Department of Natural Resources submitted March 21, 2001, certifying that there are no small municipal waste combustion units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB.
Letter from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment submitted February 13, 2001, certifying that there are no small municipal waste combustion units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB.
Letter from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted March 22, 2001, certifying that there are no small municipal waste combustion units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB.
Letter from the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality submitted June 8, 2001, certifying that there are no small municipal waste combustion units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBBB.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Immediate final rule.
The District of Columbia has applied to EPA for Final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that these changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for Final authorization, and is authorizing the District's changes through this immediate final action. EPA is publishing this rule to authorize the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we get written comments which oppose this authorization during the comment period, the decision to authorize the
This Final authorization will become effective on November 9, 2001 unless EPA receives adverse written comment by October 10, 2001. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the
Send written comments to Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3379. We must receive your comments by October 10, 2001. You can view and copy the District of Columbia's application from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. at the following addresses: District of Columbia Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration, Bureau of Hazardous Materials and Toxic Substances, Hazardous Waste Division, 51 N Street, NE, 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20002, Phone number (202) 535-2290, attn: James Sweeney, and EPA Region III, Library, 2nd Floor, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-5254.
Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3379.
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
We conclude that the District of Columbia's application to revise its authorized program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant the District of Columbia Final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application. The District of Columbia has responsibility for permitting Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) within its borders and for carrying out the aspects of the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement those requirements and prohibitions in the District of Columbia, including issuing permits, until the State is granted authorization to do so.
The effect of this decision is that a facility in the District of Columbia subject to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized District requirements instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with RCRA. The District of Columbia has enforcement responsibilities under its District hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but EPA retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses or reports,
• Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits, and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the District has taken its own actions.
This action does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which the District of Columbia is being authorized by today's action are already effective, and are not changed by today's action.
EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of today's
If EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the
If we receive comments that oppose only the authorization of a particular change to the District's hazardous waste program, we may withdraw that part of this rule, but the authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose will become effective on the date specified above. The
The District of Columbia Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1977 (D.C. Law 2-64, as amended) directed the Mayor to develop a regulatory scheme for management of hazardous waste in the District, and the District subsequently established a comprehensive hazardous waste management program. On July 22, 1983, the District adopted analogs to 40 CFR parts 260 through 265 (July 1982 ed.), 40 CFR part 270 (July 1983 ed.) and 40 CFR part 124, subpart A (July 1983 ed.) as amended by the District. These regulations were amended on September 28, 1984. EPA's final authorization of the District's base RCRA program took effect on March 22, 1985.
Since the base program authorization, the District of Columbia Hazardous Waste Management Act was amended in 1989, and the District's hazardous waste regulations have been amended five (5) times (1985, 1987, 1988, 1996, and
The District of Columbia's Department of Health (DOH) is currently designated the lead agency for implementing the District's hazardous waste program. The District's previously-authorized hazardous waste program was administered through the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. However, on July 17, 1996, the District's government was reorganized, and all of the District's environmental programs were reassigned to the DOH. The District's hazardous waste program is currently being implemented by the Hazardous Waste Division of the Bureau of Hazardous Material and Toxic Substances (BHMTS) of the Environmental Health Administration (EHA), within the DOH.
On July 20, 2001, the District of Columbia submitted a final complete program revision application, seeking authorization of its changes in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. EPA Region III worked closely with the District to develop the authorization application. Therefore, EPA's comments relative to the District's legal authority to carry out aspects of the Federal program for which the District is seeking authorization; the scope of and coverage of activities regulated; and the District's procedures, including the criteria for permit reviews, public participation and enforcement capabilities, were addressed before the submission of the final application by the District. The District also solicited public comments on its proposed regulations before they were adopted. The EPA has reviewed the District's application, and now makes an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of adverse written comment, that the District's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Consequently, EPA intends to grant the District of Columbia Final authorization for the program modifications contained in the program revision application.
The District's program revision application includes the District's statutory and regulatory changes to the District's authorized hazardous waste program, including the adoption of the Federal hazardous waste regulations published through June 30, 1998 (RCRA Cluster VII), with certain exceptions described in section H.
The District is today seeking authority to administer the Federal requirements that are listed in the chart below. This chart also lists the District's analogs that are being recognized as equivalent to the appropriate Federal requirements. Unless otherwise stated, the District's statutory references are to the District of Columbia Hazardous Waste Management Act as contained in the D.C. Code 6-701
We now make an immediate final decision, subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that the District of Columbia's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore, we grant the District of Columbia Final authorization for the following program changes:
The District of Columbia's hazardous waste program contains several provisions that are more stringent than the Federal RCRA program. The more stringent provisions are being recognized as a part of the Federally-authorized program and are Federally-enforceable. The specific more stringent provisions are noted in the preceding chart and in the District's authorization application, and include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The District subjects generators of between 100 kilograms and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a calendar month to full regulation rather than to the reduced requirements in the Federal regulations for this group of generators.
2. At 20 DCMR section 4300.9, the District's analog to 40 CFR 263.12, transporters storing waste at transfer facilities in the District for 10 days or less are subject to the District's requirements analogous to 40 CFR 264.14-264.17 and 40 CFR subparts C, D, and F, unlike the Federal program. These additional requirements make the District's program more stringent than the Federal program.
3. The District prohibits land disposal, incineration and underground injection of hazardous waste, and prohibits the burning, processing or incineration of hazardous waste, hazardous waste fuels, or mixtures of hazardous wastes and other materials in any type of incinerator, boiler, or industrial furnace. The Federal program does not include such prohibitions.
4. Unlike the Federal program, the District prohibits the burning of both on- and off-specification used oil in the District, and prohibits the use of used oil as a dust supressant.
A number of the District's regulations are not being authorized by today's actions. Such provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The District has regulations defining how program information is to be shared with the public, but is not seeking authorization at this time for the Availability of Information requirements relative to RCRA section 3006(f).
2. The District is not seeking authority for the Federal corrective action program. EPA will continue to administer this part of the program. The District is planning to apply for the corrective action program in a subsequent authorization revision application.
3. The District has incorporated the Federal hazardous waste export provisions at 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and H, into its regulations at 20 DCMR sections 4204 and 4207. However, the District is not seeking authorization for these provisions at this time. EPA will continue to implement those requirements as appropriate.
4. The District is adopting the universal waste requirements relative to the Federal program as of July 1, 1998 and 63 FR 71225 (Revision Checklist 176). The District also regulates mercury-containing lamps as a universal waste, but is not seeking authorization for this universal waste at this time because the District's requirements, while consistent with the Federal requirements, were developed before the promulgation of the Federal hazardous waste lamp rule (64
The District's regulations contain several requirements that go beyond the scope of the Federal program, and thus are not part of the program being authorized by today's action. EPA cannot enforce these requirements which are broader in scope, although compliance with these provisions is required by District law. Such provisions include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. The District does not have an analog to 40 CFR 261.4(a)(4) that excludes source, special nuclear, or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 from the Federal definition of solid waste. This difference makes the District's universe
2. Under Federal regulations, generators of 0-100 kilograms of hazardous waste are conditionally exempt from regulation. The District regulates all generators of hazardous waste, and its regulations do not provide any conditional exemption from regulatory requirements. In the District, generators of 0-100 kilograms of hazardous waste, or up to 1 kilogram of acute hazardous waste, are considered small quantity generators and may accumulate up to 600 kilograms of hazardous waste on site for up to 180 days. They are not conditionally exempt from regulation and are subject to the same regulatory requirements as Federal large quantity generators. Thus, the District's regulation is broader in scope than the Federal regulation, because there is no Federal analog to this regulatory approach.
3. 20 DCMR section 4200.16 requires that all generators obtain a permit under 20 DCMR section 4208. Such a permit must be renewed on a biennial basis. The generator must also pay a fee to obtain a permit. There are no such requirements in the Federal system.
4. Unlike the Federal system, all transporters holding a hazardous waste at a transfer facility in the District must obtain a Hazardous Waste Transfer Facility Permit pursuant to the requirements of 20 DCMR section 4303, including the payment of fees.
After authorization, the District of Columbia will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. EPA will continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this authorization until the timing and process for effective transfer to the District are mutually agreed upon. Until such time as formal transfer of EPA permit responsibility to the District occurs and EPA terminates its permit, EPA and the District agree to coordinate the administration of permits in order to maintain consistency. EPA will not issue any more new permits or new portions of permits for the provisions listed in the chart in section G after the effective date of this authorization. EPA will continue to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which the District of Columbia is not yet authorized.
The District of Columbia is not seeking authority to operate the program on Indian lands, since there are no Federally-recognized Indian lands in the District.
Codification is the process of placing the District's statutes and regulations that comprise the District's authorized hazardous waste program into the Code of Federal Regulations. We do this by referencing the authorized District rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272, subpart J, for this authorization of the District of Columbia's program changes until a later date.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); therefore, this action is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the Attorney General's “Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Inseason adjustment to the 2001 annual management measures for the ocean salmon fishery; request for comments.
NMFS announces a modification of the limited retention regulation for the commercial fishery from Humbug Mt., OR, to the OR-CA border, suspending the possession and landing limit of 30 fish per day until further notice. This action was effective at 0001 hours local time (l.t.) on August 9, 2001. The fishery continues through the earlier of August 31 or a 3,000-chinook quota, however further inseason adjustments will be instituted if needed. This action is necessary to conform to the 2001 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries.
Effective 0001 hours l.t., August 9, 2001, through the earlier of August 31 or a 3,000-chinook quota. Comments will be accepted through September 25, 2001.
Comments on this action may be mailed to Donna Darm, Acting Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070; fax 206-526-6376; or Rebecca Lent, Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4132; fax 562-980-4018. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. Information relevant to this document is available for public review during business hours at the Office of the Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS.
Christopher Wright, 206-526-6140, Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA.
The Northwest Regional Administrator, NMFS (Regional Administrator), modified the limited retention regulation for the commercial fishery from Humbug Mt. to the OR-CA border, by suspending the possession and landing limit of 30 fish per day until further notice, effective at 0001 l.t. on August 9, 2001. The Regional Administrator determined that the modification was justified to provide greater opportunity to reach the 3000-chinook quota. Modification of the species that may be caught and landed during specific seasons, and the establishment or modification of limited retention regulations, is authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409 (b)(1)(ii).
In the 2001 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (66 FR 23185, May 8, 2001), NMFS announced that the commercial fishery for all salmon except coho from Humbug Mt. to the OR-CA border would open August 1 through the earlier of August 31 or a 3,000-chinook quota. The annual management measures included a possession and landing limit of 30 fish per day, and required that fishermen land and deliver all salmon to Gold Beach, Port Orford, or Brookings within 24 hours of closure.
The Regional Administrator consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) regarding the above-described inseason action by conference call on August 8, 2001. ODFW reported that the chinook catch rate and effort were lower than projected preseason, and that only 100 chinook had been landed as of August 7. Therefore, ODFW recommended that the season be modified by suspending the possession and landing limit of 30 fish per day until further notice, effective at 0001 on August 9, 2001. ODFW reasoned that suspending the possession and landing limit provided greater opportunity to search for fish in outlying areas, thus increasing the potential for improving catch rates beyond those observed to date. All other restrictions that apply to this fishery remain in effect, as announced in the 2001 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries and subsequent inseason actions. This includes the requirement that all salmon be landed and delivered to Gold Beach, Port Orford, or Brookings.
The Regional Administrator consulted with representatives of the Council and ODFW regarding the above-described inseason action by conference call on August 8, 2001. The best available information regarding catch and effort to date, as well as projected catch and effort, supported modifying the commercial fishery to provide greater opportunity to catch harvestable fish within the limit of the 3000-chinook quota. The state will manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the exclusive economic zone in accordance with this Federal action. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishermen of the adjustment in the area from Humbug Mt. to the OR-CA border, effective 0001 hours l.t., August 9, 2001, was given prior to the effective date by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
Because of the need for immediate action for the modification for the area from Humbug Mt. to the OR-CA border to allow harvest of the available chinook quota, NMFS has determined that good cause existed for this notification to be issued without affording a prior opportunity for public comment because such notification would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Since this action eliminates the possession and landing limit of 30 fish per day, it relieves a restriction, and under 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(1) it is not subject to a delay in the effective date.
This action does not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the shallow-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA), except for vessels fishing for pollock using pelagic trawl gear in those portions of the GOA open to directed fishing for pollock. This action is necessary because the fourth seasonal apportionment of the 2001 halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl shallow-water species fishery in the GOA has been caught.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), September 5, 2001, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., October 1, 2001.
Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The Pacific halibut bycatch allowance for the GOA trawl shallow-water species fishery, which is defined at § 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(A), was established by the Final 2001 Harvest Specifications and Associated Management Measures for the Groundfish Fisheries Off Alaska (66 FR 7276, January 22, 2001) and adjusted (66 FR 17087, March 29, 2001 and 66 FR 37167, July 17, 2001) for the fourth season, the period September 1, 2001, through October 1, 2001, as 100 metric tons. -
In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the fourth seasonal apportionment of the 2001 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl shallow-water species fishery in the GOA has been caught. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species included in the shallow-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA, except for vessels fishing for pollock using pelagic trawl gear in those portions of the GOA open to directed fishing for pollock. The species and species groups that comprise the shallow-water species fishery are: pollock, Pacific cod, shallow-water flatfish, flathead sole, Atka mackerel, and “other species.”
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds that the need to immediately implement this action to prevent exceeding the fourth seasonal apportionment of the 2001 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl shallow-water species fishery in the GOA constitutes good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 50 CFR 679.20(b)(3)(iii)(A), as such procedures would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Similarly, the need to implement these measures in a timely fashion to prevent exceeding the fourth seasonal apportionment of the 2001 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl shallow-water species fishery in the GOA constitutes good cause to find that the effective date of this action cannot be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.
This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Personnel Management.
Proposed regulations.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) proposes to revoke the Schedule A excepted service appointing authority for nontemporary part-time or intermittent positions for which total annual compensation does not exceed 40 percent of GS-3, step 1, because the conditions justifying the original exception no longer exist. Revocation would bring the positions filled under this Schedule A authority into the competitive service and permit noncompetitive conversion of position incumbents to competitive appointments.
Comments must be received on or before November 9, 2001.
Send or deliver written comments to Richard A. Whitford, Acting Associate Director for Employment, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 6566, Washington, DC 20415.
Janice Domke Reid or Christina Vay on 202-606-0960 or FAX 202-606-0390.
The Schedule A authority, 5 CFR 213.3102(g), was established in 1903 for use by all agencies to meet their continuing part-time, intermittent or seasonal needs for lower graded positions. These positions were excepted from the competitive service because there were too few candidates for standing registers, not due to the nature of their duties or qualifications.
The authority originally contained a dollar limitation on total compensation to assure that the positions filled were menial, not full-time, and were of the type for which the authority was intended. In 1958, this was changed to 40 percent of GS-3, step 1, to avoid having to amend the authority with each Federal pay raise. The authority was amended in 1977 to clarify that it could not be used for temporary project employment to meet a one-time need. It has not been amended since.
In the past, complexities in the examining system necessitated excepted authorities on the basis that examining was impracticable. This was especially true for this Schedule A authority where employment was expected to be sporadic, totaling less than 6 months a year, and competitive examination with the establishment of standing registers would not have been able to produce enough candidates to fill the positions.
The authority has been used relatively little on a Government-wide basis.
Competitive examining has changed drastically since the day when this Schedule A authority was established. Today agencies have more choices and flexibility for filling continuing positions that are not full-time. They routinely appoint employees with part-time or intermittent work schedules under career appointments in the competitive service.
Seasonal employees are also appointed under career appointments in the competitive service when they perform recurring work that is expected to last at least 6 months during a calendar year. Work lasting less than 6 months a year is usually performed by temporary employees, and agencies can appoint them under 5 CFR 316.401. When employment totals less than 1,040 hours a service year, there is no limit on the number of times temporary employees may be reappointed.
The revocation brings the positions into the competitive service as provided in 5 CFR 316.701 and 316.702. Before the effective date of these regulations, positions for which examining is still impracticable may be placed under other appropriate excepted appointing authorities and the employees converted to excepted appointments under those authorities.
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulations pertain only to Federal employees and agencies.
This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order 12866.
Government employees. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, OPM proposes to amend 5 CFR part 213 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 213 is revised to read as follows:
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302, E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., p. 218; § 213.101 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 2103; § 213.3102 also issued under 5 U.S.C. 3301, 3302, 3307, 8337(h) and 8456; E.O. 12364, 47 FR 22931, 3 CFR 1982 Comp., p. 185; 38 U.S.C. 4301 et seq.; and Pub. L. 106-117 (113 Stat. 1545).
2. Paragraph (g) of § 213.3102 is removed and reserved.
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 Boeing Model 727-100 and 727-
Comments must be received by October 25, 2001.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-41-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-41-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.
Thanh Truong, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2552; 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 2001-NM-41-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. 2001-NM-41-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The FAA has received a report indicating that, on February 9, 1998, a Boeing Model 727 series airplane was involved in an accident during a coupled instrument landing system (ILS) category II approach at Chicago O'Hare International Airport. The approach was normal until the airplane passed through 200 feet above ground level, where the airplane started a pitch oscillation that continued to increase. The airplane descended below the ILS glide slope, then climbed above it, and finally descended below it again, impacting the ground 300 feet short of the runway threshold. Upon impact, the airplane slid over the threshold and off the right side of the runway, where it came to rest. Twenty-two passengers and one flight attendant sustained minor injuries. The airplane was extensively damaged.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), in investigating the accident, has determined that the existence of an autopilot system anomaly can, under certain conditions, produce undesirable pitch oscillations in the Model 727-100 and -200. The ILS provides electronic signals to guide the pilot and autopilot in flying the airplane to the runway. The glide slope is usually determined from a 3-degree flight path to a point about 1,000 feet down the runway from the approach end. Electronic signals are processed on the airplane and instruments indicate whether the airplane is on the localizer and glide slope or indicate how much, and in which direction, the airplane has deviated from them. The information provided to the pilot via displays on the instrument panel, or directly to the autopilot, indicate whether the airplane should continue on course or fly up, down, left, or right to get back on course.
Because glide slope deviations close to the runway require smaller pitch corrections than those required far from the runway, the autopilot sensitivity has to be reduced as the airplane nears the runway. This process, called desensitization, depends on distance from the runway, but if the ILS does not provide distance measuring equipment, this is sometimes calculated by measuring time elapsed since passing a point of known distance from the runway and muliplying the measured time by an assumed ground speed. This time-based method was used by the Sperry SP-150 autopilot installed on the accident airplane. The system was set up to start desensitizing over a period of 150 seconds after passing through a radio altitude of 1,500 feet. Upon receiving the middle marker signal on the ILS approach, the speed of desensitization would increase.
A characteristic of the time-based method of desensitizing the autopilot is that the gain will be scheduled correctly only if the ground speed is relatively close to the ground speed the autopilot designers assumed when selecting the time period required for desensitization. If the ground speed is higher than the ground speed assumed in the autopilot design, the airplane will approach the runway before the desensitization period expires and the sensitivity will be higher than that intended by the design.
The 150-second desensitization period used by the Sperry SP-50 and SP-150 autopilots was optimized for the lower approach airspeeds and a 40-degree flap setting. However, in the early 1980s, operators started landing the Model 727 at 30-degree flap settings, and higher airspeeds, in order to
During the NTSB investigation, another pilot described a pitch event experienced by another Model 727 series airplane in 1997. That airplane was aking a coupled ILS category II approach to a runway at Chicago O'Hare International Airport when, at about 250 feet, the crew felt a bump and the airplane pitched up in response to being slightly below the glide slope. The airplane climbed through the glide slope and then pitched down severely to recapture the glide slope. The pilot called for a go-around, came back for another approach, and experienced the same bump again before diverting to the alternate airport. This Model 727 also had a time-based autopilot with a 150-second desensitization period. NTSB studies found that at the approach speeds of the accident flight, the autopilot with the 150-second desensitization period responds to disturbances by commanding oscillatory pitch changes that grow in time and result in significant deviations from the desired flight path. Based on the NTSB's studies and FAA findings, the improper desensitization schedule is considered a contributing factor in the destabilized approach of the accident flight and in the reported pitch event that occurred in 1997. Therefore, the FAA is concerned that other Model 727 series airplanes equipped with unmodified SP-50 and SP-150 autopilots could experience, in conditions similar to those of the accident flight, undesirable and potentially dangerous pitch changes during coupled ILS category II approaches.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-22A0093, dated December 20, 2000, which describes procedures for replacement of the SP-50 or SP-150 autopilot pitch control computer with a modified autopilot pitch control computer and a functional test to verify function. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-22A0093 refers to Sperry Service Bulletin 21-1132-121, dated November 23, 1982 (for the SP-50 autopilots), and Sperry Service Bulletin 21-1132-122, dated February 7, 1983 (for the SP-150 autopilots), as additional sources of service information for accomplishment of the replacement of the autopilot pitch control computer and subsequent one-time test.
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, except as discussed below. The proposed AD would also require two revisions to the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM). One revision, required within six months after the effective date of the proposed AD, would prohibit a category II autopilot coupled ILS approach if the Middle Marker (ground or airborne system) is inoperative. This revision would also require that the autopilot be disconnected at, or prior to, 80 feet above the runway's touchdown-zone elevation during coupled ILS category II approaches. The second revision, required after the autopilot modification, would limit the approach flap setting to 30 degrees when conducting a category II autopilot coupled ILS approach. It should be noted that the FAA is conducting additional studies to develop operating limitations, as necessary, that address approach flap settings and airspeeds specifically, and also considering other aspects such as winds and glideslope angles.
Operators should note that the service bulletin recommends accomplishing the replacement “at the earliest convenience” (after the release of the service bulletin). The FAA, however, has determined that performing the replacement “at the earliest convenience” may not address the identified unsafe condition in a timely manner. In developing an appropriate compliance time for this AD, the FAA considered not only the manufacturer's recommendation, but the degree of urgency associated with addressing the subject unsafe condition, the average utilization of the affected fleet, and the time necessary to perform the replacement (approximately 2 hours). In light of all of these factors, the FAA finds an 18-month compliance time for completing the required actions to be warranted, in that it represents an appropriate interval of time allowable for affected airplanes to continue to operate without compromising safety.
Operators should also note that, although the service bulletin recommends performing a functional test in accordance with the 727 Maintenance Manual, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the more detailed functional test in accordance with Sperry Service Bulletins 21-1132-121 or 21-1132-122, as applicable.
There are approximately 750 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 162 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 AFM revisions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on this figure, the cost impact of the proposed AFM revisions on U.S. operators is estimated to be $9,720, or $60 per airplane.
It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the proposed replacement and functional test of the SP-50 autopilot. Estimated costs for required parts would be $1. It would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed replacement and functional test of the SP-150 Autopilot. Estimated costs for required parts would be $168. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed replacement and functional test on U.S. operators is estimated to be between $9,882 and $46,656, or between $61 and $288 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
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 (f) 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 undesirable and potentially dangerous pitch oscillations during coupled instrument landing systems (ILS) approaches, accomplish the following:
(a) Within six months after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) by adding the following paragraphs under AUTOPILOT/FLIGHT DIRECTOR SYSTEM. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
“CAT II autopilot coupled ILS approach shall not be performed if the Middle Marker (ground or airborne system) is inoperative.
Disconnect the autopilot at, or prior to, 80 ft. (above the runway's touchdown-zone elevation) during Cat II autopilot coupled ILS approaches.”
(b) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the existing SP-50 or SP-150 single channel autopilot with a modified single channel autopilot in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 727-22A0093, dated December 20, 2000.
(c) Concurrent with the modifications required by paragraph (b) of this AD, and before reinstallation of the modified autopilot and further flight, perform a one-time test procedure of the modified autopilot in accordance with Sperry Service Bulletin 21-1132-121, dated November 23, 1982 (for SP-50 autopilots), or 21-1132-122, dated February 7, 1983 (for SP-150 autopilots), as applicable.
(d) Before further flight after performing the replacement required by paragraph (b) of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the AFM by adding the following paragraph under AUTOPILOT/FLIGHT DIRECTOR SYSTEM. This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
“Limit the approach flap setting to 30 degrees when conducting CAT II autopilot coupled ILS approach.”
(e) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install on any airplane an autopilot pitch control computer unless it has been modified and the applicable AFM has been revised in accordance with this AD.
(f) 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.
(g) 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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA proposes to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for the purpose of establishing and requiring reasonably available control technology (RACT) for 14 major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and/or nitrogen oxides ( NO
Comments must be received in writing by October 10, 2001.
Written comments should be addressed to David L. Arnold, Chief,
Ray Chalmers at (215) 814-2061, the EPA Region III address above or by e-mail at
For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed action.
EPA proposes to approve the small Municipal Waste Combustion (MWC) units section 111(d) plan negative declarations submitted by the states of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. These negative declarations certify that small MWC units subject to the requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act do not exist in these states.
In the final rules section of the
Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by October 10, 2001.
Comments may be mailed to Wayne Kaiser, Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
Wayne Kaiser at (913) 551-7603.
See the information provided in the direct final rule which is located in the rules section of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Pima County Department of Environmental Quality (PDEQ or District) operating permit program. The PDEQ operating permit program was submitted in response to the directive in the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that permitting authorities develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources within the permitting authorities' jurisdiction. EPA granted interim approval to the PDEQ operating permit program on October 30, 1996. The District has revised its program to satisfy the conditions of the interim approval. However, PDEQ must also revise its rules to incorporate the adoption date of the rule it has incorporated by reference. Therefore, in addition to proposing approval of several rules already submitted by PDEQ, EPA is proposing in this rulemaking action to approve two rules in parallel with the District's adoption of revised rules that will add reference dates for materials incorporated by reference. We are proposing to approve rules that were submitted by PDEQ on May 28, 1998 and those that were public noticed by the District on August 9, 2001 and are scheduled for an adoption hearing on September 11, 2001.
Comments on the program revisions discussed in this proposed action must be received in writing by October 10, 2001.
Written comments on this action should be addressed to Gerardo Rios, Acting Chief, Permits Office, Air Division (AIR-3), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. You can inspect copies of PDEQ's submittal and other supporting documentation relevant to this action during normal business hours at the Air Division of EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105. You may also see copies of the submitted title V program at the following location: Pima County Department of Environmental Quality, 130 West Congress Street, Tucson, Arizona 85701.
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, Permits Office (AIR-3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1252 or
This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:
What is the operating permit program?
What is EPA's proposed action?
What is parallel processing?
What are the program changes that EPA is approving?
What is the effect of this proposed action?
Are there other issues with this program?
The CAA Amendments of 1990 required all state and local permitting authorities to develop operating permit programs that met certain federal criteria. In implementing the operating permit programs, the permitting authorities require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all applicable requirements under the
Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain permits. Examples of major sources include those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NO
Because the operating permit program originally by PDEQ substantially, but not fully, met the criteria outlined in the implementing regulations codified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 70, EPA granted interim approval to the program in a rulemaking published on October 30, 1996 (61 FR 55910). The interim approval notice described the conditions that had to be met in order for the PDEQ program to receive full approval. Today's
EPA is proposing full approval of the operating permits program submitted by PDEQ based on the revisions submitted on May 28, 1998 and those proposed for adoption by Pima on August 9, 2001. These revisions satisfactorily address the program deficiencies identified in EPA's October 30, 1996 rulemaking.
Parallel processing refers to concurrent state and federal rulemaking actions. Under this procedure, EPA publishes our proposed action and initiates our 30-day comment period at the same time the District is undergoing its rulemaking processes.
EPA has reviewed the changes that the District expects to adopt formally in the near future. The rulemaking process currently underway in Pima County will not change the substance of the rules, it will merely add a reference date to clarify which version of the material incorporated by reference is in effect. The District's public comment period for the revision to include a reference date began on August 9, 2001. The substantive changes to the rules have already been adopted by the District, including an opportunity for public comment. The comment period for EPA's proposed action, which would approve both the text of the rules as well as the addition of a reference date for the material incorporated by reference into the rules, closes on October 10, 2001. We will finalize this action after PDEQ adopts the changes in substantially the same form as proposed and submits them to EPA as a revision to the District's title V program unless we receive comments that change our assessment that the rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements.
In its October 30, 1996 rulemaking, EPA made full approval of PDEQ's operating permit programs contingent upon the correction a number of interim approval issues. Each issue, along with the District's correction, is described below.
Some of the rules the District submitted to EPA for approval incorporate changes other than those necessary to correct interim approval deficiencies. In this action, EPA is also proposing to approve, as a title V operating permit program revision, those additional program changes made by PDEQ since the interim approval was granted. We have evaluated the additional changes and, with one exception that is described in detail below, find that they are consistent with part 70. We are including the additional changes in our proposed approval.
Paragraph (c) of PDEQ's definition of major source (17.04.340(122)) lists source categories that must count fugitives. Subparagraph xxvii has been modified to read: “All other stationary source categories regulated by a standard promulgated as of August 7, 1980 under section 111 or 112 of the Act, but only with respect to those air pollutants that have been regulated for that category.” Emphasis added. The addition of this 1980 cutoff date restricts the types of sources that are required to count fugitives towards the major source threshold. This is inconsistent with part 70 and is not approvable. EPA has, however, proposed to revise the major source definition to incorporate the 1980 cutoff. We are therefore proposing to approve the District's definition of major source provided that EPA finalizes revisions to the part 70 rule that will make the change approvable. Alternatively, if EPA does not finalize the changes to part 70 described above, Pima's major source definition will conflict with the operative version of part 70 and we will be unable to approve it. The remedy to Pima's interim approval issue regarding the counting of fugitive emissions of hazardous air pollutants resides within that same definition, so if we are barred from approving Pima's new major source definition because of the 1980 date, we will be unable to grant full approval to PDEQ's title V program. As a result, Pima would lose its authority to implement its title V operating permits program on December 1, 2001, and part 71 will be in effect.
PDEQ made a number of additional changes to the rules that implement their part 70 program, many of which were non-substantive (e.g., recodifications) or irrelevant (e.g., changes to requirements applying to non-title V sources). A general description of the more substantive changes follows. For more detail on all of the changes, refer to section B of the technical support document.
The District's permit application and processing procedures were modified to specify that an application will not be considered complete if the Control Officer disputes a source's claim of confidentiality. PDEQ's permit content provisions were also modified. Prompt reporting of deviations is now defined as notice that is provided within two working days. A new paragraph explicitly restricts emissions to units for which emissions are quantifiable or for which there are replicable procedures to enforce the emission trades. The list of conditions that must be included in a title V permit has been expanded to include “such other terms and conditions as are required by the Act, A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 3, Articles 1 and 2 and 3, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto.”
The permit content provisions have also been modified to redefine the terms and conditions in a title V permit that are enforceable by the Administrator and citizens under the Act. It generally requires that the Control Officer designate as not federally enforceable any terms and conditions that are not required under the Act or any of its applicable requirements. It also includes an independent mandate that terms and conditions that are entered into voluntarily are enforceable by citizens and the Administrator under the Clean Air Act. The rule was also modified to require that all permits include a condition that specifies that noncompliance with any federally enforceable requirement in a permit constitutes a violation of the Clean Air Act. It had previously stated that any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act. Finally, the emergency provisions have been modified so that they are now entirely consistent with § 70.6(g).
Pima has adopted rule revisions that address the issues identified in EPA's interim approval and has made additional revisions to its program as described above. The District is currently in the process of adopting revisions that will specify the version of the materials they have incorporated by
As noted above, PDEQ has already adopted and submitted most of the required changes. Should the District adopt Rules 17.12.150 and 17.04.340.A.(122) in the form in which they were noticed and submit them to EPA as a title V program revision, Pima will have fulfilled the conditions of the interim approval granted on October 30, 1996 (61 FR 55910). EPA is therefore proposing full approval of the PDEQ operating permit program, contingent on the adoption and submittal of minor revisions to Rules 17.12.150 and 17.04.340.A.(122), and contingent on EPA finalizing its proposed change to the part 70 definition of major source. In addition, we are proposing to approve, as a title V operating permit program revision, additional changes to PDEQ's rules, as described in section IV.B. of this document.
On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a rulemaking that extended the interim approval period of 86 operating permits programs until December 1, 2001 (65 FR 32035). The action was subsequently challenged by the Sierra Club and the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG). In settling the litigation, EPA agreed to publish a document in the
One citizens' group commented on what it believes to be deficiencies with respect to PDEQ's title V program. EPA takes no action on those comments in today's action and will respond to them by December 1, 2001. As stated in the
EPA requests comments on the program revisions discussed in this proposed action. Copies of the Pima submittal and other supporting documentation used in developing the proposed full approval are contained in docket files maintained at the EPA Region 9 office. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise considered by, EPA in the development of this proposed full approval. The primary purposes of the docket are: (1) To allow interested parties a means to identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the approval process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial review. EPA will consider any comments received in writing by October 10, 2001.
Under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing State operating permit programs submitted pursuant to Title V of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve State programs provided that they meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's regulations codified at 40 CFR part 70. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a State operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating permit program, to use VCS in place of a State program that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The District of Columbia has applied to EPA for Final authorization of changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA proposes to grant such Final authorization to the District of Columbia. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Send your written comments by October 10, 2001.
Send written comments to Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3379. You can examine copies of the materials submitted by the District of Columbia during normal business hours at the following locations: District of Columbia Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration, Bureau of Hazardous Materials and Toxic Substances, Hazardous Waste Division, 51 N Street, NE., 3rd Floor, Washington DC 20002, Phone number (202) 535-2290, attn: James Sweeney; or EPA Region III, Library, 2nd Floor, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-5254.
Charles Bentley, Mailcode 3WC21, RCRA State Programs Branch, U.S. EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029, Phone number: (215) 814-3379.
For additional information, please see the immediate final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Legal Services Corporation.
Request for expressions of interest in participation in Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group.
LSC is conducting a Negotiated Rulemaking to consider revisions to its eligibility regulations at 45 CFR Part 1611. LSC hereby solicits expressions of interest in appointment to the Working Group from the regulated community, its clients, advocates, the organized bar and other interested parties.
Expressions of interest must be received by September 25, 2001.
Mattie C. Condray, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002-4250; (202) 336-8817;
45 CFR part 1611 sets forth the requirements relating to determination and documentation of client eligibility. The current version of 1611 was adopted in 1983. There have been two proposed revisions to 1611 published since then, one in 1989 and another in 1995, but neither rulemaking was completed. Many outstanding issues prompting the 1995 proposed rulemaking remain extant and there are other issues, particularly related to documentation requirements, which are appropriate for discussion. In addition, there is a FY1998 statutory change which should be incorporated into the regulation.
In light of the above, the LSC Board of Directors identified 45 CFR part 1611, Eligibility, as an appropriate subject for
LSC anticipates that the Working Group will be a group of 15-20 persons comprised of LSC representatives and affected and/or interested parties (
Once appointed, the Working Group will meet under the direction of a trained facilitator with the aim of developing a consensus-based proposed rule. LSC expects that the Working Group will meet in 2-3 day, face-to-face sessions over the coming several months.
LSC hereby solicits expressions of interest in appointment to the Working Group from the regulated community, its clients, advocates, the organized bar and other interested parties. Expressions of interest must be submitted no later than 15 days from the date of publication of this notice. Expressions of interest must be submitted in writing (by regular mail, fax or email) to LSC's Mattie Condray at the addresses listed in this notice.
Once LSC has received expressions of interest, the President, working in consultation with the Operations and Regulations Committee, acting through its Chair, will make appointments of individuals and organizations to the Working Group. Groups or organizations asked to participate in the Working Group will be responsible for selecting and designating their own representatives.
Legal Services Corporation.
Request for expressions of interest in participation in Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group.
LSC is conducting a Negotiated Rulemaking to consider revisions to its alien representation regulations at 45 CFR part 1626. LSC hereby solicits expressions of interest in appointment to the Working Group from the regulated community, its clients, advocates, the organized bar and other interested parties
Expressions of interest must be received by September 25, 2001.
Mattie C. Condray, Senior Assistant General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002-4250; (202) 336-8817;
45 CFR part 1626 sets forth the restrictions on legal assistance LSC grant recipients may provide to non-U.S. citizens. Although Part 1626 was last amended relatively recently (1997), this regulation has been identified both by staff and field representatives as in need of additional amendment. In the years since its last amendment, several practical issues have emerged, such as issues relating to documentation requirements, representation of groups of aliens, and representation of legal aliens not currently covered by the rule. In addition, the findings of the Erlenborn Commission and certain provisions from the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 need to be incorporated into the 1626 regulations.
In light of the above, the LSC Board of Directors identified 45 CFR part 1626, Restrictions on Legal Assistance to Aliens, as an appropriate subject for rulemaking on January 27, 2001.
LSC anticipates that the Working Group will be a group of 15-20 persons comprised of LSC representatives and affected and/or interested parties (i.e., individual recipients, clients, national organizations, local and national bar associations, etc.). LSC anticipates that the Working Group will include LSC representatives from the Office of Legal Affairs, the Office of Program Performance, and the Office of Compliance and Enforcement, along with a liaison from the Office of Inspector General. LSC is seeking external members representing national legal services advocacy organizations; individual recipients (preferably reflecting large/small and/or urban/rural diversity); clients; national and local organized bar associations; and other interested stakeholders. While there are no specific “criteria” for membership, it is expected that members will have the support of their organizations in participating in the effort and be knowledgeable about the issues.
Once appointed, the Working Group will meet under the direction of a trained facilitator with the aim of developing a consensus-based proposed rule. LSC expects that the Working Group will meet in 2-3 day, face-to-face sessions over the coming several months.
LSC hereby solicits expressions of interest in appointment to the Working Group from the regulated community, its clients, advocates, the organized bar and other interested parties. Expressions of interest must be submitted no later
Once LSC has received expressions of interest, the President, working in consultation with the Operations and Regulations Committee, acting through its Chair, will make appointments of individuals and organizations to the Working Group. Groups or organizations asked to participate in the Working Group will be responsible for selecting and designating their own representatives.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a 3-day Council meeting on September 25 through 27, 2001, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, September 25, 26, and 27, 2001. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday and 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday and Thursday.
The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Express, 110 Middle Street, Fairhaven, MA 02719; telephone (508) 997-1281. Requests for special accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950; telephone (978) 465-0492.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council (978) 465-0492.
After introductions, the Council will elect its 2001-2002 officers. The Sea Scallop Committee report to follow will be the only item on the agenda for the rest of the day. The Sea Scallop Committee will ask the Council to approve draft management measures to be included and analyzed in the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Amendment 10 to the Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The discussion will include review of Sea Scallop Scallop Committee, Plan Development Team, and Advisory Panel recommendations. Measures to be considered include options that concern: Finfish bycatch during scallop fishing; limited access permit restrictions, including allocating differing days-at-sea amounts by gear sector; framework adjustments and annual specifications, including changing the scallop fishing year and increasing the days-at-sea carry-over provision; programs to fund and administer scallop research and on-board observers; data collection and monitoring; management of the general category open-access scallop fishery and possibly other measures.
The Research Steering Committee will provide an update on its most recent activities. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center will then present a follow-up report on the stock status of Gulf of Maine cod, which was included as part of an advisory to the Council last month. The NMFS Regional Office will then review its recent efforts to revise the current days-at-sea management system. Following these briefings, there will be a report from the Council’s Capacity Committee on its progress to develop proposals to reduce latent fishing effort, allow consolidation of fishing effort and modify permit transfer restrictions. The remainder of the day will be spent on groundfish issues. The Council intends to take final action on Framework Adjustment 36 to the Northeast Multispecies FMP. Measures under the framework would reduce Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod fishing mortality and discards, extend or change the Western GOM closed area, change the area authorized for the northern shrimp fishery, and allow tuna purse seine vessels access to groundfish closed areas. The Council is considering the full range of measures for reducing GOM cod fishing mortality, including changes to recreational fishing measures. -
Reports on recent activities will include those from the Council Chairman and Executive Director, the NMFS Regional Administrator, Northeast Fisheries Science Center and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council liaisons, NOAA General Counsel and representatives of the U.S. Coast Guard, NMFS Enforcement and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee will review its deliberations on issues and questions about the status determination criteria (overfishing definitions) for scallops under rotational area management, red crab and skates, and the Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW) 33 Advisory Report. The Monkfish Committee will review its initial discussions concerning the annual framework adjustment called for in the Monkfish FMP. Included will be the effect of the timing of the upcoming monkfish stock assessment and the impact of the recent court decision on the Council’s actions. The Monkfish Committee will also review its discussions about preliminary recommendations for 2002 workload priorities, including a possible plan amendment. The Herring Committee will discuss and ask the Council to take final action on Framework Adjustment 1 to the Atlantic Herring FMP. The action would implement a January through May seasonal quota in herring Management Area 1A and set a 6,000 metric ton quota in the areas for 2002. The committee also will recommend not to support a mid-season adjustment to the 2001 allocation for joint ventures and not to develop a limited entry or controlled access in 2002. The Protected Species Committee will report on and ask for approval of its comments on NMFS’s draft Right Whale Recovery Plan and Biological Opinions for the Northeast Multispecies, Monkfish, and Dogfish FMPs. The day will conclude with a report on Marine Protected Areas by the Council Executive Director. Any other outstanding business also will be addressed at this time. -
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subjects of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to
The New England Council will consider public comments at a minimum of two Council meetings before making recommendations to the National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator on any framework adjustment to a fishery management plan. If the Regional Administrator concurs with the adjustment proposed by the Council, the Regional Administrator may publish the action either as proposed or final regulations in the
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of intent to prepare an SEIS; request for comments; notice of scoping meeting.
NMFS announces its intent to prepare SEISs in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) for the EFH components of the Monkfish, Atlantic Herring, and Atlantic Salmon FMPs. NMFS will hold a public scoping meeting and accept written comments to determine the range of management alternatives to be addressed in the SEISs to describe and identify EFH for these fisheries, minimize to the extent practicable the adverse effects of fishing on EFH, and identify other actions to encourage the conservation and enhancement of EFH.
NMFS will accept written comments through November 9, 2001. A public scoping meeting will be held on September 27, 2001, from 2:30 until 4:30 p.m.
Written comments on the intent to prepare the SEISs and requests for the scoping document or other information should be directed to the National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930, Attn: Louis A. Chiarella. Comments may also be sent via facsimile (fax) to (978) 281-9301. NMFS will not accept unsigned faxes or comments by e-mail. The public meeting will be held at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA, on September 27, 2001.
Louis A. Chiarella, Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator, 978-281-9277, fax 978-281-9301, e-mail
In response to a U.S. District Court Order (
NMFS is considering the need to revise the EFH designations for monkfish, Atlantic herring, and Atlantic salmon based upon any available new scientific information and is considering potential HAPC designations. NMFS will consider a range of alternatives to minimize adverse effects of fishing activities on EFH.
NMFS and the New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will jointly develop EFH analysis and management alternatives for the Monkfish, Atlantic Herring, and Atlantic Salmon FMPs. Analysis and subsequent management alternatives may be presented as one NEPA document addressing EFH for all three species, as two or more separate NEPA documents addressing the EFH for each species separately or in combination with another species, or (3) as part of a combined NEPA document that also addresses other fisheries management issues for one or more of these species.
The public is invited and encouraged to assist NMFS and the Council in developing the scope of EFH alternatives to be analyzed.
The public scoping meeting will be held on September 27, 2001, from 2:30 until 4:30 p.m., at the NMFS Northeast Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA, Conference Room.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Louis A. Chiarella (see
16 U.S.C. 1801
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Notice of revision of privacy act systems of records and proposed new routine uses.
Notice is hereby given that the United States Department of Agriculture is proposing to change the (USDA) Privacy Act Systems of Records maintained by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) as follows: A new routine use would be added to two Privacy Act systems of records maintained by FSA.
The proposed routine uses will become effective November 9, 2001 unless modified by a subsequent notice to incorporate public comments. Comments must be received by October 10, 2001 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons may submit written comments to Diane Flores Korwin, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Specialist, Public Affairs Staff, Farm Service Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Public Affairs, STOP 0506, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-0506; telephone 202-720-5534. The public may inspect comments received on this notice Monday-Friday, except holidays, between 8:15 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. in Room 3625 at the address listed above.
Diane Flores Korwin, telephone 202-720-5534.
This notice concerns two of the Privacy Act systems of records maintained by FSA; USDA/FSA-2, “Farm Records File” and USDA/FSA-14, “Applicant/Borrower File.” The proposed revisions would provide disclosure of certain records in these files to State-certified or State-licensed appraisers, and to employees of other Federal agencies who are qualified to conduct real estate appraisals.
Disclosure of this information to State-certified or State-licensed appraisers, and to employees of other Federal agencies who are qualified to conduct real estate appraisals is a use of the information compatible with the specific administrative purposes for which the information was collected. Limited disclosure is clearly within FSA’s mandate to promote a viable agricultural economy, and is essential for effective implementation of appraisal standards established under of the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989, 12, U.S.C. ch. 34A. Release of this producer and farm information relates to effective analyses of comparable properties and determinations of capitalization rates in connection with appraisers’ valuations of properties using the comparable sales and income approaches.
Appraisers’ ethical and other standards and general practices promulgated pursuant to the FIRREA provide safeguards against further dissemination of the information provided to persons outside USDA. Appraisals are confidential and may not be released to other parties without the approval of the appraiser and the client. Appraisal reports identify properties, but do not identify the owner by name, and those appraisers who violate the ethical standards are subject to discipline by State certification boards.
The FSA also publishes information regarding acreage allotments and marketing quotas for farms raising tobacco and peanuts as required by law. However, information concerning the acreage, yield, storage, and marketing by farmers engaged in production of tobacco and peanuts will only be released in a manner that does not identify the information furnished by individual producers. 7 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits release of this information in a form identifiable to an individual producer.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, USDA hereby takes the following action:
This system is being amended to add a routine use allowing the limited disclosure of Producer and Farm Information to State-certified or State-licensed appraisers and employees of Federal agencies other than USDA who are qualified to conduct real estate appraisals.
The specific information to be disclosed to the appraiser is:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, USDA will not release to appraisers information indicating the acreage, yield, storage and marketing of peanuts or tobacco if that information was requested by USDA and is necessary for the administration of Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. § 1361
This system is being amended to add a routine use allowing the limited disclosure of Producer and Farm Information to state-certified or state-licensed appraisers and employees of Federal agencies other than USDA who are qualified to conduct real estate appraisals.
The specific information to be disclosed to the appraiser is:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, USDA will not release to appraisers information indicating the acreage, yield, storage and marketing of peanuts or tobacco if that information was requested by USDA and is necessary for the administration of Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. 1361
Farm Records File (Automated), USDA/FSA-2.
This system of records is under the control of the Deputy Administrator for Program Delivery and Field Operations, FSA, USDA, Stop 0539, PO Box 2415, Washington, DC 20013. The data will be maintained at the county FSA office which services the particular farm, the State FSA Office of the State where the particular county FSA office is located, the Kansas City Management Office, 8930 Ward Parkway, PO Box 419205, Kansas City, Missouri 64141-0205; the Kansas City Commodity Office, PO Box 419205, 9200 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, Missouri 64141-0205, and the FSA National Office. The address of each county and State FSA office can be
Farm owners, operators, and other producers.
The information in the system consists of documentation of participation in the active programs as well as discontinued programs. This includes names and addresses of producers and is not necessarily limited to farm allotments, quotas, bases, and history; compliance data; production and marketing data; lease and transfer of allotments and quotas; appeals; new grower applications; conservation program documents; program participation and payment documents; appraisals, leases, and data for farm reconstitution; and, for payment limitation purposes, financial statements, and other applicable farm information as well such documents as tax statements, wills, trusts, partnership agreements, and corporate charters.
7 U.S.C. 135b, 450j, 450k, 405l, 1281-1393, 1421-1449, 1461-1469, 1471-1471i, 1781-1787; 15 U.S.C. 714-714p; 16 U.S.C. 590a-590q, 1301-1311, 1501-1510, 1606, 2101-2111, 2201-2205, 3501, 3801-3847, 4601, 5822; 26 U.S.C. 6109; 40 U.S.C. App. 1, 2, 203; 43 U.S.C. 1592; and 48 U.S.C. 1469.
To facilitate the Congressional mandate that FSA and CCC operate farm programs that control the price and supply of certain agricultural commodities, that protect the environment and that enhance the marketing and distribution of certain agricultural commodities.
Records contained in this system may be disclosed:
(1) To a cooperative marketing association approved to carry out CCC rice support loan and marketing programs, but only that data regarding member and related individual participation in such programs;
(2) To the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting a violation of law, or of enforcing or implementing a statute, rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, of any records within this system when information available indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto;
(3) To a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, or to opposing counsel in a proceeding before any of the above, of any record within the system which constitutes evidence in that proceeding, or which is sought in the course of discovery to the extent that records sought are relevant to the subject of the proceeding;
(4) To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual;
(5) To the Internal Revenue Service to establish the tax liability of individuals as required by the Internal Revenue Code;
(6) To State or local tax authorities having an agreement with CCC to withhold taxes or fees from loan proceeds;
(7) To the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), but only that data necessary for the BOR to administer the Reclamation Act of 1982 as amended;
(8) To boards or other entities authorized by state statute to collect commodity assessments;
(9) To the Food Safety and Inspection Service;
(10) To the Peanut Board with respect to producers of peanuts and their participation in the peanut price support, production control and quota programs;
(11) To the Bureau of Indian Affairs the name and address of producers to assist in the distribution of funds to Native American Indians;
(12) To candidates for FSA county and/or community committee positions the names and addresses of producers in the county for the purpose of county committee elections;
(13) To tobacco analysis laboratories the producers' names and addresses as well as crop-specific data regarding tobacco being analyzed prior to the marketing of such tobacco;
(14) To the public who may inspect farm allotment and quota data for marketing quota crops as required by the Agricultural Act of 1938, as amended;
(15) To State Foresters the names and addresses of producers and crop-specific data regarding their operations with respect to forestry conservation practices;
(16) To cotton buyers the names of cotton producers;
(17) To cotton ginners the names, addresses and cotton acreages;
(18) To members of Congress the names and addresses of producers; and
(19) To the public when they need to obtain the names and addresses of producers who have loans with FSA or CCC to prevent such individual from purchasing commodity that has been placed under a CCC loan.
(20) To State or local taxing authorities or their contracted appraisal companies the name of and address of producers for tax appraisal purposes; and
(21) To State-certified or State-licensed appraisers and employees of Federal agencies other than USDA qualified to perform real estate appraisals.
The specific information to be disclosed to the appraiser is:
— Production Flexibility Contract Acres
— Payment yields
— Agricultural use acres and cropland acres
— Copies of aerial photography
— Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres
— Highly erodible land (HEL) delineations
— Wetland classifications
Notwithstanding the foregoing, USDA will not release to appraisers information indicating the acreage, yield, storage and marketing of peanuts or tobacco if that information was requested by USDA and is necessary for the administration of Title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. 1361
Records are maintained in file folders and Department computer systems at applicable locations as set out above under the heading “System Location'.
Records may be indexed by individual name, farm number, tax identification number, Social Security Number, or loan number.
Records are kept in locked Government office buildings. Access to
Program documents are destroyed within 6 years after end of participation, except for conservation program documents, which are retained for periods sufficient to insure compliance equal to the life of the practice. Other documents, such as powers of attorney or leases, are destroyed after such document is no longer valid. Original loan notes are returned to producers after liquidation of loan.
Deputy Administrator for Program Delivery and Field Operations, FSA, USDA, Stop 0539, PO Box 2415, Washington, DC 20013.
An individual may request information regarding this system of records, or information as to whether the system contains records pertaining to the individual from the System Manager listed above.
An individual may obtain information about a record in the system which pertains to such individual by submitting a written request to the above listed System Manager. The envelope and letter should be marked “Privacy Act Request.” A request for information pertaining to an individual should contain: name, address, ZIP code, name of system of record, year of records in question, and any other pertinent information to help identify the file.
Individuals desiring to contest or amend information maintained in the system should direct their request to the above listed System Manager, and should include the reason for contesting it and the proposed amendment to the information with supporting information to show how the record is inaccurate. A request for contesting records pertaining to an individual should contain: name, address, ZIP code, name of system of record, year of records in question, and any other pertinent information to help identify the file.
Information in this system is submitted by county and State Committees and their representatives, the Office of Inspector General and other investigatory agencies, the Office of the General Counsel, the Kansas City Commodity Office, the Kansas City Management Office, the Natural Resources and Conservation Service and by third parties and by the individual who is the subject of the file.
Applicant/Borrower, USDA/FSA-14.
Each Farm Service Agency (FSA) applicant's/borrower's records are located in the Agricultural Credit Team Office, County, District, or State Office through which the financial assistance is sought or was obtained, and electronic account records are in the Finance Office in St. Louis, Missouri. A State Office version of the Team Office, County or District office file may be located in or accessible by the State Office which is responsible for that Agricultural Credit Team, County or District Office. Correspondence regarding borrowers is located in the Agricultural Credit Team, County, District, State and National Office files. The addresses of Agricultural Credit Team, County, District and State Offices are listed in the telephone directory of the appropriate city or town under the heading “United States Government, Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency.” The Finance Office is located at 1520 Market Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63103.
Present and former FSA applicants/borrowers and their respective household members including members of associations.
The system includes files containing characteristics of applicants/borrowers and their respective household members, such as gross and net income, sources of income, capital, assets and liabilities, net worth, age, race, number of dependents, marital status, reference material, farm or ranch operating plans, and property appraisals.
The system also includes credit reports and personal references from credit agencies, lenders, businesses, and individuals. In addition, a running record of observation concerning the operations of the person being financed is included. A record of deposits to and withdrawals from an individual's supervised bank account is also contained in those files where appropriate. In some Agricultural Credit Team and County Offices, this record is maintained in a separate folder containing only information relating to activity within supervised bank accounts. Some items or information are extracted from the individual's file and placed in a card file for quick reference.
7 U.S.C. 1921
Records contained in this system may be disclosed:
(1) To the appropriate agency, whether Federal, State, local, tribal, foreign, or other public authority foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting a violation of law, or of enforcing or implementing a statute or a rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, or of any record within this system when information available indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto, if the information disclosed is relevant to any enforcement, regulatory, investigative, or prosecutive responsibility of the receiving agency;
(2) To business firms in a trade area that buy chattel or crops or sell them for commission. The disclosure may include the name, home address, social security numbers and financial information. This is being done so that FSA may benefit from the purchaser notification provisions of section 1324 of the Food Security Act of 1985 (7 U.S.C. 163(e)). The Act requires that potential purchasers of farm commodities must be advised ahead of time that a lien exists in order for the creditor to perfect its lien against such purchases;
(3) To the appropriate authority when a default involves a security interest in tribal allotted or trust land. The disclosure may include the name, home address, and information concerning default on loan repayment. Pursuant to the Cranston-Gonzales National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12701 et. seq.), liquidation may be pursued only after offering to transfer the account to an eligible tribal member, the tribe, or the Indian housing authority serving the tribe(s);
(4) To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the written request of that individual;
(5) To a collection or servicing contractor, financial institution, or a local, State, or Federal agency, when FSA determines such referral is appropriate for servicing or collecting the borrower's account or as provided in contracts with servicing or collection agencies. The disclosure may include name, home address, social security number, and financial information;
(6) In a proceeding before a court or adjudicative body, when: (a) The agency or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity; or (c) any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where the agency has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation and, by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, the agency determines that disclosure of the records is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records;
(7) To financial consultants, advisors, lending institutions, packagers, agents, and private or commercial credit sources when FSA determines such referral is appropriate to encourage the borrowers to refinance their FSA indebtedness as required by Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1471). The disclosure may include name, home address, and financial information for selected borrowers;
(8) To the Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), any legally enforceable debt(s), to be offset against any tax refund that may become due the debtor for the tax year in which the referral is made, in accordance with the IRS regulations at 26 CFR 301.6402-6T, Offset of Past Due Legally Enforceable Debt Against Overpayment, and under the authority contained in 31 U.S.C. 3720A;
(9) To the Defense Manpower Data Center, Department of Defense, and the United States Postal Service any information regarding indebtedness, for the purpose of conducting computer matching programs to identify and locate individuals receiving Federal salary or benefit payments and who are delinquent in their repayment of debts owed to the U.S. Government under certain programs administered by the FSA in order to collect debts under the provisions of the Debt Collection Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-365) by voluntary repayment, administrative or salary offset procedures, or by collection agencies;
(10) To lending institutions any financial information when FSA determines the individual may be financially capable of qualifying for credit with or without a guarantee. The referral may contain name, home address, and financial information;
(11) To lending institutions that have a lien against the same property as FSA, for the purpose of the collection of the debt. These loans can be under the direct or guaranteed loan programs. Disclosure may include names, home addresses, social security numbers, and financial information;
(12) To private attorneys under contract with either FSA or with the Department of Justice for the purpose of foreclosure and possession actions and collection of past due accounts in connection with FSA loans;
(13) To the Department of Justice when: (a) The agency or any component thereof; or (b) any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or (c) the United States Government is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and by careful review, the agency determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is therefore deemed by the agency to be for a purpose that is compatible with the purpose for which the agency collected the records;
(14) To the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as a record of location utilized by Federal agencies for an automatic credit prescreening system. The disclosure may include names, home addresses, social security numbers, and financial information;
(15) To the Department of Labor, State Wage Information Collection agencies, and other Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as those responsible for verifying information furnished to qualify for Federal benefits, to conduct wage and benefit matching through manual and/or automated means, for the purpose of determining compliance with Federal regulations and appropriate servicing actions against those not entitled to program benefits, including possible recovery of improper benefits. This may include names, home addresses, social security numbers, and financial information; and
(16) To financial consultants, advisors, or underwriters, when FSA determines such referral is appropriate for developing packaging and marketing strategies involving the sale of FSA loan assets. The referral may include names, home addresses, and financial information; and
(17) To state-certified or state-licensed appraisers and employees of Federal agencies other than USDA qualified to perform real estate appraisals.
The specific information to be disclosed to the appraiser is:
—Production Flexibility Contract Acres
—Payment yields
—Agricultural use acres and cropland acres
—Copies of aerial photography
—Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) acres
—Highly erodible land (HEL) delineations
—Wetland classifications
Notwithstanding the foregoing, USDA will not release to appraisers information indicating the acreage, yield, storage and marketing of peanuts or tobacco if that information was requested by USDA and is necessary for the administration of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, 7 U.S.C. 1361
Disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12): Disclosure may be made from this system to “consumer reporting agencies” as defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f) or the Federal Claims Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)).
Records are maintained electronically and in file folders at the Agricultural Credit Team, County, District, State, and National offices. A limited subset of personal, financial and characteristics data required for effective management of the programs and borrower repayment status is maintained on disk or magnetic tape at the Finance Office. This subset of data may be accessed by the authorized personnel from each office.
Records are indexed by name, identification number and type of loan. Data may be retrieved from paper records or the magnetic tapes. A limited subset is available through telecommunications capability, ranging from telephones to intelligent terminals. All FSA Agricultural Credit Team, State, National and some county offices have the telecommunications capability available to access this subset of data.
Records are kept in locked offices at the Agricultural Credit Team, County, District, State and National Offices. A limited subset of data is also maintained in a tape and disk library and an on-line retrieval system at the Finance Office. Access is restricted to authorized FSA personnel. A system operator and terminal passwords and code numbers are used to restrict access to the online system. Passwords and code numbers are changed as necessary.
Records are maintained subject to the Federal Records Disposal Act of 1943 (44 U.S.C. 366-380) and in accordance with FSA's disposal schedules. The Agricultural Credit Team, District, County, State and National office dispose of records by shredding, burning, or other suitable disposal methods after established retention periods have been fulfilled. Finance Office records are disposed of by overprinting. (Destruction methods may never compromise the confidentiality of information contained in the records). Applications, including credit reports and personal references which are rejected, withdrawn, or otherwise terminated, are kept in the Agricultural Credit, County, District, or State office for 2 full fiscal years and 1 month after the end of the fiscal year in which the application was rejected, withdrawn, canceled, or expired. If final action was taken on the application, including an appeal, investigation, or litigation, the application is kept for 1 full fiscal year after the end of the fiscal year in which final action was taken. The records, including credit reports, of borrowers who have paid or otherwise satisfied their obligations are retained at the Agricultural Credit Team, County, District, or State Office for 1 full fiscal year after the fiscal year in which the loan was paid in full. Correspondence records at the National Office which concern borrowers and applicants are retained for 3 full fiscal years after the last year in which there was correspondence.
The Agricultural Credit Manager at the Agricultural Credit Team Office or at the County Office, District Director at the District Office, and the State Executive Director at the State Office, the Assistant Administrator of the Finance Office for Finance Office in St. Louis, MO, and the FSA Administrator for the National Office at the following address: USDA/FSA Administrator, Stop 0501, PO 2415, Washington, DC 20250-2415.
Any individual may request information regarding this system of records, or determine whether the system contains records pertaining to themselves from the appropriate Systems Manager. If specific location of the record is not known, the individual should address their request to: Administrator, FSA, Attention: Freedom of Information Officer, Stop 0506, PO Box 2415, Washington, DC 20013-2415. A request for information should include: name, address, State and county where the loan was applied for or approved, and particulars involved (i.e. date of request/approval, type of loan, etc.).
Any individual may obtain information as to the procedures for gaining access to a record in this system which pertains to themselves by submitting a written request to one of the Systems Managers. The envelope and letter should be marked “Privacy Act Request.” A request for information should contain: name, address, ZIP code, name of the system of records in question, and any other pertinent information to help identify the file.
Individuals desiring to contest or amend information maintained in the system should direct their request to the above listed System Manager, and should include the reason for contesting it and the proposed amendment to the information with supporting information to show how the record is inaccurate. A request for contesting records should contain: name, address, ZIP code, name of the system of records in question, and any other pertinent information to help identify the file.
Information in this system comes primarily from the borrower. Credit reports and personal references come primarily from credit agencies and creditors.
None.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intent of the Farm Service Agency (FSA) to request an extension of a currently approved information collection for a form used in support of the FSA Farm Loan Programs (FLP). This renewal does not involve any revisions to the program rules.
Comments on this notice must be received on or before November 9, 2001, to be assured consideration.
Michael Cumpton, USDA, Farm Service Agency, Loan Servicing and Property Management Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, STOP 0523, Washington, DC 20250-0523; Telephone (202) 690-4014; Electronic mail: mike_cumpton@wdc.usda.gov.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 and to Michael Cumpton, Senior Loan Officer, USDA, FSA, Farm Loan Programs, Loan Servicing Division, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, STOP 0523, Washington, DC 20250-0523.
Comments will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval of the information collection. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare environmental impact statement.
The USDA, Forest Service, will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Idaho Cobalt Project Mine. The Salmon-Challis National Forest Supervisor has determined that preparation of the EIS is required for approval of the Idaho Cobalt Project Plan of Operations (Plan), under FS regulations governing locatable mineral activities on National Forest System Lands (36 CFR 228A) and CEQ regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1501-1508). The EIS will disclose the environmental effects of the Plan submitted by Formation Capital Corporation U.S. (Formation) for an underground cobalt-copper-gold mine on the Salmon/Cobalt District of the Salmon-Challis National Forest in Lemhi County, Idaho.
The proposed Idaho Cobalt Project is located in an area of the Salmon-Challis National Forest open to mineral location and development. The Forest Service is guided by law and policy, which recognizes Formation's legal right to explore for, and develop mineral resources. At the same time, the Forest Service is charged to ensure that these activities are conducted in an environmentally sound manner, and that once completed, reclamation of the land to a stable and useable condition is accomplished.
The Idaho Cobalt is approximately 45 road miles west from Salmon, Idaho or 22 direct miles. The initial Plan submitted by Formation describes the proposed Idaho Cobalt Project, including production adits and declines, waste rock disposal areas, processing plant, tailings disposal methods, haul roads, and ancillary support facilities on National Forest System Lands. Two separate underground mining operations would be developed and used to extract ore from two deposits, the Ram and Sunshine. Three portals are being proposed along the slopes above Bucktail Creek. A mill would be situated on a plateau located east of the portals. Tailings disposal is proposed to utilize a dry stacking method in an area located east and down slope of the mill. Process waters would be managed and are proposed to be recycled in a closed system, using a water management reservoirs located east and down slope of the tailings disposal site. The proposed nominal ore production rate for mining has been established at 800 tons per day (tpd) or 280,000 tons per year (tpy). The initial start-up rate is proposed to be 600 tpd or 210,000 tpy, with full production in the third year. Current reserves and resources identified by Formation would allow for a 9-year mine life. The project would have a surface disturbance estimated at 191 acres.
The proposed Idaho Cobalt Project is located adjacent to the Blackbird Mine in the historic Blackbird Mining District. Extensive negotiations have occurred and are still ongoing between the existing and previous owners of the Blackbird property and state and federal agencies regarding environmental damage arising from the previous mining operations in the area. The problems created by past mining include degradation of waters draining from mine portals, waste dumps and the tailings impoundment area, as well as spilled tailings along Blackbird Creek. Actions taken by federal and state agencies under Superfund authority have included a Natural Resource Damage Assessment which was settled by Consent Decree, and an Administrative Order on Consent (AOC) for the performance of early removal action and a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for site cleanup which is still ongoing.
The area that may potentially be affected by the proposed Idaho Cobalt Project mining and mill operation drains to Big Deer Creek, and Panther Creek. Ninety-nine percent of the Panther Creek basin is National Forest; less than one percent is privately owned. Panther Creek flows into the Salmon River, a principal sub-basin of the Snake River. Preliminary environmental issues identified for the immediate project area are described below. Potential Project impacts outside this area include the transportation corridor (Salmon, Idaho to the project site); impact to the socio-economic areas of Lemhi and Custer Counties with the respective county seats of Salmon and Challis, Idaho; and line of sight visual impacts from Gant Ridge trails.
The EIS will tier to the Salmon National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) and Final EIS, January 1988, which provide overall guidance of all land management activities on the Salmon National Forest, including mineral exploration and development. This document also tiers to the 1982 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Blackbird Cobalt-Copper Project.
Written comments and suggestions must be submitted on or before October 31st, 2001.
Submit written comments and suggestions on the proposed activities to Ray Henderson, Project Coordinator, Salmon-Challis National Forest, 50 Hwy 93 South, Salmon, Idaho, 83467, Phone (208) 756-5100. To be placed on the project mailing list or for additional information, contact the Project Coordinator identified above.
Formation Capital Corporation U.S. (Formation) submitted a Plan of Operations for the proposed Idaho Cobalt Project to the Salmon-Challis National Forest in January 2001. The plan, as proposed and subsequently modified by Formation, is summarized as follows:
The proposed Idaho Cobalt Project would consist of developing an 800-ton per day mine and mill complex. The project would involve mining cobalt-copper-gold reserves with an annual production rate of 280,000 tons of ore at full production. Current reserves and resources would allow for a 9-year mine life. The ore would be mined from two deposits, the Ram and the Sunshine and conveyed to a mill situation on a plateau (The Big Flat). Underground mining methods are proposed, and a flotation mill would be used to process ore from the mine. At full production the mill would produce approximately 32 tons of concentrate and 768 tons of tailings per day. The concentrate would be shipped to an off-site hydrometallurgical facility.
Ram and Sunshine ore would be hauled directly to the mill with 30-ton trucks, where the ore would be stockpiled. The approximate haul distance to the proposed site of the mill from the Ram portal is 2.8 miles and 1.5 miles from the Sunshine portal. Another proposal being considered for the Ram ore is an overhead tram from the 7070 Ram portal to the mill. A conceptual design for the tram includes a 70 cubic foot tramcar traveling on track cables and driven by a haul cable. Two pivoted intermediate towers, approximately 35 feed high, would support the track cables. The tramcar would be loaded from a hopper at the Ram portal, and the car would discharge into a hopper at the mill crusher. A third option for delivering the Ram ore to the mill is to develop a shaft in the second year. The shaft would be located near the mill, connecting to an adit joining the Ram underground workings.
The proposed tailings disposal facility and the water management reservoir are also located on the Big Flat, east of the mill. Disposal of tailings in this area via a dry stacking method was proposed by Formation to take advantage of relatively flat topography, avoidance of wetlands, suitable foundation soils, elimination of the need for a tailings dam, and distance from active drainages and streams. Approximately 60 percent of the tailings would be required underground as backfill. Process waters would be managed and recycled in a closed system, using lined water management reservoirs located east and down slope of the tailings disposal site to reduce water requirements as well as eliminate the need for a water discharge. An additional modification includes the identification of 80 acres for Land Application of excess waters in the latter stages of mine life. The project would disturb 191 acres of National Forest Land.
Power for the project would be secured from an existing power line delivering power to the Blackbird Mine. Emergency power would be supplied with diesel generating equipment located at the main portals and at the mill. This equipment would be sufficient only for essential mill equipment and mine pumps.
It is anticipated that most of the project employees would live in the Salmon area. Employees would be transported to the project site by buses or vans assigned to personnel. The proposed transportation route for the employees is via the Williams Creek Summit, along the Williams Creek road, the Deep Creek road, the Panther Creek road and the Blackbird Creek road. The transportation route for the concentrates is also expected to be via Williams Creek Summit. Equipment, reagents and other freight would also be hauled in along this route.
There would be three main phases in the life of the Idaho Cobalt Project: The construction phase, the production phase, and the reclamation phase. There would also be concurrent reclamation in the construction and production phases as existing disturbed areas or new disturbance is reclaimed post-use. The construction phase would include improving 1 mile of existing roads (4 acres), and the preparation and construction of 4.2 miles of new roads (20.5 acres), the portals and waste rock dumps (15.8 acres) tram corridor (4.8), the mill site (3.5 acres), power line and substation (2.4 acres), tailings disposal site (20 acres), and the water management reservoir (13 acres). Soil stockpile areas, stormwater diversion ditches and borrow areas for 30 acres, with 80 acres proposed for Land Application of reservoir waters towards the end of mine life.
The production phase would bring the mill on line at 400-tons per day increasing to 800-tons per day as the underground Ram mine expands. Each of the project components is integral to the whole operation and therefore there would be limited opportunities for concurrent reclamation. However, there would be concurrent reclamation in some areas when active use stops. The reclamation phase would include final shaping of waste rock dumps, sealing mine portals, mill demolition, power line and substation dismantling, tailings disposal area shaping and revegetation, water management reservoir reclamation, and road reclamation.
Cobalt is a strategic and industrial metal with a diverse range of critical and important uses. The largest single use is in super-alloys for air and land-based gas turbine engines. The fastest growing usage is in the battery industry for cell phones, pagers, portable computers and gasoline-electric hybrid power automobiles. Cobalt is used in computer hard disk drives, semiconductors, magnetic data storage and solar collectors. It is a component in the effort to reduce air pollution, as it is a catalyst for removing sulfur from oil to provide for clean burning fuels and has important medical uses as well.
The Salmon Forest Plan provides guidance for management activities within the potentially affected area through its goals, objectives, standards and guidelines, and management area direction. The proposal would occur within Management Area 5B. Management emphasis in this area is on producing long-term timber outputs through a moderate level of investment in regeneration and thinning. It recognizes the potential for high-value locatable mineral occurrence and probable development. It directs that exploration, location, leasing and development of energy and non-energy minerals resources be coordinated with other resources.
Under the United States Mining Laws of May 10, 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 22), United States citizens and corporations have the right to search for and develop minerals upon public lands, including National Forest Systems lands, open to mineral entry. Forest Service regulations (36 FR 228, Subpart A) require that the agency work with mineral operators to minimize or eliminate adverse environmental impacts from mineral activities on National Forest System lands.
The FS decision to be made in response to Formation's Plan is described by regulation at 36 CFR 228.5 and includes: (a) Approve the project as proposed, (b) Notify the operator of changes or additions to the plan of operations deemed necessary to meet the purpose of the regulations.
These regulations also direct the FS to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in connection with each Plan of Operation. In this regard, the Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor has determined that an EIS is required to support a decision on the Idaho Cobalt Project. The EIS will analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed Plan of Operation and other reasonable alternatives including mitigation, monitoring and reclamation measures designed to minimize adverse effects.
Public participation is an important part of the analysis process (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping activities to date have included a May 3, 2001 meeting at the
A public scoping meeting was conducted on July 20th in Salmon, Idaho. Notices of the meeting were placed in the paper of Record for Salmon and Challis, the Recorder Herald and Challis Messenger. Comments from the public and other agencies will be used to prepare the Draft EIS. A public scoping meeting is also scheduled for October 11th in Salmon, Idaho. Meeting times and place will be placed in the papers of Record for the Salmon and Challis, the Recorder Herald and Challis Messenger. The public is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision.
The scoping process to date has identified the following primary issues:
1. What is the potential for development of acid mine drainage and mobilization of heavy metals from geologic materials exposed by the proposed mining activities.
2. How would proposed mine facilities and activities prevent, control or treat ARD? What are the long-term maintenance requirements of these facilities along with their predicted long-term viability and stability?
3. What is the potential for adverse impacts to water quality downstream of project facilities from the proposed mining activities, including accidental spills of hazardous materials along the transportation route, and how would water quality be maintained and beneficial uses protected?
4. Would special status fish species and their habitat (threatened, endangered, sensitive) or species whose populations or habitat are present be adversely affected by the proposed mining activities?
5. What is the relationship between this project and the current program to remediate the environmental damage at the Blackbird Mine and to re-establish an anadromous fishery in Panther Creek?
6. Would surface water and groundwater quality monitoring be adequate to detect and allow for the correction of any water quality problems resulting from the proposed mining activities?
7. What is the relationship of the aquifer systems between the proposed project and surrounding areas, particularly the Blackbird Mine and receiving streams? What is the existing quality of groundwater in the project area and how would the project affect existing groundwater quality?
8. In recognition of the Clear Creek wildfire of the summer of 2000, what are the potential effects on water quality from accelerated erosion and sedimentation, in consideration of surface disturbance associated with the proposed mining operations?
9. Initial agency review identified specific issues regarding opportunities to reduce the number of waste rock facilities, consolidation of potentially acid generating material into separate locations, and lining of the tailings and water management reservoir.
10. The water balance and geochemical aspect of the operation will receive a critical review and will include consideration of the option for land application for water management purposes.
11. Opportunities exist to place a transportation system on the project site, which meets Forest guidelines, and to reclaim existing access not meeting standards.
This list may be verified, expanded, or modified based on additional scoping for this proposal.
In order to implement the project, the proponent, Formation, must obtain approval or conduct consultation with several other federal, state, and local regulatory agencies. These agencies include: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corps of Engineers, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho State Historic Preservation Officer and Lemhi County, Idaho.
The Salmon-Challis National Forest is the lead agency in the preparation of this EIS. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality is a cooperating agency. (Other state or federal agencies may be identified as cooperating agencies as a result of the scoping process).
The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and available for public review in February 2002. At that time, the EPA will publish a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS in the
The Forest Service believes, at this stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as possible. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
I am the responsible official for this Environmental Impact Statement. My address is Salmon-Challis National Forest, 50 Hwy 93 South, Calmon, Idaho 83467.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of postponement of preliminary determination of antidumping duty investigation.
September 10, 2001.
Rick Johnson at (202) 482-3818; Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to issue the preliminary determination of an antidumping duty investigation within 140 days after the date of initiation. However, if petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the determination must be made, section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend the time limit for the preliminary determination until not later than 190 days after the date of initiation.
On March 20, 2001, the Department initiated the above-referenced investigation.
On August 29, 2001, petitioners made a timely request for a 10-day extension of the period within which the determination must be made in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act. Petitioners noted that the parties in this investigation have made a number of submissions concerning issues which could have a significant impact on the results of the preliminary determination. Further, petitioners noted that the Department's original extension indicated that this investigation involves a “novel product with complex issues related to the * * * appropriate criteria used to define individual models for margin comparison purposes”, among other factors.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On August 9, 2001, in
September 10, 2001.
Irina Itkin, AD/CVD Enforcement Group I, Office II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0656.
The Department published the notice of its final results of the administrative review of the antidumping order on extruded rubber thread, on March 16, 1998.
Following publication of
On March 6, 2001, the Department issued its Final Results of Redetermination, in which it annulled all findings and conclusions made pursuant to the duty-absorption inquiry conducted in the subject review with respect to Heveafil and Filati. As a result of the remand determination, the final antidumping duty rates for Heveafil and Filati were unchanged.
The CIT affirmed the Department's Final Results of Redetermination on August 9, 2001.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to requests by the respondent, Ausimont SpA and Ausimont USA (Ausimont), and the petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (DuPont), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Italy. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 1999, through July 31, 2000.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the United States price and NV.
September 10, 2001.
Vicki Schepker or Gabriel Adler, at (202) 482-1756 or (202) 482-3813, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement Office V, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).
On August 30, 1988, the Department published in the
We issued an antidumping questionnaire to Ausimont on October 10, 2000, followed by supplemental questionnaires on February 12, May 2, and May 14, 2001. We received timely responses to these questionnaires.
We conducted a verification of sales and cost data submitted by Ausimont SpA at the company's corporate headquarters in Bollate, Italy, from July 11 through July 20, 2001. We verified data submitted by Ausimont USA at the company's Thorofare, New Jersey office on August 21 and 22, 2001.
The product covered by this review is granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States.
We compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the
We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and the comparison market that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: type, filler, percentage of filler, and grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales with comparison market sales of the most similar merchandise.
Since there were appropriate comparison market sales for all U.S. sales, we did not need to compare U.S. sales to constructed value, in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
For all sales to the United States, we calculated CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because all sales to unaffiliated parties were made after importation of the subject merchandise into the United States through the respondent's affiliate, Ausimont USA. We based CEP on the packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, net of billing adjustments. We adjusted these prices for movement expenses, including international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling
With respect to sales involving imported wet raw polymer that was further manufactured into finished PTFE resin in the United States, we deducted the cost of such further manufacturing in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
Finally, we made an adjustment for the profit allocated to the above-referenced selling and further manufacturing expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of granular PTFE resin in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Ausimont's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provided a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
Based on a timely allegation filed by the petitioners, we initiated a cost of production (COP) investigation of Ausimont, to determine whether sales were made at prices below the COP.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the weighted-average COP, by model, based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and administrative expenses, interest expenses, selling expenses, and packing costs. Initially, Ausimont provided fiscal-year 1999 cost data for the foreign like product because fiscal-year (FY) 2000 audited data were not available when the initial questionnaire response was prepared. Once the FY 2000 data became available, we requested, and Ausimont submitted, COP data for the POR.
We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (
On a model-specific basis, we compared the revised COP to home market prices, less any rebates, discounts, applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses (which were also deducted from COP).
We disregarded below-cost sales where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP. We determined such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
We determined home market prices net of price adjustments (i.e., early payment discounts and rebates). Where applicable, we made adjustments for packing and movement expenses, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. In order to adjust for differences in packing between the two markets, we deducted home market packing costs from NV and added U.S. packing costs. We increased the reported U.S. packing costs by an amount for packing labor, consistent with the findings of the sales verification conducted in this case.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales at the same level of trade in the comparison market as the level of trade of the U.S. sales. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP sales, such as those made by Ausimont in this review, the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than that of the U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from Ausimont about the marketing involved in the reported U.S. sales and in the home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Ausimont for each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP and for home market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the CEP, after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act, and those reflected in the home market starting price before making any adjustments. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
The record evidence in this review indicates that the home market and the CEP levels of trade have not changed from the 1998-99 review,
In the home market, Ausimont sold directly to fabricators. These sales primarily entailed selling activities such as technical assistance, engineering services, research and development, technical programs, and delivery services. Given this fact pattern, we found that all home market sales were made at a single level of trade. In determining the level of trade for the U.S. sales, we only considered the selling activities reflected in the price after making the appropriate adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act.
Based on a comparison of the home market level of trade and this CEP level of trade, we find the home market sales to be at a different level of trade from, and more remote from the factory than, the CEP sales. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act directs us to make an adjustment for difference in levels of trade where such differences affect price comparability. However, we were unable to quantify such price differences from information on the record. Because we have determined that the home-market level of trade is more remote from the factory than the CEP level of trade, and because the data necessary to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment are unavailable, we made a CEP-offset adjustment to NV pursuant to section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act.
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period August 1, 1999, through July 31, 2000:
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the Department calculated an assessment rate applicable to all appropriate entries. We calculated an importer-specific duty assessment rate on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Upon issuance of the final results of review, where the assessment rate is above
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of granular PTFE resin from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Ausimont will be the rate established in the final results of administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 46.46 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility to file a certificate
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of oil country tubular goods from Korea.
In response to a request from SeAH Steel Corporation (“SeAH”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Korea. This review covers one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise to the United States, SeAH, and the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000, which is the fifth period of review (“POR”).
We have preliminarily determined that SeAH made sales below normal value (“NV”). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of this administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed export price (“CEP”) and NV. The preliminary results are listed below in the section entitled “Preliminary Results of Review.”
September 10, 2001.
Mike Strollo or Scott Lindsay, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5255, or (202) 482-3782, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2000).
On August 11, 1995, the Department published in the
The Department subsequently determined it was impracticable to complete the review within the standard time frame, and extended the deadline for completion of this antidumping duty administrative review.
The products covered by this order are oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”), hollow steel products of circular cross-section, including only oil well casing and tubing, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel (both carbon and alloy), whether seamless or welded, whether or not conforming to American Petroleum Institute (“API”) or non-API specifications, whether finished or unfinished (including green tubes and limited service OCTG products). This scope does not cover casing or tubing pipe containing 10.5 percent or more of chromium, or drill pipe. The products subject to this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7304.29.10.10, 7304.29.10.20, 7304.29.10.30, 7304.29.10.40, 7304.29.10.50, 7304.29.10.60, 7304.29.10.80, 7304.29.20.10, 7304.29.20.20, 7304.29.20.30, 7304.29.20.40, 7304.29.20.50, 7304.29.20.60, 7304.29.20.80, 7304.29.30.10, 7304.29.30.20, 7304.29.30.30, 7304.29.30.40, 7304.29.30.50, 7304.29.30.60, 7304.29.30.80, 7304.29.40.10, 7304.29.40.20, 7304.29.40.30, 7304.29.40.40, 7304.29.40.50, 7304.29.40.60, 7304.29.40.80, 7304.29.50.15, 7304.29.50.30, 7304.29.50.45, 7304.29.50.60, 7304.29.50.75, 7304.29.60.15, 7304.29.60.30, 7304.29.60.45, 7304.29.60.60, 7304.29.60.75, 7305.20.20.00, 7305.20.40.00, 7305.20.60.00, 7305.20.80.00, 7306.20.10.30, 7306.20.10.90, 7306.20.20.00, 7306.20.30.00, 7306.20.40.00, 7306.20.60.10, 7306.20.60.50, 7306.20.80.10, and 7306.20.80.50. The HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and Customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive of the scope of this review.
This review covers the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by SeAH using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities and the examination of relevant sales and financial records.
SeAH reported the date of invoice as the date of sale for its U.S. market sales and the purchase order date as the date of sale in the third country market. SeAH stated that, in the third country market, the material terms of sale, i.e. price and quantity, are finalized on the purchase order date, and therefore, this date was reported as the date of sale. For its U.S. sales, SeAH stated that the vast majority of sales are made from inventory. For these sales, the customer generally contacted Pusan Pipe America (“PPA”), SeAH's affiliated reseller. According to SeAH, no set purchase order was generated, and the invoice was the first document which indicated that a transaction occurred. Therefore, the invoice date best reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. On June 1, 2001, SeAH reiterated that the dates of sale reported in both markets best reflect the dates on which the material terms were set. The Department, therefore, is preliminarily using the dates of sale reported by SeAH.
SeAH produced OCTG in Korea and shipped it to the United States. PPA was the importer of record for all U.S. sales. All of SeAH's U.S. sales are classified as CEP sales (
The Department determines the viability of a comparison market by comparing the aggregate quantity of comparison market sales to U.S. sales. An exporting country is not considered a viable comparison market if the aggregate quantity of sales of subject merchandise to that market amounts to less than five percent of the quantity of sales of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR.
According to section 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, the price of sales to a third country can be used as the basis for normal value only if such price is representative, if the aggregate quantity (or, where appropriate, value) of sales to that country is at least five percent of the quantity (or value) of total sales to the United States, and if the Department does not determine that the particular market situation in that country prevents proper comparison with the export price or constructed export price. The only third country market to which SeAH sold subject merchandise during the POR was Canada. Sales to Canada, on both a value and a volume basis, were found to be greater than the five percent threshold defined in section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act and section 19 CFR 351.404 of the Department's regulations. In addition, we found that the market situation in Canada did not prevent proper comparison between normal value and constructed export price. Therefore, we used Canadian sales in our analysis of petitioners' allegation regarding sales below cost (
To determine whether sales of subject merchandise to the United States were made at less than normal value, we compared the Constructed Export Price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the “United States Price” and “Normal Value” sections of this notice. In accordance with section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we calculated monthly weighted-average prices for NV and compared these to individual U.S. transaction prices.
We preliminarily determine that all of SeAH's U.S. sales were made “in the United States” by SeAH's U.S. affiliate on behalf of SeAH within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act, and thus, should be treated as CEP transactions.
The starting point for the calculation of CEP was the delivered price to unaffiliated customers in the United States. We identified the appropriate starting price by adjusting for early payment discounts. In accordance with section 772(c)(2) of the Act, we made deductions for movement expenses, including foreign inland freight, ocean freight, marine insurance, foreign and U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. inland freight, U.S. wharfage, and U.S. customs duties. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted credit expenses and indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs. In accordance with section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we added duty drawback to the starting price. In accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act, we deducted the cost of further manufacturing where such deduction was appropriate. This deduction for further manufacturing was based on the fees charged by unaffiliated U.S. processors; SeAH indicated that the reported further processors' charges included processing costs and, where applicable, the cost of materials. SeAH also indicated that the reported further processors' charges did not include separate G&A expense information related to this further processing because all of the expenses incurred by PPA, including the minimal G&A expense associated with PPA's dealings with further processors, were reported as indirect selling expenses. Finally, we deducted an amount of profit allocated to these expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
In making comparisons in accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products described in the “Scope of Review” section of this notice, above, sold in the comparison market in the ordinary course of trade for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade, based on the characteristics listed in Appendix V of the Department's October 26, 2000 antidumping questionnaire.
In the most recently completed segment of the proceeding involving SeAH, i.e., the third review, the Department disregarded SeAH's sales that failed the cost test.
1.
After calculating COP, we tested whether comparison market sales of the
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of a respondent's sales of a given model were at prices less than COP, we did not disregard any below-cost sales of that model because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given model during the POR were at prices less than the weighted-average COPs for the POR, we disregarded the below-cost sales because they were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act, and were at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
2.
Where appropriate, for comparison to CEP, we made adjustments to NV by deducting Korean inland freight from the factory to the port, brokerage and handling, terminal charges, wharfage, international ocean freight and packing, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, and direct selling expenses (credit expenses) in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act. We also made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to differences in physical characteristics of merchandise, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act.
Finally, the Department added duty drawback to third-country prices for comparison to duty-inclusive cost of production and U.S. price.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the comparison market at the same level of trade (“LOT”) of the U.S. sales. The NV LOT is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has held that the statute unambiguously requires Commerce to deduct the selling expenses set forth in section 772(d) from the CEP starting price prior to performing its LOT analysis.
To determine whether comparison market NV sales are at a different LOT than EP or CEP sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
In the instant review, SeAH only made sales in both the United States and the third country market, Canada, through its affiliate, PPA. In Canada, SeAH reported only one LOT. SeAH contends that when the CEP adjustments are made, the CEP LOT is less advanced than the foreign market LOT, qualifying SeAH for a CEP offset.
In the foreign market (i.e., the third-country market), the relevant transaction for the Department's analysis is between the affiliate, PPA, and the unaffiliated purchaser in Canada. PPA performs the following selling functions with respect to its Canadian and U.S. sales: negotiating prices, meeting with customers, invoicing, extending credit, managing personnel (i.e., training), strategic and economic planning, computer, legal, accounting, and/or business system development, and procurement and/or sourcing. However, the relevant transaction for U.S. sales, after CEP adjustments are made, is between SeAH and PPA. SeAH does not perform any of the above-listed functions which PPA provides for Canadian customers. On the other hand, for SeAH's sales to PPA, PPA performs four functions that are not provided when PPA sells to Canadian customers: serving as importer of record, paying U.S. customs duties and wharfage, arranging import documents, and inventorying the merchandise. Finally, there is one selling function that PPA provides on its sales to the United States that is performed by SeAH for SeAH's sales through PPA to Canada, market research.
As set forth in section 351.412(f) of the Department's regulations, a CEP offset will be granted where (1) normal value is compared to CEP sales, (2) normal value is determined at a more advanced LOT than the LOT of the CEP, and (3) despite the fact that the party has cooperated to the best of its ability, the data available do not provide an appropriate basis to determine whether the difference in LOT affects price comparability. Since the selling functions provided by PPA for SeAH's sales to the United States, after CEP adjustments are made, are at a marketing stage which is less advanced than for SeAH's sales to Canada, we preliminarily determine that sales in Canada are being made at a more advanced LOT than those to the U.S. Because there is only one level of trade
We made currency conversions based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank, in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act.
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists:
We will disclose to any party to the proceeding calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results of review, within five days after the date of the publication of the preliminary results of review.
The Department shall determine, and the U.S. Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of OCTG from Korea entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for SeAH, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) for all other producers and/or exporters of this merchandise, the cash deposit rate shall be the rate established in the LTFV investigation, which is 12.17 percent.
These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677(f)(i)(1)).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of amended final results of antidumping duty administrative review pursuant to final court decision
On February 28, 1992, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) affirmed the remand determination of the Department of Commerce (the Department) of the final results of the antidumping duty administrative review on potassium permanganate from Spain for the period of review, January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986. In order to give effect to this final and conclusive decision, we are amending our final results retroactively.
September 10, 2001.
Jack K. Dulberger, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5505.
On June 8, 1988, the Department published in the
On September 9, 1991, the Department filed with the court its final results of redetermination in which the dumping margin calculation reflected the adjustments for the tax rebate and certain technical services and invoice processing expenses.
As a result of these proceedings, the dumping margin for IQN changed to 5.53 percent. We are amending the
As a result of the remand determination, the final dumping margin is as follows:
Manufacturer: IQN
Margin (Percent): 5.53
The “All Others Rate” was not affected by the
Accordingly, the Department will determine and the United States Customs Service will assess, antidumping duties on all entries of subject merchandise from IQN during the review period in question in accordance with these amended final results. This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 USC 1675(a)(1) and 19 CFR 351.221).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
September 10, 2001.
Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on sulfanilic acid from the People's Republic of China. The review covers exports of this merchandise to the United States for the period August 1, 1999, through July 31, 2000, and three firms: Zhenxing Chemical Industry Company (Zhenxing), Yude Chemical Industry Company (Yude), and Baoding Chemical Industry Import and Export Corporation (Baoding). The preliminary results of this review indicate that there are dumping margins only for Zhenxing and the “PRC enterprise.”
We preliminarily find that Baoding acted as Zhenxing's shipping agent in preparing Zhenxing's export documents and coordinating its shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding the review of Baoding because we preliminarily find that Baoding was not involved in any sales of sulfanilic acid to the United States other than those reported by Zhenxing. In addition, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Yude because Yude did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of review (POR). Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
September 10, 2001.
Sean Carey or Dana Mermelstein, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 at (202) 482-3964 or (202) 482-1391, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act), as amended. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2000).
On August 16, 2000, the Department published in the
Zhenxing, a Chinese manufacturer described as a joint venture with U.S.-based importer PHT, reported sales of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR in its December 11, 2000, response to Section A (Organization, Accounting Practices, Markets and Merchandise) of the Department's questionnaire. In its response to this questionnaire, Yude reported that it did not make any sales of sulfanilic acid to the United States during the POR. Baoding indicated that it would not be submitting its Section A response. On December 15, 2000, Baoding filed a request to submit an overdue response to Section A of the Department's questionnaire, indicating its interest in seeking a separate rate for Baoding's sales of sulfanilic acid to the United States during the POR. Zhenxing submitted its response to Sections C and D (Sales to the United States and Factors of Production, respectively) on January 8, 2001. On January 10, 2001, the Department granted Baoding's request to submit its overdue Section A response, which was subsequently submitted on January 11, 2001. Baoding submitted its response to Section C on January 24, 2001, and stated that it was not filing a Section D response since all of its sales of subject merchandise to the United States were produced by Zhenxing, and
On December 22, 2000, the Department requested, in a letter to the U.S. Customs Service (Customs), the release of certain Customs documents concerning alleged sales of sulfanilic acid from Zhenxing to an unaffiliated importer other than PHT during the POR. Customs released these documents to the Department on January 26, 2001. On February 2, 2001, the Department filed these Customs documents on the record of this review and invited interested parties to provide comments. Petitioner and respondents filed comments on February 16, 2001, and rebuttal comments on February 20, 2001. On February 27, 2001, petitioner filed a submission to rebut the new factual information included in respondents' February 16, 2001, in accordance with section 351.301(c)(1) of the Department's regulations.
Petitioner submitted a letter to the Department on March 5, 2001, requesting that the Department effectively end its review and resort to adverse facts available in assigning a dumping margin. In this letter, petitioner claimed that the Customs documents indicated that information provided in the questionnaire responses was inaccurate and misleading. In an April 13, 2001, submission, respondents indicated that they were prepared to file a consolidated sales response on behalf of Zhenxing and Baoding that would encompass all of “Zhenxing's” sales of sulfanilic acid during the POR, to related and unrelated importers in the United States. According to respondents, their decision was made in light of the Department's determination made in the prior administrative review that Baoding's sales to an unrelated importer were Zhenxing's sales.
Imports covered by this review are all grades of sulfanilic acid, which include technical (or crude) sulfanilic acid, refined (or purified) sulfanilic acid and sodium salt of sulfanilic acid.
Sulfanilic acid is a synthetic organic chemical produced from the direct sulfonation of aniline with sulfuric acid. Sulfanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, food colors, specialty dyes, and concrete additives. The principal differences between the grades are the undesirable quantities of residual aniline and alkali insoluble materials present in the sulfanilic acid. All grades are available as dry, free flowing powders.
Technical sulfanilic acid, classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS), contains 96 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 1.0 percent maximum aniline, and 1.0 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials. Refined sulfanilic acid, also classifiable under the subheading 2921.42.22 of the HTS, contains 98 percent minimum sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials.
Sodium salt (sodium sulfanilate), classifiable under the HTS subheading 2921.42.90, is a powder, granular or crystalline material which contains 75 percent minimum equivalent sulfanilic acid, 0.5 percent maximum aniline based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content, and 0.25 percent maximum alkali insoluble materials based on the equivalent sulfanilic acid content.
Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
The review period is August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000.
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified information provided by the respondents using standard verification procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturer's facilities, and the examination of relevant sales and financial records.
In the last administrative review, the Department did not reach the issue of whether to collapse Zhenxing and Yude due to our determination to assign the PRC-wide rate to Yude and Zhenxing as adverse facts available.
It is the Department's standard policy to assign to all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in non-market economy countries a single rate, unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law (
Zhenxing and Baoding both initially requested separate, company-specific rates. However, since we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to Baoding, we have only analyzed the separate rate claim made by Zhenxing. In its questionnaire response, Zhenxing stated that it is an independent legal entity.
With respect to the absence of
With respect to the absence of
There are no restrictions on Zhenxing's use of its export earnings. The company's general manager has the right to negotiate and enter into contracts and may delegate this authority to other company employees. There is no evidence that this authority is subject to any level of governmental approval. Zhenxing has stated that its management is selected by the general manager in consultation with its board of directors and that there is no government involvement in this selection process.
Consequently, because evidence on the record indicates an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, over its export activities, we preliminarily determine that a separate rate should be applied to Zhenxing. For further discussion of the Department's preliminary determination regarding the issuance of separate rates,
Zhenxing reported as constructed export price (“CEP”) the U.S. sales made by PHT on behalf of Zhenxing, and as export price (“EP”) the U.S. sales made to an unaffiliated U.S. importer. We calculated CEP based on FOB prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made deductions for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, ocean freight, marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, U.S. transportation, credit, warehousing, repacking in the United States, indirect selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, and constructed export price profit, as appropriate, in accordance with sections 772(c) and (d) of the Act.
The EP calculation for Zhenxing's sales to an unaffiliated importer is in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, and is based on packed FOB, or where appropriate, C&F prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for inland freight from the plant to the port of exportation, ocean freight, marine insurance, and any brokerage and handling charges incurred by Zhenxing.
For those domestic factors provided by NME companies and used in the calculation of Zhenxing's CEP and EP sales (such as inland freight, insurance, brokerage and handling), we valued those factors using surrogate rates from India. Where appropriate, we calculated expenses which were incurred in U.S. dollars based on the actual U.S. dollar amounts paid for such expenses.
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine normal value (“NV”) using a factors of production methodology if (1) the merchandise is exported from a non-market economy (NME) country, and (2) the available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act.
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as an NME country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i), any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment in this review. Accordingly, we treated the PRC as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the factors of production as set forth in section 773(c)(3) of the Act in a comparable market economy country which is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. Pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, we determined that India is comparable to the PRC in terms of per capita gross national product (“GNP”), the growth rate in per capita GNP, and the national distribution of labor; and that India is a significant producer of comparable merchandise. The Department has selected India as the surrogate country in the investigation and all prior administrative reviews of this order.
For purposes of calculating NV, we valued PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. In examining surrogate values, we selected, where possible, the publicly available value which was: (1) An average non-export value; (2) representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR; (3) product-specific; and (4) tax-exclusive. For those surrogate values not
To value aniline used in the production of sulfanilic acid, we used the rupee per kilogram value for sales in India during the POR as reported in
The surrogate freight rates used in the calculation of transportation costs for material inputs and subject merchandise were based on price quotes for truck freight rates from six different Indian trucking companies which were used in the
To value sulfuric acid used in the production of sulfanilic acid, we used the rupee per kilogram value for sales in India during the POR as reported in
To value sodium bicarbonate used in the production of sodium sulfanilate, we used the rupee per kilogram value for sales in India during the POR as reported in
Consistent with our final results in the 1997-1998 administrative review (
To value the inner and outer bags used as packing materials, we used import information from
To value coal, we used the price of steam coal in 1996 for industries in India as reported in
To value electricity, we used the price of industrial electricity in India in 1997 reported in
The Department's regulations, at 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), state that “[f]or labor, the Secretary will use regression-based wage rates reflective of the observed relationship between wages and national income in market economy countries. The Secretary will calculate the wage rate to be applied in nonmarket economy proceedings each year. The calculation will be based on current data, and will be made available to the public.” To value the factor inputs for labor, we used the wage rates calculated for the PRC in the Department's “Expected Wages of Selected Non-Market Economy Countries—1998 Income Data” as updated in May 2000, and made public by the Department on its world-wide web site for Import Administration at
Following our practice from prior administrative reviews of sulfanilic acid from the PRC, for factory overhead, we used information reported in the January 1997,
To value brokerage and handling, we used the average of the foreign brokerage and handling expenses reported in the U.S. sales listing of the questionnaire response submitted in
To value marine insurance, we used marine insurance data collected in the
To value ocean freight, we used a value for ocean freight provided by the Federal Maritime Commission used in the
For selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, we used information obtained from the January 1997
Finally, to calculate a profit rate, we used information obtained from the January 1997
For a complete discussion of the Department's selection of surrogate values and copies of source documents relating to their valuation, see the Department's “Surrogate Values Memorandum” dated August 31, 2001, and
We preliminarily determine the weighted average dumping margin for Zhenxing for the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000 to be 54.50 percent.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of publication of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Normally, case briefs are to be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, are to be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs. However, for purposes of this review, the Department will notify parties of the schedule for submission of these briefs. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f).
Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs. Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than ten days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date case briefs are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Upon completion of this review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. Furthermore, the following deposit rates will be effective with respect to all shipments of sulfanilic acid from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company listed above will be the rate for that firm established in the final results of this review; (2) for companies previously found to be entitled to a separate rate and for which no review was requested, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the most recent review of that company; (3) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 85.20 percent; and (4) the cash deposit rate for non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under section 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative reviews.
On May 9, 2001, the Department of Commerce published in the
September 10, 2001.
Sally Hastings or Craig Matney, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 1, Group I, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3464 or (202) 482-1778, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).
On August 31, 1992, the Department published in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), the reviews of these orders cover those producers or exporters of the subject merchandise for which these reviews were specifically requested. Accordingly, these reviews cover only Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. (“NHCI”), the sole producer or exporter of the subject merchandise for which a review was requested. The petitioner in these reviews is the Magnesium Corporation of America.
In the preliminary results of these reviews, the Department invited interested parties to comment on the results (
The products covered by these orders are pure and alloy magnesium from Canada. Pure magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight with magnesium being the largest metallic element in the alloy by weight, and are sold in various ingot and billet forms and sizes.
The pure and alloy magnesium are currently classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the
Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are summarized in
The period of review for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999.
We have determined that no changes to our analysis are warranted for purposes of these final results. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for each producer/exporter subject to these reviews. We will instruct the Customs Service (“Customs”) to assess countervailing duties as indicated below on all appropriate entries. For the period January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, we determine the net subsidy rate for the reviewed company to be as follows:
The Department will also instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the percentage detailed above on the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from NHCI entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews.
Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named (
Accordingly, we will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Except for Timminco Limited, which was excluded from the orders in the original investigations, these rates were established in the first administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA.
In addition, for the period January 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by these orders are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry, except for Timminco Limited (which was excluded from the orders in the original investigations).
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of preliminary results of countervailing duty administrative review.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty order on stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from the Republic of Korea for the period
September 10, 2001.
Darla Brown or Tipten Troidl, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2786.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995 (the Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Countervailing Duty regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001) (CVD Regulations).
On August 6, 1999, the Department published in the
On September 15, 2000, Sammi provided the Department with a certification stating that neither it nor its affiliates exported the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Because there were no shipments of exports to the United States of the subject merchandise, the Department is preliminarily rescinding this administrative review with respect to Sammi.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The company subject to this review is Inchon. This review covers 14 programs.
For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed (
The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the
Excluded from the scope of this order are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate (
The Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are described below:
Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and
Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this order. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.”
Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.”
Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.”
Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this order. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (
In the
Based on our findings on this issue in prior investigations, we are using the following benchmarks to calculate the subsidies attributable to respondents' long-term loans obtained in the years 1992 through 1999:
(1) For countervailable, foreign-currency denominated loans, we used, where available, the company-specific weighted-average U.S. dollar-denominated interest rates on the company's loans from foreign bank branches in Korea.
(2) For countervailable won-denominated long-term loans, where available, we used the company-specific corporate bond rate on the company's public and private bonds. We note that this benchmark is based on the decision in
Under section 351.107(b)(1) of the Department's regulations, when the subject merchandise is exported to the United States by a company that is not the producer of the merchandise, the Department may establish a “combination” rate for each combination of an exporter and supplying producer. However, as noted in the Preamble to the Final Regulations, there may be situations in which it is not appropriate or practicable to establish combination rates when the subject merchandise is exported by a trading company.
Preliminarily, we determined that it is not appropriate to establish combination rates. This determination is based on two main facts: first, the majority of the subsidies conferred upon the subject merchandise were received by the producer; second, the level of subsidies conferred upon the individual trading company with regard to the subject merchandise is insignificant.
Instead, we have continued to calculate a rate for the producer of subject merchandise that includes the subsidies received by the trading company. To reflect those subsidies that are received by the exporter of the subject merchandise in the calculated
We determined in the
In
We provided the GOK with the opportunity to present new factual information concerning the government's credit policies through 1999, the POR, which we would consider along with our finding in the prior investigations. The GOK did not provide any new factual information on this program that would lead us to change our determination in the current administrative review. Therefore, we continue to find lending from domestic banks and from government-owned banks such as the KDB to be countervailable.
With respect to foreign sources of credit, in
Inchon received long-term fixed and variable rate loans from GOK owned/controlled institutions during the years 1993 through 1999 that were outstanding during the POR. In order to determine whether these GOK directed loans conferred a benefit, we compared the interest rates on the directed loans to the benchmark interest rates detailed in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section of this notice.
The repayment schedules of these loans did not remain constant during the lives of the respective loans. Therefore, in these preliminary results, we have calculated the benefit from these loans using the Department's variable rate methodology. We first derived the benefit amounts attributable
Under Article 17 of the TERCL, a domestic person engaged in a foreign trade business is allowed to establish a reserve fund equal to one percent of its foreign exchange earnings from its export business for the respective tax year. Expenses incurred in developing overseas markets may be offset by returning from the reserve, to the income account, an amount equivalent to the expense. Any part of the fund that is not placed in the income account for the purpose of offsetting overseas market development expenses must be returned to the income account over a three-year period, after a one-year grace period. The balance of this reserve fund is not subject to corporate income tax during the grace period. However, all of the money in the reserve is eventually reported as income and subject to corporate tax either when it offsets export losses or when the grace period expires. The deferral of taxes owed amounts to an interest-free loan equal to the company's tax savings. This program is only available to exporters. Although Inchon did not use this program during the POR, it exported subject merchandise through Hyundai, which used this program during the POR.
In
To determine the benefit conferred by this program, we calculated the tax savings by multiplying the balance amount of the reserve as of December 31, 1999, by the corporate tax rate for 1999. We treated the tax savings on these funds as a short-term interest-free loan. Accordingly, to determine the benefit, the amount of tax savings was multiplied by the Hyundai's weighted-average interest rate for short-term won-denominated commercial loans for the POR. Using the methodology for calculating subsidies received by trading companies, which also is detailed in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section of this notice, we calculate a countervailable subsidy of less than 0.005 percent
With respect to the Requested Load Adjustment (RLA) program, the GOK introduced this discount in 1990, to address emergencies in KEPCO's ability to supply electricity. Under this program, customers with a contract demand of 5,000 kW or more, who can curtail their maximum demand by 20 percent or suppress their maximum demand by 3,000 kW or more, are eligible to enter into a RLA contract with KEPCO. Customers who choose to participate in this program must reduce their load upon KEPCO's request, or pay a surcharge to KEPCO.
Customers can apply for this program between May 1 and May 15 of each year. If KEPCO finds the application in order, KEPCO and the customer enter into a contract with respect to the RLA discount. The RLA discount is provided based upon a contract for two months, normally July and August. Under this program, a basic discount of 440 won per kW is granted between July 1 and August 31, regardless of whether KEPCO makes a request for a customer to reduce its load. During the POR, KEPCO granted Inchon electricity discounts under this program.
In
Because the electricity discounts provide recurring benefits, we have expensed the benefit from this program in the year of receipt. To measure the benefit from this program, we summed the electricity discounts which Inchon received from KEPCO under the RLA program during the POR. We then divided that amount by Inchon's total f.o.b. sales value for 1999. On this basis, we determine a net countervailable subsidy of less than 0.005 percent
POSCO is the only Korean producer of hot-rolled stainless steel coil (hot-rolled coil), which is the main input into the subject merchandise. During the POR, POSCO sold hot-rolled coil to Inchon for products that were consumed in Korea, as well as hot-rolled coil to produce exports of the subject merchandise. In
Respondent claims that in May 1999, POSCO eliminated it's two-tiered pricing system and established unit prices applicable for sales to all customers. Prior to that period, POSCO set different prices depending on whether the input was to be used to produce products for domestic consumption or export consumption. However, this change in pricing policies does not impact the determination made by the Department in
Under section 351.511(a)(2) of the CVD Regulations, the adequacy of remuneration is to be determined by comparing the government price to a market determined price based on actual transactions in the country in question. Such prices could include prices stemming from actual transactions between private parties, actual imports, or, in certain circumstances, actual sales from competitively run government auctions. During the POR, Inchon imported hot-rolled coil; therefore, we are using actual imported prices of hot-rolled coil as our basis of comparison to the price at which POSCO sold hot-rolled coil. Based upon this comparison, we
To determine the value of the benefit under this program, we compared the quarterly delivered weighted-average price charged by POSCO to Inchon for hot-rolled coils to the quarterly delivered weighted-average price Inchon paid for imported hot-rolled coil, by grade of hot-rolled coil, making due allowance for factors affecting comparability. We then multiplied this price difference by the quantity of hot-rolled coil that Inchon purchased from POSCO during the POR. We then divided the amount of the price savings by the f.o.b. sales value of merchandise produced using hot-rolled coils. On this basis, we determine that Inchon received a countervailable subsidy of 2.87 percent
Respondents state that after the POR, on September 29, 2000, the privatization of POSCO was completed. As a result, they claim that this privatization of POSCO qualifies as a program-wide change pursuant to section 351.526 of the CVD Regulations. Under this regulation, the Department may adjust the CVD cash deposit rate to account for changes in the administration of a program under very specific circumstances. In accordance with Section 351.526 of the CVD Regulations, we preliminarily find that the privatization or a change in ownership of POSCO does not qualify as a program-wide change. If requested in any subsequent administrative review, we will examine the effect of POSCO's alleged privatization on this program.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period November 17, 1998, through December 31, 1999, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for Inchon to be 2.93 percent
If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct Customs to assess countervailing duties as indicated above. The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties as indicated above of the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from reviewed companies, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.
Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named.
We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is applicable.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs, that is, thirty-seven days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Notice.
The Department of Commerce published a notice of proposed information collection on August 10, 2001. This notice makes a correction to that document.
In the August 10, 2001, issue of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of availability of Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants Implementation Plan.
Notice is hereby given of the availability of the Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants Implementation Plan. The Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations Act for 2001 created the Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants program. This program provides funding for competitive matching grants to state and local governments for community based coastal restoration activities in the Great Lakes region. As required, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) developed an implementation plan for this program, and submitted it to Congress on May 31, 2001.
The Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants Implementation Program will direct approximately $30 million for matching grants to be awarded competitively to state agencies and local governments to undertake coastal and water quality restoration projects in the Great Lakes region. Other entities such as regional organizations and nonprofit groups are not eligible to receive funds directly, but are eligible to receive pass through funding from state agencies or local governments. The eligible states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These states will each receive a portion of the funds to support a competitive funding program. The funding levels are based on the Coastal Zone Management Act allocation formula, and are as follows: Illinois ($1,750,000); Indiana ($1,750,000); Michigan ($7,000,000); Minnesota ($1,938,000); New York ($4,727,000); Ohio ($4,489,000); Pennsylvania ($1,846,000); Wisconsin ($5,686,000). The statute requires matching grants but does not specify an amount. For this year, the match ratio is 4:1.
Each state will run a public competitive process to select eligible projects. At least fifty percent of a state's allocation should be directed to local government projects. The other specifics of the process, including timing and final project selection, are left up to individual states. States are encouraged to utilize these funds to address restoration priorities identified in existing plans such as Coastal Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans. Proposals funded under this program should be consistent with a Great Lakes State's approved coastal management program under section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Absent an approved program, projects must be consistent with the CZMA. Restoration projects eligible for funding include contaminated site cleanup, stormwater controls, wetland restoration, acquisition of greenways and buffers, and other projects designed to control polluted runoff and protect and restore coastal resources. States may use up to five percent of their allotments to cover the administrative expenses of implementing the program.
Copies of the Great Lakes Coastal Restoration Grants Implementation Plan can be found on the NOAA website at
John King, Acting Chief, Coastal Programs Division (N/ORM3), Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland, tel. 301-713-3155 extension 195, e-mail
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene a public meeting of the Reef Fish Stock Assessment Panel (RFSAP).
This meeting will begin at 9 a.m. on Monday, September 24, and conclude by 12 noon on Friday, September 28, 2001.
The meeting will be held at NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL.
Peter Hood, Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 3018 U.S. Highway 301 North, Suite 1000, Tampa, FL 33619; telephone: 813-228-2815.
The RFSAP will convene to review stock assessments on the status of the gag, vermilion snapper, and gray triggerfish stocks in the Gulf of Mexico. These stock assessments were prepared by NMFS and will be presented to the RFSAP. In the Report to Congress on the Status of Fisheries in the United States prepared by NMFS in January 2001, gag and vermilion snapper were listed as undergoing overfishing and gag was listed as approaching an overfished condition. The status of gray triggerfish was listed as unknown.
The RFSAP is composed of biologists who are trained in the specialized field of population dynamics. They advise the Council on the status of stocks and, when necessary, recommend a level of acceptable biological catch (ABC) needed to prevent overfishing or to effect a recovery of an overfished stock. They may also recommend catch restrictions needed to attain management goals.
Based on its review of the gag, vermilion snapper, and gray triggerfish stock assessments, the RFSAP may recommend a range of ABC for 2002, and may recommend management measures to achieve the ABC.
The conclusions of the RFSAP will be reviewed by the Council’s Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), Socioeconomic Panel (SEP), and Reef Fish Advisory Panel (RFAP) at meetings to be held in October, 2001. Gag is a component of the shallow-water grouper complex (which consists of red grouper, gag, yellowfin grouper, black grouper, scamp, yellowmouth grouper, rock hind, and red hind). The Council may set year 2002 total allowable catches (TAC), as well as other management measures for the gag component of the shallow-water grouper complex and for vermilion snapper and gray triggerfish at its meeting in Biloxi, MS on December 10-14, 2001.
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agendas may come before the RFSAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions of the RFSAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agendas and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305 (c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Monkfish Oversight Committee in September, 2001. Recommendations from the committee will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
The meeting will held on Monday, September 24, 2001, at 10 a.m.
The meeting will be held at the Radisson Airport Hotel Providence, 2081 Post Road, Warwick, RI 02886; telephone: (401) 739-3000.
Paul J. Howard, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; (978) 465-0492.
The Monkfish Committee will discuss issues and options to be considered for the annual adjustment framework, including the effect of the timing of the upcoming stock assessment and the recent judicial decision on the framework development schedule. They will also hold preliminary discussions on recommendations to the Council for 2002 workload priorities, including a possible plan amendment.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Paul J. Howard (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that The National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, N.E., BIN C15700, Seattle, WA 98115 (PI: Dr. Robert DeLong) has been issued a permit to take harbor porpoise (
The permit and related documents are available for review
Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 713-2289; fax (301) 713-0376; and
Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206) 526-6150; fax (206) 526-6426.
Ruth Johnson or Tammy Adams, (301) 713-2289.
On July 31, 2001, notice was published in the
Technology Administration, Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given that a public meeting will be held on Tuesday November 20, 2001, 10:00 a.m. in the Technology Administration, Technology Center, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4813. Sections 115(a) and 115(b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313) require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study and prepare a report to Congress on existing public and private high-tech workforce training programs in the United States. In connection with this study and report, this public meeting is intended to provide an opportunity for individuals to offer comments on information technology (IT) workforce training.
The study and report will focus on the education and training paths and programs through which workers prepare for highly skilled IT jobs, and maintain the skills needed in an ever-changing IT environment. The study and report will explore: IT worker demand in terms of education and skill requirements, employer role in IT worker training, the IT education and training program landscape, including what education and skills various models of IT worker training program provide; and key elements for program success. Interested parties may include employers, IT workers, education/training providers, state and local governments, and area/regional training partnerships.
Tuesday, November 20, 2001, 10 a.m.
Technology Center, Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 4813, Washington, DC 20230.
Individuals who wish to attend this public meeting should contact Carol Ann Meares, Technology Administrations, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4823, Washington, DC 20230. Telephone (202) 482-0940, or e-mail
Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Request for comments on existing public and private high-tech workforce training programs in the United States for Congressionally-mandated study and report to the Congress by the Secretary of Commerce.
On behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, the Technology Administration (TA) invites interested parties to comment on existing public and private high-tech workforce training programs in the United States. Sections 115(a) and 115(b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313) require the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study and issue a report on this subject. In connection with this study and report, this Federal Register notice is intended to solicit comments and reply comments from the public in paper or electronic form. All written comments submitted in response to this notice will be posted on the TA website (
Interested parties are invited to submit comments no later than November 9, 2001.
Comments may be mailed to Carol Ann Meares, Office Technology Policy, Technology Administration, Room 4823 HCHB, 1401 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20230. Paper submissions should include an electronic copy of the comments on a diskette in ASCII, WordPerfect (please specify version) or Microsoft Word (please specify version) format. Diskettes should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer, and the name and version of the word processing program used to create the document.
In the alternative, comments may be submitted electronically to the following electronic mail address: techtraining@ta.doc.gov. Comments submitted as attachments to electronic mail should be submitted in one or more of the formats specified above.
Another alternative method for providing comment is an Internet-based form that can be completed and submitted online. The URL for this notice is www.ta.doc.gov/ittraining/form.
Carol Ann Meares, Office Technology Policy, telephone: (202) 482-0940; or electronic mail: cmeares@ta.doc.gov. Media inquiries should be directed to the Office of Public Affairs, Technology Administration, at (202) 482-8321.
The development and application of new information technologies across virtually every segment of the American economy has resulted in rapid, sustained growth in demand for highly skilled information technology (IT) workers. Accordingly, between 1983 and 1998, the number of high-skilled IT workers increased from 719,000 to 2,084,000—an increase of 190 percent, more than six times the overall U.S. job growth rate during this period.
Rapid growth is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The
The jobs represented by these broad occupational classifications are varied, complex and specialized, as are the knowledge, skills and experience required to perform them. There is no single path to prepare a worker for a core IT occupation. Most get their education from four-year colleges and universities. Other paths include two-year degree-granting community colleges, special university/community programs designed to upgrade the skills of the current workforce, a growing number of private sector certification programs, in-house company training, short courses and self-study.
BLS's Current Population Survey indicates that two-thirds of the current core IT workforce have four-year college degrees, a quarter have less than a bachelor's degree but more than a high school diploma, and the balance have a high school diploma or less. In addition to formal education, many IT workers hold one or more technical certifications. Of those with four-year college degrees, 46 percent have IT degrees, minors or second majors; 86 percent have a degree in a science or engineering discipline.
This study and report will focus on the education and training paths and programs through which Americans prepare for these jobs and maintain the skills needed in an ever-changing information technology environment.
The Office of Technology Policy, an agency of the Commerce Department's Technology Administration, has conducted research and produced reports on the Nation's challenge in meeting the high U.S. demand for skilled IT workers. These reports can be downloaded for review at:
The statutory language requiring the Secretary of Commerce to conduct a study and submit a report to Congress on existing public and private high-tech workforce training programs in the United States is found in Sections 115(a) and 115(b) of the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-313), and is set forth below:
Sec. 115(a) STUDY—The Secretary of Commerce shall conduct a review of existing public and private high-tech workforce training programs in the United States.
Sec. 115(b) REPORT—Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Commerce shall submit a report to Congress setting forth the findings of the study conducted under subsection (a).
The Department seeks comment on the following specific questions. Parties need not address all questions, but are encouraged to respond to those about which they have particular knowledge or information.
Please provide some information about your company/organization to provide a context for your comments (e.g. type of business, georgraphic location, size of total workforce, size of IT workforce).
1. What types of IT workers does your company/organization employ (.e.g. development, application, support; occupational/technical skill type; entry-level, mid-level, senior)?
2. In making IT workforce-hiring decisions, what priority do you place on:
3. What types of education/training programs (e.g. certification programs, private IT schools, short courses, seminars, community colleges, universities) provide newly hired IT workers with the skills needed?
4. What types of education/training programs (e.g. certification programs, private IT schools, short courses, seminars, community colleges, universities) provide current employees with the skills needed to be successful in their jobs, career progression, and to adapt effectively to changing technology?
5. Does your company/organization undertake efforts to keep the skills of your IT workforce current? What types of education/training programs (e.g. certification programs, private IT schools, short courses, in-house training, contract trainers, vendor training, seminars, community colleges, universities) does your company/organization use to provide current IT employees with the skills they need? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs?
6. What barriers inhibit investment in the education/training of current IT employees (e.g., cost, time from the job, fear of losing employee, uncertainty about future skill needs)?
7. Is your company/organization engaged in any partnerships (with industry, government, academia, training providers, etc.) to develop IT workers? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these programs?
8. What factors are considered in deciding whether to fill an IT position (or class of IT positions) by providing training and education to upgrade the knowledge and skills of current employee(s) (“making”), or by hiring employees who already have the skills from the open labor market (“buying”)? What are the characteristics (e.g., skill level, experience requirements, area of expertise) of IT position that your company/organization fills by making? By buying?
9. How important are “soft skills” (e.g., oral and written communications skills, teamwork, problem solving) for an IT worker? Which “soft skills” are most important?
10. How quickly do the IT skills needed by your company/organization change? How are these changing IT skills requirements met? What impact do changing skills requirements have on your IT workforce?
11. Are you aware of or been involved in any U.S. Department of Labor-sponsored or support IT workforce training programs in your area? Have you hired or considered for employment any employees trained through U.S. Department of Labor-sponsored or supported IT training workforce programs? If so, what is your assessment
12. Does your company/organization train non-IT employees for IT jobs in the company/organization? If so, what types of education and training programs are provided for this purpose?
13. For IT managers: When announcing a job opening, do the education/skills/experience articulated by your company/organization as required for specific IT positions accurately reflect the education/skills/experience required to be successful in the positions?
14. For human resource officials: Do the education/skills/experience articulated by your line managers as required for specific IT positions accurately reflect the education/skills/experience required to be successful in the positions?
15. What types of credentials would substitute for technical job experience for entry-level jobs? For more advanced jobs?
16. Does your company/organization, either directly or through another organization, provide information regarding your IT skills needs to local educational and training providers to help them tailor their curricula/instruction to your needs?
17. Aside from the education/training investment in your current IT employees, what types of investments does your company/organization make in developing the U.S. IT workforce (e.g. financial contributions, scholarships, internships, work study, hardware/software donations, employee mentoring of students, adopt-a-school, other)?
18. Of the IT education/training programs that you have experience with, which do you consider effective?
1. What types of education and training programs (e.g. certification programs, private IT schools, short courses, seminars, community colleges, four-year colleges, graduate schools) provide the most immediately marketable skills for obtaining an IT job?
2. What types of education and training programs provide the most valuable IT or other skills for success in the long run in the IT field? Career progression in IT? Ability to adapt to changing information technology?
3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the IT education/training program(s) you attended in terms of their providing valuable knowledge and skills for the IT job market?
4. What barriers do current/potential IT workers face in obtaining IT education and training (e.g., cost, availability, scheduling, meeting prerequisites)?
5. In your experience, what types of programs provide the highest quality of IT education/training? Best value? Most effective?
6. What barriers have you faced in obtaining IT jobs (e.g., lack of education, certification, experience, specificity of skill requirements)?
7. Have your employers supported your efforts to obtain IT education/training/skills upgrading? If so, how (e.g., paid for training, provided training on-site, provided time away from work to attend classes)? What barriers did you face in getting your employer(s) support?
8. How do you keep your skills up-to-date (programs, cost, time)?
9. How important is formal training versus experience gained on the job?
10. In your experience, do you believe that employers' stated requirements—in terms of education, skills, and experience—closely match the actual requirements of the jobs advertised?
11. Are you aware of any U.S. Department of Labor-sponsored or supported IT workforce training programs in your area? Have you participated in any U.S. Department of Labor-sponsored or supported IT workforce training programs? If so, what is your assessment of the value of the training provided by these programs?
Please provide some information about your company/school/institution to provide a context for your comments (e.g., contract trainer, private IT school, community college, college, university; number of students; type of IT programs offered; duration, cost, type of client served).
1. In your IT education/training programs, is there any tension between providing fundamental knowledge and skills that are broadly applicable, and providing IT skills (perhaps proprietary) that will make your graduates immediately marketable? If so, how do you deal with the tension?
2. Are you finding that students in your programs arrive with the fundamental skills to be successful in IT careers? What are the characteristics of students who are most likely to succeed in your programs? What are the most significant barriers your students face in completing your programs? What are the most significant barriers your students face in finding employment after completing your program?
3. In an era of rapidly changing technology, how flexible is your institution in adapting its curricula to meet the changing technical skill needs of students and employers? Other changing needs of students and employers (e.g., soft skills, business skills, hands-on training, internships)? What are the barriers to adapting to these changing needs?
4. Does your institution provide placement services for your graduates? What level of success do your students have in securing IT employment after receiving training/education from your institution? What barriers to securing IT employment do your graduates report?
5. How do you develop connections between the program (what is taught) and employers' needs?
Please provide some information about your agency/partnership to provide a context for your comments (e.g. type of institution, when established, phase of development, scope of activities).
1. Does your organization have a strategic plan for developing the IT workforce in your area or region? What are the elements of your plan?
2. Who is involved in your plan (e.g. government agencies, companies, education/training providers, workforce investment boards)?
3. Who do your programs target for training (entry level, career changers, disadvantaged groups, special communities, current IT workforce—both staying current (retooling) and getting ahead (upgrading))? What are the barriers to providing this training (aptitude, lack of knowledge/skill needed to participate in training, interest, lack of available workers, lack of time in students' lives, employer resistance)? How do you attract students/clients to your programs?
4. Approximately how many people have received training through your programs (please include the timeframe)?
5. Which institutions (governments agencies, IT companies, non-IT companies) are financially supporting this effort? Do employers participate in supporting this effort?
Which IT training providers (e.g. contract trainers, private IT schools, community colleges, universities) participate in your effort?
6. What types of training programs (certification, community college, 4-year colleges, graduate schools) do your students participate in under your programs?
7. With respect to those you are training for IT jobs, besides the technical IT training what other kinds of education, training and employment-related services are available through your program?
8. How successful have your programs been in placing students in IT jobs? What are the barriers your program participants face in getting IT jobs after completing their training?
9. What feedback have you received from employers on the strengths and weaknesses of your programs?
10. Does your state/jurisdiction offer incentives (tax, financial, other) to employer or employees for IT education and training? How effective have these incentives been?
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
September 12, 2001.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being adjusted for carryforward and the rescinding of carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on November 15, 2000, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Indonesia and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2001 and extends through December 31, 2001.
Effective on September 12, 2001, you are directed to adjust the limits for the categories listed below, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
September 11, 2001.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for Categories 350 and 650 are being adjusted for the rescinding of carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive
Effective on September 11, 2001, you are directed to adjust the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
September 11, 2001.
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://www.otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for Categories 350/650 and 840 are being reduced for the rescinding of carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on November 13, 2000, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Sri Lanka and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2001 and extends through December 31, 2001.
Effective on September 11, 2001, you are directed to reduce the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting a limit.
September 12, 2001.
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of this limit, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limit for Category 350 is being reduced for the rescinding of carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on October 27, 2000, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in the Republic of Turkey and exported during the twelve-month period
Effective on September 12, 2001, you are directed to reduce the current limit for Category 350 to 759,015 dozen
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that this action falls within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
The Defense Policy Board will meet in closed session on September 19 and 20, 2001. the mission of the Defense Policy Board is to provide the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Policy with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy. At this meeting, the Board will hold classified discussions on national security matters.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App II (1982)), it has been determined that the committee meeting concerns matters sensitive to the interest of national security, listed in 5 U.S.C. 552B(c)(1)(1982). Accordingly this meeting will be closed to the public
September 19 and 20, 2001, 0800-1800.
The Pentagon, Washington, DC
Lauren Haber, OUSD (Policy), 703-697-0286
Office of the Secretary, DoD.
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
The Deterrence Concepts Advisory Group met in closed session on September 5, 2001. The Committee was established to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense on advancing a strong, secure, and persuasive U.S. force for freedom and progress in the world, and to do so at the lowest nuclear force level consistent with security requirements.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C. App. II (1982)], it has been determined that the committee meeting concerns matters sensitive to the interest of national security, listed in 5 U.S.C. 552B(c)(1)(1982) and accordingly this meeting was closed to the public.
This notice is being published in less than the 15 days required by law, due to the urgent need for this committee to continue its activities so that its advice on a matter of extraordinary importance may be provided to the Secretary of Defense in a timely manner.
September 5, 2001, 1:30 p.m.
The Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Lauren Haber, OUSD (Policy), 703-697-0286.
Department of Defense, USSTRATCOM.
Notice.
The Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) will meeting closed session on October 4 and 5, 2001. The mission of the SAG is to provide timely advice on scientific, technical, and policy-related issues to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command, during the development of the nation's strategic war plans. At this meeting, the SAG will discuss strategic issues that relate to the development of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). Full development of the topic will require discussion of information classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958, April 17, 1995. Access to this information must be strictly limited to personnel having requisite security clearances and specific need-to know. Unauthorized disclosure of the information to be discussed at the SAG meeting could have exceptionally grave impact upon national defense.
In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. App 2), it has been determined that this SAG meeting concerns matters listed in 5 USC 552b(c) and that, accordingly, this meeting will be closed to the public.
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 November 9, 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
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.
Responses: 462
Burden Hours: 540
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
On August 1, 2001, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) filed a petition for a declaratory order regarding the Offer of Settlement and Settlement Agreement (settlement) filed September 15, 2000, and currently pending before the Commission in the relicensing proceeding for the Childs Irving Project No. 2069. The settlement, which was signed by APS, the intervenors in the relicensing proceeding, and several non-intervenors, provides, among other things, that APS will cease generation at the project no later than December 31, 2004, will surrender the project license and decommission the project site, and will complete project decommissioning no later than December 31, 2009. The settlement also provides that, in the event of a Commission order that alters any of its essential terms, the settlement shall become null and void, and the relicensing proceeding shall be restored.
APS requests that the Commission issue a declaratory order determining whether the process contemplated by the settlement is acceptable. Specifically, APS seeks confirmation that the Commission will allow the parties to the settlement to return to the pre-settlement status quo if the Commission modifies the settlement or if the objectives of the settlement, including license surrender and project decommissioning, are not achieved. By this, APS means, in particular, that the Commission will retain or reinstate its relicense application and process it without providing a new opportunity for the filing of competitive license applications. APS also seeks confirmation that, if the Commission accepts the surrender of the license, it will allow the surrender to be effective at a future date so that generation may continue until December 31, 2004. In this regard, APS requests the Commission to confirm that it would exercise its authority to issue annual licenses during the pendency of the surrender application and until the deadline for the cessation of generation. The petition does not request the Commission to take a position on the merits of the settlement.
Because the relief sought by the petition could have implications for other proceedings in which similar issues occur, the Commission encourages comments from any interested entities, not just those involved in this particular proceeding. The Commission would particularly welcome comments that address whether it should be willing to retain or reinstate relicense applications that are conditional upon the occurrence of other events, especially when those events are contemplated by settlements submitted during relicensing proceedings. The Commission would also welcome comments that address whether, and under what conditions, it should provide additional opportunities for entities to seek licenses to operate a project if an incumbent licensee that has filed an application for a new license subsequently seeks, conditionally or unconditionally, to surrender its existing license before the new license has been issued. Also, the Commission would welcome comments that address the extent to which it should allow the effectiveness of a license surrender to be postponed, and whether it should be willing to issue annual licenses for an extended period of time until project generation ceases or until the project is fully decommissioned.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the petition should file comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211 and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests and other comments, but only those who file a motion to intervene may become parties to the proceeding. Comments, protests, or motions to
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-filing” link.
Send the filings (original and 8 copies) to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Copies of the petition for declaratory order are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in Room 2A and may also be viewed on the web at
Take notice that on July 25, 2001, Power Dynamics, Inc. (PDI) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC), FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1.
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 September 14, 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 web at
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Homer City OL1 LLC (Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination that it will be an Exempt Wholesale Generator upon the purchase and leaseback by Applicant of an undivided interest in the Homer City Electric Generating Station, an 1,884-MW coal-fired generating plant located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Homer City OL2 LLC (Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination that it will be an Exempt Wholesale Generator upon the purchase and leaseback by Applicant of an undivided interest in the Homer City Electric Generating Station, an 1,884-MW coal-fired generating plant located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Homer City OL3 LLC (Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination that it will be an Exempt Wholesale Generator upon the purchase and leaseback by Applicant of an undivided interest in the Homer City Electric Generating Station, an 1,884-MW coal-fired generating plant located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Homer City OL4 LLC (Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination that it will be an Exempt Wholesale Generator upon the purchase and leaseback by Applicant of an undivided interest in the Homer City Electric Generating Station, an 1,884-MW coal-fired generating plant located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Homer City OL5 LLC (Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination that it will be an Exempt Wholesale Generator upon the purchase and leaseback by Applicant of an undivided interest in the Homer City Electric Generating Station, an 1,884-MW coal-fired generating plant located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Homer City OL6 LLC (Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination that it will be an Exempt Wholesale Generator upon the purchase and leaseback by Applicant of an undivided interest in the Homer City Electric Generating Station, an 1,884-
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Homer City OL7 LLC (Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination that it will be an Exempt Wholesale Generator upon the purchase and leaseback by Applicant of an undivided interest in the Homer City Electric Generating Station, an 1,884-MW coal-fired generating plant located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Homer City OL8 LLC (Applicant) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination that it will be an Exempt Wholesale Generator upon the purchase and leaseback by Applicant of an undivided interest in the Homer City Electric Generating Station, an 1,884-MW coal-fired generating plant located in Indiana County, Pennsylvania.
Take notice that on August 29, 2001, Panda Shiloh Power, L.P. (Panda), with its principal offices at 4100 Spring Valley Road, Suite 1001, Dallas, Texas 75244, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Section 32 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, as amended, and Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Panda is a Delaware limited partnership, which will construct, own and operate a nominal 1100 MW natural gas-fired generating facility within the region governed by the Mid-America Interconnected Network, Inc. (MAIN) and sell electricity at wholesale.
Take notice that on August 30, 2001, Front Range Power Company, LLC tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Front Range Power Company, LLC is a Colorado limited liability company owned by Mesquite Colorado Holdco, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company and affiliate of El Paso Energy Corporation, and Colorado Springs Utilities, an enterprise of the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, to develop, design , construct, own, operate and maintain a natural gas-fired combined-cycle electric generation plant with a maximum capacity of approximately 480 MW, located on a 28-acre parcel of land approximately 17 miles south of Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Take notice that on August 30, 2001, Energy Transfer—Hanover Ventures, LP (ETHAN) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), a supplement to its application for market-based rates as power marketer. The supplemental information pertains to ETHAN's ownership, business activities, and market power. Further the supplement makes certain changes to the Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to cause them to conform with Section 35.9 of the Commission's regulations.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), tendered for filing an executed service agreement for firm point-to-point transmission service for Exelon Generating Company, L.L.C. (Exelon) and two executed umbrella service agreement for point-to-point transmission service (firm and non-firm) with SCANA Energy Marketing, Inc. (SCANA).
Copies of this filing were served upon Exelon, SCANA and the state commissions within the PJM control area.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Supply) filed Service Agreement No. 147 to add one (1) new Customer to the Market Rate Tariff under which Allegheny Energy Supply offers generation services.
Allegheny Energy Supply requests a waiver of notice requirements for an effective date of September 1, 2001 for Portland General Electric.
Copies of the filing have been provided to all parties of record.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, American Electric Power Service Corporation (AEP) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), a Letter agreement between Entergy Power Ventures, LP and Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Southwestern Electric Power Company (the Company).
AEP requests an effective date of October 27, 2001.
Copies of the filing have been served upon Entergy Power Ventures, LP, Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. and the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Allegheny Energy Service Corporation on behalf of Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Allegheny Energy Supply) filed Service Agreement No. 146 to add one (1) new Customer to the Market Rate Tariff under which
Allegheny Energy Supply requests a waiver of notice requirements for an effective date of July 30, 2001 for Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Copies of the filing have been provided to all parties of record.
Take notice that on August 29, 2001, American Transmission Company LLC (ATCLLC) tendered for filing a Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and a Network Operating Agreement for Manitowoc Public Utilities.
ATCLLC requests an effective date of August 1, 2001.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 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 this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on August 27, 2001, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, the applicant in this proceeding, supplemented its August 2, 2001 application by providing a statement showing that the application is consistent with the public interest and requesting Commission action by October 10, 2001.
Copies of the filing were served upon Eagle River Light & Water Utility, Wisconsin Public Power, Inc., and the Wisconsin and Michigan public service commissions.
Take notice that MIECO Inc. (MIECO) on August 28, 2001 tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a triennial update regarding MIECO's continued compliance with the Commission's standards for market-based rate authority.
Copies of the filing were served upon the official service list compiled by the Commission Secretary in this proceeding.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Timber Energy Resources, Inc. (TERI) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Notification of Change in Status regarding a change in the upstream ownership for its 14 MW waste wood-fired small power production facility located approximately one mile south of Telogia, Florida.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, PSEG Waterford Energy LLC (PSEG Waterford) tendered for filing a Compliance Filing Regarding Order Granting Rate Approval and Granting Certain Waivers and Blanket Approval. This filing is submitted in compliance with a letter order issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) on August 23, 2001, wherein the Commission accepted for filing PSEG Waterford's rate schedule for the wholesale sale of electric energy and capacity at market-based rates, subject to PSEG Waterford making one revision to its rate schedule.
Take notice that on August 24, 2001, Scana Energy Marketing, Inc. filed a Notice of Cancellation in conformance with Order No. 614 in conjunction with its earlier filing of July 19, 2001.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., (collectively, the Entergy Operating Companies) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Non-Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service Agreement and a Short-Term Firm Point-To-Point Transmission Service Agreement both between Entergy Services, Inc., as agent for the Entergy Operating Companies, and Entergy-Koch Trading, LP.
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc., (collectively, the
Take notice that on August 28, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), one signature page to the Reliability Assurance Agreement among Load Serving Entities in the PJM Control Area (RAA) executed by BP Energy; a request for Commission approval of the withdrawal of two parties from the RAA; an amended Schedule 17 of the RAA adding BP Energy to the list of RAA signatories, and deleting the entities that are withdrawing from the RAA; and a Notices of Cancellation for Essential.com, Inc., and Metromedia Energy, Inc. reflecting their withdrawal as signatories to the RAA.
PJM states that it served a copy of its filing on all parties to the RAA, including the parties for which a signature page is being tendered with this filing, the parties that are withdrawing from the RAA, and each of the state electric regulatory commissions within the PJM control area.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001 Xcel Energy Services Inc. (XES), on behalf of Northern States Power Companies (NSP) tendered for filing a Short-Term Market-Based Electric Service Agreement between NSP and New Ulm Public Utilities. XES requests that this Short-Term Market-Based Electric Service Agreement be made effective on July 30, 2001.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an Interconnection and Operating Agreement with San Manuel Power Company under APS” Open Access Transmission Tariff.
A copy of this filing has been served on San Manuel Power Company and the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an Interconnection and Operating Agreement with San Manuel Power Company under APS' Open Access Transmission Tariff.
A copy of this filing has been served on San Manuel Power Company and the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001 PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM), submitted for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an executed interconnection service agreements between PJM and Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority.
Copies of this filing were served upon Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority and the state regulatory commissions within the PJM control area.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company and Pennsylvania Electric Company (individually doing business as GPU Energy) submitted for filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) a Notice of Cancellation of the Service Agreement between GPU Service Corporation and Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (now PPL Electric Utilities Corporation d/b/a PPL Utilities) FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Service Agreement No. 5. GPU Energy requests that cancellation be effective October 24, 2001.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001, Cinergy Services, Inc. tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an Interconnection Agreement entered into by and between Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) and Duke Energy Knox, LLC (Duke Energy Knox), and a Facilities Construction Agreement by and between Cinergy and Duke Energy Knox, both of which are dated July 30, 2001.
Cinergy requests an effective date of July 30, 2001 for both the Interconnection Agreement and the Facilities Construction Agreement.
Cinergy states that it has served a copy of its filing upon the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission and Duke Energy Knox.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001 Xcel Energy Services Inc. (XES), on behalf of Northern States Power Companies (NSP Companies) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Rate Schedule for Market-Based Power Sales. XES requests that this Rate Schedule for Market-Based Power Sales be made effective on August 28, 2001.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001, Ameren filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the cancellation of Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement dated June 30, 1998, Docket No. ER98-3715-000.
Copy of the cancellation has been served to Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001, Ameren filed with the Federal Energy
Copy of the cancellation has been served to Tractebel Energy Marketing, Inc.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001 Xcel Energy Services Inc. (XES), on behalf of Northern States Power Companies (NSP) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Long-Term Market-Based Electric Service Agreement between NSP and New Ulm Public Utilities. XES requests that this Short-Term Market-Based Electric Service Agreement be made effective on July 30, 2001.
Take notice that Virginia Electric and Power Company (the Company) on August 27, 2001, tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) the following Service Agreement by Virginia Electric and Power Company to Enron Power Marketing, Inc., designated as Service Agreement No. 3, under the Company's short-form market-based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 6.
The foregoing Service Agreement is tendered for filing under the Company's short-form market-based rate tariff, FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 6, effective on June 15, 2000. The Company requests an effective date of July 25, 2001.
Copies of the filing were served upon Enron Power Marketing, Inc., the Virginia State Corporation Commission, and the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on August 27, 2001, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric), tendered for filing a Standby Delivery Service Agreement (Agreement) between Wisconsin Electric and the City of Kiel (the City) under which Wisconsin Electric will provide 24.9 kV standby delivery service to the City. The Agreement is being designated as Wisconsin Electric Power Company Rate Schedule No. 103.
Wisconsin Electric requests waiver of the Commission's notice of filing requirements to allow the Agreement to become effective on January 1, 2001. A refund calculation would result in zero refunds because billings to the customer under this Agreement have not been made as of this filing date.
Copies of the filing have been served on the City, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
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 this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
All documents (original and eight copies should be filed with: David P. Boergers, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. Comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions may be filed electronically, as well as protests and interventions, via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site (
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the
k. This application has been accepted and is ready for environmental analysis at this time.
l.
PUD No.1 proposes to upgrade all four turbines with new high efficiency, fish-friendly runners and to rewind the four generators to increase generating capacity to 90 MW. No new structures will be built and no construction in the river will be required. No operational changes will be needed although peak flow through each turbine will be increased from 6,850 cfs to 8,100 cfs which will ultimately result in an 8% increase in average annual energy output.
m. A copy of the application is on file with the Commission and is available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the web at
n. The Commission directs, pursuant to section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see order No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23108, May 20, 1991) that all comments, recommendations, terms and conditions and prescriptions concerning the application be filed with the Commission within 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 105 days from the date of this notice.
Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2008.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” OR “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
Members of the public who wish to make a brief oral presentation must contact Mr. Flaak in writing (by letter or by fax—see previously stated information) no later than 12 noon Eastern Time, Monday, September 24, 2001 in order to be included on the Agenda. Public comments will be limited to approximately three to five minutes per speaker or organization, with a total time of fifteen minutes overall for all speakers. Written comments must be received no later than the day prior to the meeting, preferably in electronic format (see below for details).
It is the policy of the EPA Science Advisory Board to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. The EPA Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 5, 2001.
A.
In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to acquire GBC Funding, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, and thereby engage in mortgage lending activities pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 4, 2001.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services announces the following advisory committee telephone conference call.
The Subcommittee on Privacy and Confidentiality monitors major developments in health information privacy and confidentiality on behalf of the full Committee, makes recommendations to the full Committee and assists and advises the Department on implementation of the health information privacy provisions of HIPAA.
This meeting of the Subcommittee on Privacy and Confidentiality will be conducted as a conference call to continue subcommittee discussion following the hearing held on August 21, 22 and 23 regarding: (1) The effects of the HIPAA health information privacy regulation on research (both research in which treatment is given and records-based research); and (2) the regulation's provisions for use and disclosure of health information for marketing. During this conference call, draft recommendations will be developed on the implementation of the HIPAA privacy regulation (45 CFR parts 160 and 164) with respect to matters considered at the hearing. After the conference call, the Subcommittee will prepare a draft letter to HHS Secretary Thompson. The draft letter will contain recommendations, and it will be reviewed by the full National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics at the September 24-25 meeting.
The HIPAA privacy regulation and further information about it can be found on the web site of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, at http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/. The regulation has been in effect since April 14, 2001. Most entities covered by the regulation must come into compliance by April 14, 2003, and many are beginning the process of implementation.
Additional information about the Conference Call will be provided on the NCVHS website at
Information about the committee, including summaries of past meetings and a roster of committee members, is available on the Committee's website at
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of annual update of list of infectious and communicable diseases that are transmitted through handling the food supply and the methods by which such diseases are transmitted.
Section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, requires the Secretary to publish a list of infectious and communicable diseases that are transmitted through handling the food supply and to review and update the list annually. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a final list on August 16, 1991 (56 FR 40897) and updates on September 8, 1992 (57 FR 40917); January 13, 1994 (59 FR 1949); August 15, 1996 (61 FR 42426); September 22, 1997 (62 FR 49518-9); September 15, 1998 (63 FR 49359), September 21, 1999 (64 FR 51127); and September 27, 2000 (65 FR 58088). No new information that would warrant additional changes has been received; therefore the list, as set forth in the last update and below, remains unchanged.
September 10, 2001.
Dr. Art Liang, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mailstop G-24, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, telephone (404) 639-2213.
Section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12113(d), requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to:
1. Review all infectious and communicable diseases which may be transmitted through handling the food supply;
2. Publish a list of infectious and communicable diseases which are transmitted through handling the food supply;
3. Publish the methods by which such diseases are transmitted; and,
4. Widely disseminate such information regarding the list of diseases and their modes of transmissibility to the general public.
Additionally, the list is to be updated annually. Since the last publication of the list on September 27, 2000 (65 FR 58088), CDC has received no information to indicate that additional unlisted diseases are transmitted through handling the food supply. Therefore, the list set forth below is unchanged from the list published in the
The contamination of raw ingredients from infected food-producing animals and cross-contamination during processing are more prevalent causes of foodborne disease than is contamination of foods by persons with infectious or contagious diseases. However, some pathogens are frequently transmitted by food contaminated by infected persons. The presence of any one of the following signs or symptoms in persons who handle food may indicate infection by a pathogen that could be transmitted to others through handling the food supply: diarrhea, vomiting, open skin sores, boils, fever, dark urine, or jaundice. The failure of food-handlers to wash hands (in situations such as after using the toilet, handling raw meat, cleaning spills, or carrying garbage, for example), wear clean gloves, or use clean utensils is responsible for the foodborne transmission of these pathogens. Non-foodborne routes of transmission, such as from one person to another, are also major contributors
Other pathogens are occasionally transmitted by infected persons who handle food, but usually cause disease when food is intrinsically contaminated or cross-contaminated during processing or preparation. Bacterial pathogens in this category often require a period of temperature abuse to permit their multiplication to an infectious dose before they will cause disease in consumers. Preventing food contact by persons who have an acute diarrheal illness will decrease the risk of transmitting the following pathogens:
1. World Health Organization. Health surveillance and management procedures for food-handling personnel: report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organization technical report series; 785. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1989.
2. Frank JF, Barnhart HM. Food and dairy sanitation. In: Last JM, ed. Maxcy-Rosenau public health and preventive medicine, 12th edition. New York Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1986:765-806.
3. Bennett JV, Holmberg SD, Rogers MF, Solomon SL. Infectious and parasitic diseases. In: Amler RW, Dull HB, eds. Closing the gap: the burden of unnecessary illness. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987:102-114.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Locally acquired neurocysticercosis—North Carolina, Massachusetts, and South Carolina, 1989-1991. MMWR 1992; 41:1-4.
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Foodborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis-Spokane, Washington, 1997. MMWR 1998; 47:27.
In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and 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 clarify 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.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces the appointment of members to the HRSA Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB). This action is being taken in accordance with Title 5, U.S.C., Section 4314(c)(4) of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which requires members of performance review boards to be published in the
The function of the PRB is to ensure consistency, stability and objectivity in SES performance appraisals, and to make recommendations to the Administrator, HRSA, relating to the performance of senior executives in the Agency.
The following persons will serve on the HRSA SES Performance Review Board:
Thomas G. Morford, Neil Sampson, James J. Corrigan, Katherine M. Marconi, Mary J. Horner, Douglas Morgan, Patricia L. Mackey, Catherine A. Flickinger, Merle G. McPherson, William D. Hobson, Marcia K. Brand, Peter C. van Dyck, James Macrae, Jon L. Nelson, Denise H. Geolot, Wayne C. Richey, Sharon Holston.
For further information about the HRSA Performance Review Board, contact Ms. Wendy Ponton, HRSA Office of Human Resources and Development, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 14A43, Rockville, Maryland 20857.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, (HUD).
Notice of Change in Debenture Interest Rates.
This notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Commissioner under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the “Act”). The interest rate for debentures issued under section 221(g)(4) of the act during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2001 is 6
James B. Mitchell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street, SW., Room 6164, Washington, DC 20410. Telephone (202) 708-3944, extension 2612, or TDD (202) 708-4594 for hearing- or speech-impaired callers. These are not toll-free numbers.
Section 224 of the National Housing Act (24 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the
Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.
The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of Section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning July 1, 2001, is 5
For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:
Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” of interest in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year maturities, for the 6-month periods of January through June and July through December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) is implemented in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 221.790.
The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to Section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2001, is 6
HUD expects to publish its next notice of change in debenture interest rates in December 2001.
The subject matter of this notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
To further the recovery of humpback chub (
The purpose of these supplements and amendments are to describe site-specific management actions/tasks; provide objective, measurable recovery criteria; and provide estimates of the time required to achieve recovery of each of the four endangered fish species. The recovery goals for the humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail are identified by two recovery units, upper basin (above Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona) and lower basin. Recovery of the Colorado pikeminnow is currently considered only for the upper basin. Downlisting and delisting criteria by listing factors and management actions, as well as demographic criteria, are presented for populations of each species within recovery units. In addition, updated life-history information, statistical criteria for monitoring, and estimated time to achieve downlisting and delisting requirements are also identified. These serve as supplements and amendments to the recovery plans by providing more
Copies of the Draft Recovery Goals will be mailed to interested parties upon request. The documents are also available (in *.pdf format) for viewing and downloading at:
The agency must receive comments on or before October 25, 2001.
Mail comments and requests to Dr. Robert Muth, Director, Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Post Office Box 25486, DFC, Denver, Colorado, 80225. See
Dr. Robert Muth, Director (extension 268), Dr. Thomas Czapla (extension 228) or Ms. Debra Felker (extension 227), Coordinators (see
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announce our intent to prepare a status review and a revised 12-month finding for the Wasatch Front population of the spotted frog (
Comments and information for our use in preparing the status review and revised 12-month finding will be accepted until November 9, 2001.
Questions and comments concerning this status review should be sent to Henry Maddux, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 145 East 1300 South, Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. Written comments and materials also should be directed to the same address. Copies of our 1995 status review and 12-month finding are available on the web at <http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/spottedfrog>. Comments can be provided via e-mail to <fw6_spottedfrog@fws.gov>. Comments and materials received will be available on request for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Jessica L. Gourley, Fish and Wildlife Biologist (see
On May 1, 1989, we received a petition from the Board of Directors of the Utah Nature Study Society requesting that the Service add the spotted frog (then referred to as
The spotted frog belongs to the family of true frogs, the Ranidae. Adult frogs have large, dark spots on their backs and pigmentation on their abdomens varying from yellow to red (Turner 1957). Spotted frogs along the Wasatch Front generally possess a salmon color ventrally, while West Desert and Sanpete County, Utah, populations [[Page 16219]] generally have a yellow to yellow-orange color ventrally. Spotted frogs in Utah are reported to have fewer and lighter colored spots (Colburn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1992) than other populations. The spotted frog is closely associated with water (Dumas 1966, Nussbaum et al. 1983). Habitat includes the marshy edges of ponds, lakes, slow-moving cool water streams and springs (Licht 1974; Nussbaum
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we make a finding on whether a petition to list, delist or reclassify a species presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action is—(a) not warranted; (b) warranted; or (c) warranted but precluded from immediate proposal by other pending listing proposals of higher priority. We subsequently published a notice of a 90-day finding in the
Our warranted but precluded finding identified that habitat loss and modification from reservoir construction and from urban and agricultural developments was a primary cause of the decline in the Wasatch Front population (Dennis Shirley, pers. comm. 1992). Degradation of spring habitats and water quality from cattle grazing and other agricultural activities in these limited habitats were identified as potential threats to the spotted frog of the West Desert population (Hovingh 1987; Peter Hovingh, pers. comm. 1992; Dennis Shirley, pers. comm. 1992).
On November 28, 1997, we announced the availability of a Draft Conservation Agreement for the Wasatch Front and West Desert populations (Utah) of spotted frog for review and comment (62 FR 63375). We subsequently signed the Conservation Agreement on February 13, 1998. The goal of this agreement developed by the Utah Department of Natural Resources in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission, Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Federation, and the Service, was to ensure the long-term conservation of the spotted frog within its historical range in Utah. Due to numerous activities and studies in addition to and pursuant with the Conservation Agreement, we determined that the status of the species in Utah had improved and issued a new 12-month petition finding of “not
On June 8, 1999, a complaint was filed by the Biodiversity Legal Foundation and Peter Hovingh challenging the “not warranted” finding as violating the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act. The complaint alleged that the “not warranted” finding was inconsistent with the 8 years of prior determinations by the Service that the spotted frog deserved ESA listing, that spotted frog populations had declined during the course of the 8-year administrative process, that the Conservation Agreement contained future and voluntary actions that had yet to be implemented and had not proven successful at protecting spotted frog populations prior to the “not warranted” decision, and that all measures identified by the Service as having previously been implemented had either failed, had been rejected by the Service as inadequate, or were adopted to mitigate specific projects that had already destroyed spotted frogs and their wetland and aquatic habitat.
On August 6, 2001, a settlement was reached between the plaintiffs and the Government regarding this complaint. The settlement stipulates that we remand for reconsideration the “not warranted” finding and start a new status review and 12-month finding on the Wasatch Front population of the spotted frog. The revised finding is to be completed by July 31, 2002. The agreement also states that we will not vacate our previous determination in the interim. Therefore, the candidate status of the species will not be restored unless and until we determine in the revised 12-month finding that the species is warranted for listing, or warranted but precluded from listing by higher listing priority actions.
A complete list of all references cited is available upon request from the Utah Field Office (see
The primary author of this document is Jessica L. Gourley (see
The authority for this action is section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Service announces the availability of the draft EA for the Mandalay Bank Protection Project. A more detailed description of the project is outlined in the
The Service specifically requests information, views, and opinions from the public via this Notice on the Federal action, including the identification of any other aspects of the human environment not already identified in the Service's EA.
If you wish to comment, you may submit comments by any one of several methods. You may mail comments to the Service's Louisiana Field Office (see
Written comments on the draft EA should be sent to the Service's Louisiana Field Office (see
Persons wishing to review the draft EA may obtain a copy by writing to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400, Lafayette, Louisiana 70506. Documents will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours at the Service's Louisiana Field Station (Attn: Martha Segura), or Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge, 3599 Bayou Black Drive, Houma, Louisiana 70360 (Attn: Paul Yakupzack). Written data or comments regarding the draft EA should be submitted to the Service's Louisiana Field Office. The data and comments must be submitted in writing to be adequately considered in the Service's decision-making process.
Ms. Martha Segura, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, (see
The Mandalay Bank Protection Project (Demo), is being funded through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act on the Ninth Priority Project List as a Demonstration Project. The project purpose is to evaluate less-costly, effective alternatives to traditional rock rip-rap for protecting and restoring highly erodible banks along waterways traversing coastal wetlands.
The project is located in Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge along the southern bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW). The banks of the GIWW are severely eroded and there are many locations where the bank has “blown out”, exposing the fragile interior marshes to erosion from the wakes and surges of passing boat and barge traffic. The preferred alternative is to install and evaluate four alternatives to rock rip-rap which would protect and restore these easily erodible banks.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of competitive coal lease sale.
Notice is hereby given that certain coal resources in the Belle Ayr 2000 Tract described below in Campbell County, Wyoming will be offered for competitive lease by sealed bid in accordance with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 181
The lease sale will be held at 2 p.m., on Thursday, October 11, 2001. Sealed bids must be submitted on or before 4 p.m., on Wednesday, October 10, 2001.
The lease sale will be held in the First Floor Conference Room (Room 107) of the BLM, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, P.O. Box 1828, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82003. Sealed bids must be submitted to the Cashier, BLM, Wyoming State Office, at the address given above.
Julie Weaver, Land Law Examiner, or Melvin Schlagel, Coal Coordinator, at 307-775-6260 and 307-775-6257, respectively.
The coal estate of the Belle Ayr 2000 tract, Serial Number WYW151133, is being offered in response to a lease by application (LBA) request for a competitive sale filed by RAG Wyoming Land Company, a subsidiary of RAG American Coal Company. The application was filed on July 28, 2000, and was approved for processing as a maintenance tract by the Powder River Regional Coal Team on October 25, 2000. The tract is located in Campbell County approximately 11 miles south of Gillette, Wyoming, and is crossed by Bishop Road about 3 miles east of State Highway 59.
All of the acreage offered has been determined to be suitable for mining assuming that Bishop Road is moved as planned. The surface estate of the tract is completely controlled by the applicant. There are no oil and gas wells on the tract but these rights are privately owned and are not included in this coal lease.
The tract is within the mine permit area for the Belle Ayr mine and contains surface mineable coal reserves in one primary seam currently being recovered at this mine. The in-place Wyodak seam averages about 76 feet thick on the LBA while the overburden averages about 192 feet thick.
The Belle Ayr LBA coal is ranked as subbituminous C. The overall average quality of the in-place reserves is 8490 BTU/lb., 30% moisture, 4.75% ash, 0.35% sulfur, and 1.02% sodium in the ash. These quality averages place the coal reserves near the middle of the range of coal quality currently being mined in the southern Powder River Basin in Campbell County.
The tract contains an estimated 31.4 million tons of mineable coal in the Wyodak seam. This estimate of reserves does not include any tonnage from localized seams or splits containing less than 5 feet of coal. Potential bidders must reduce this estimate to account for mining losses associated with thick seam recovery. The stripping ratio for the mineable reserves is approximately 3.0:1 (BCY/Ton).
The tract will be leased to the qualified bidder of the highest cash amount provided that the high bid equals the fair market value of the tract and other applicable requirements are met. The minimum bid for the tract is $100 per acre or fraction thereof. No bid that is less than $100 per acre, or fraction thereof, will be considered. The bids should be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, or be hand delivered. The Cashier will issue a receipt for each hand-delivered bid. Bids received after 4 p.m., on Wednesday, October 10, 2001, will not be considered. The minimum bid is not intended to represent fair market value. The fair market value of the tract will be determined by the Authorized Officer after the sale.
The lease issued as a result of this offering will provide for payment of an annual rental of $3 per acre, or fraction thereof, and of a royalty payment to the United States of 12.5 percent of the value of coal produced by strip or auger mining methods and 8 percent of the value of the coal produced by underground mining methods. The value of the coal will be determined in accordance with 30 CFR 206.250.
Bidding instructions for the tract offered and the terms and conditions of the proposed coal lease are available from the BLM, Wyoming State Office at the addresses above. Case file documents, WYW151133, are available for inspection at the BLM, Wyoming State Office.
International Trade Commission.
Institution of countervailing duty and antidumping investigations and scheduling of preliminary phase investigations.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase countervailing duty and antidumping investigations Nos. 701-TA-417-421 (Preliminary) and 731-TA-953-963 (Preliminary)
For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).
August 31, 2001.
Elizabeth Haines (202-205-3200), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for these investigations may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS-ON-LINE) at http://dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review the final initial determination (“Final ID”) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) on July 19, 2001, finding a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission also determined to deny the petition of respondent Altima Communications Inc. to supplement the evidentiary record in the investigation, and to grant the motion of complainants Intel Corporation and Level Communications, Inc. to strike portions of Altima Communications, Inc.'s petition for review.
Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, S.W.,
This patent-based section 337 investigation was instituted on August 23, 2000, based upon a complaint filed on July 20, 2000, by Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and Level One Communications, Inc. (“Level One”). 65 FR 51327 (Aug. 23, 2000). The respondent is Altima Communications, Inc. (“Altima”). A second patent-based section 337 investigation naming Altima as a respondent was instituted on April 24, 2000, based upon a complaint filed by Level One on March 23, 2000, and supplemented on April 13, 2000. 65 FR 21789 (Apr. 24, 2000). On August 24, 2000, the ALJ issued an order consolidating the two investigations. From April 16, 2001, through April 30, 2001, the ALJ held an evidentiary hearing. On July 19, 2001, the ALJ issued a final ID finding that respondent Altima violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), by infringing certain claims of two of the complainants' asserted patents. The ALJ found that: (1) There has been importation and sale of the accused products; (2) complainants practice the patents in controversy and satisfy the domestic industry requirements of section 337; (3) certain of the claims in issue are valid; (4) the accused imported products directly infringe certain of the claims in issue; and (5) respondent has induced infringement of certain of the claims in issue. Based on these findings, the ALJ concluded there was a violation of section 337. The ALJ recommended issuance of a limited exclusion order.
Complainants Intel and Level One and respondent Altima filed petitions for review of various portions of the Final ID, and opposed each others' petitions for review. The Commission investigative attorney (IA) did not petition for review of the Final ID, but he opposed the other parties' petitions for review.
On August 1, 2001, Altima petitioned the Commission for leave to supplement the evidentiary record of the investigation. On August 8, 2001, Intel and Level One filed their opposition to Altima's petition to supplement, and moved to strike portions of respondent's petition for review related to materials that have not been admitted into evidence and are not part of the evidentiary record created in connection with the instant investigation. On August 13, 2001, the IA filed his opposition to Altima's petition to supplement.
Having examined the record in this investigation, including the Final ID, the petitions for review, and the responses thereto, the Commission determined not to review the Final ID; thus, the Commission has found a violation of section 337. Having also examined Altima's petition to supplement the evidentiary record, Intel and Level One's opposition to Altima's petition to supplement and Intel and Level One's motion to strike, the Commission has determined to deny Altima's petition to supplement and to grant Intel and Level One's motion to strike.
In connection with the final disposition of this investigation, the Commission may issue (1) an order that could result in the exclusion of the subject articles from entry into the United States, and/or (2) cease and desist orders that could result in respondent being required to cease and desist from engaging in unfair acts in the importation and sale of such articles. Accordingly, the Commission is interested in receiving written submissions that address the form of the remedy, if any, that should be ordered. If a party seeks exclusion of an article from entry into the United States for purposes other than entry for consumption, the party should so indicate and provide information establishing that activities involving other types of entry either are adversely affecting it or likely to do so. For background see the Commission Opinion, In the Matter of Certain Devices for Connecting Computers via Telephone Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-360, USITC Pub. No. 2843 (December, 1994).
If the Commission contemplates some form of remedy, it must consider the effects of that remedy upon the public interest. The factors the Commission will consider include the effect that an exclusion order and/or cease and desist orders would have on (1) the public health and welfare, (2) competitive conditions in the U.S. economy, (3) U.S. production of articles that are like or directly competitive with those that are subject to investigation, and (4) U.S. consumers. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving written submissions that address the aforementioned public interest factors in the context of this investigation.
If the Commission orders some form of remedy, the President has 60 days to approve or disapprove the Commission's action. During this period, the subject articles would be entitled to enter the United States under a bond, in an amount determined by the Commission and prescribed by the Secretary of Treasury. The Commission is therefore interested in receiving submissions concerning the amount of the bond that should be imposed.
The parties to the investigation, interested government agencies, and any other interested parties are encouraged to file written submissions on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Such submissions should address the July 19, 2001, recommended determination by the ALJ on remedy and bonding. Complainants and the Commission investigative attorney are also requested to submit proposed remedial orders for the Commission's consideration. The written submissions and proposed remedial orders must be filed no later than the close of business on September 19, 2001. Reply submissions must be filed no later than the close of business on September 26, 2001. No further submissions on these issues will be permitted unless otherwise ordered by the Commission. The target date for completion of the investigation is October 23, 2001.
Persons filing written submissions must file with the Office of the Secretary the original document and 14 true copies thereof on or before the deadlines stated above. Any person desiring to submit a document (or portion thereof) to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment unless the information has already been granted such treatment during the proceedings. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary of the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment. See 19 CFR 201.6. Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is requested will be treated accordingly. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Secretary.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) and Subpart G of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR Subpart G).
By order of the Commission.
Pursuant to section 1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a regulation under section 1002(a) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with § 1301.34 of Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that on March 7, 2001, Applied Science Labs, Inc., A Division of Alltech Associates, Inc., 2701 Carolean Industrial Drive, P.O. Box 440, State College, Pennsylvania 16801, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substance listed below:
The firm plans to import these controlled substances for the manufacture of reference standards.
Any manufacturer holding, or applying for, registration as a bulk manufacturer of these basic classes of controlled substances may file written comments on or objections to the application described above and may, at the same time, file a written request for a hearing on such application in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.43 in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such comments, objections or requests for a hearing may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20537, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative (CCR), and must be filed no later than October 10, 2001.
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745-46 (September 23, 1975), all applicants for registration to import the basic classes of any controlled substances in Schedule I or II are and will continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1301.34(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.
Pursuant to section 1008 of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 958(i)), the Attorney General shall, prior to issuing a registration under this Section to a bulk manufacturer of a controlled substance in Schedule I or II and prior to issuing a regulation under section 1002(a) authorizing the importation of such a substance, provide manufacturers holding registrations for the bulk manufacture of the substance an opportunity for a hearing.
Therefore, in accordance with § 1301.34 of Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations(CFR), notice is hereby given that on April 19, 2001, Lipomed, Inc., One Broadway, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed below:
The firm plans to import small reference standard quantities of finished commercial product from its sister company in Switzerland for sale to its customers for drug testing and pharmaceutical research and development.
Any manufacturer holding, or applying for, registration as a bulk manufacturer of these basic classes of controlled substances may file written comments on or objections to the application described above and may, at the same time, file a written request for hearing on such application in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.43 in such form as prescribed by 21 CFR 1316.47.
Any such comments, objections or requests for a hearing may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to the Deputy Assistant
This procedure is to be conducted simultaneously with and independent of the procedures described in 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). As noted in a previous notice at 40 FR 43745-46 (September 23, 1975), all applicants for registration to import the basic classes of any controlled substances in Schedule I or II are and will continue to be required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1301.34(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are satisfied.
By Notice dated December 4, 2000, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture bulk products for distribution to its customers.
No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Organichem Corporation to manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Organichem Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823 and 28 CFR 0.100 and 0.104, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, hereby orders that the application submitted by the above firm for registration as a bulk manufacturer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above is granted.
By Notice dated August 7, 2000, and published in the
The firm plans to import the listed controlled substances for the manufacture of bulk pharmaceutical controlled substances and non-controlled substance flavor extract.
DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to import the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act and in accordance with Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above.
By Notice dated June 14, 2000, and published in the
The firm plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances for distribution as bulk pharmaceutical products to its customers.
DEA has considered the factors in Title 21, United States Code, section 823(a) and determined that the registration of Penick Corporation to manufacture the listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has investigated Penick Corporation to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. This investigation included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Office of Foreign Relations, Labor.
Notice.
In response to the subject solicitation, inquiries have been received regarding the requirements of the solicitation. This notice publishes the inquiries and the responses to the inquiries. Due to the pending closing date of September 12, 2001 no further questions will be entertained.
Lisa Harvey, Department of Labor, Procurement Services Center, Room N-5416, 200 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20210, Telephone (202) 219-9355, e-mail:
Q: Given the fact that detailed national plans can only be derived from on-site assessments within the individual countries with consensus-building exercises with government officials and the social partners, could you clarify what level of specificity is required regarding the implementation or redesign of the proposed surveys (i.e. labor force and occupational wage surveys)?
A: The level of specificity necessary for a complete and thorough demonstration of the applicant's abilities, and then for a thorough review and full consideration by the technical evaluation panel shall be determined by and is the responsibility of the applicant.
Q: Is USDOL proposing the implementation of a regional labor force survey and an occupational employment and wage that must be adopted by all countries rather than allowing the individual countries to develop surveys or refine existing surveys and collection techniques?
A: USDOL, in support of Caribbean government efforts to collect and report on data that can be aggregated regionally and compared across countries, is promoting the implementation of a standard labor force survey for the region. The survey would collect a core set of labor market data, from which individual countries could expand upon (but not subtract) at their discretion to collect additional relevant data to meet their particular information needs.
Q: If USDOL is proposing the implementation of multiple labor force surveys, could you identify which countries USDOL intends to target?
A: All of the countries listed in the SUMMARY section of the SGA.
Q: Could you clarify what is the distinction between (1) “method for performing all the specific work * * *” and (3) “approach to producing all the required deliverables * * *”?
A: There is no distinction.
Q: Given that detailed national plans can only be derived from on-site needs analyses that feed into a consensus-building process involving the social partners, what level of specificity is required for regional and national workplans in the “Technical Sample”?
A: The level of specificity necessary for a complete and thorough demonstration of the applicant's abilities, and then for a thorough review and full consideration by the technical evaluation panel shall be determined by and is the responsibility of the applicant.
Q: Will a bid be deemed responsive to the solicitation requirements if the workplans provided in the “Technical Sample” section include an indicative list of activities that will be finalized during project implementation in collaboration with national partners?
A: Yes.
Q: Is a separate budget required for each of the 13 national workplans? If so, given that training and other project activities will likely be conducted on a regional or multi-country level in many cases, how can 13 separate national budgets be developed for these shared and indivisible resources?
A: No.
10 a.m., Thursday, October 11, 2001.
Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
Open.
The Commission will hear oral argument on the following:
1. Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “C,” Docket Nos. KENT 2000-128-R, etc. (Issues include whether the judge correctly determined that Kinder Morgan is engaged in “the work of preparing the coal” as defined in section 3(i) of the Mine Act, and that Kinder Morgan's marine terminal is therefore a “coal or other mine” under section 3(h)(1) of the Mine Act).
2 p.m., Thursday, October 11, 2001
Room 6005, 6th Floor, 1730 K Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
Closed [Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552b(c)(10)].
It was determined by a majority vote of the Commission that the Commission consider and act upon the following in closed session:
1. Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. “C,” Docket Nos. KENT 2000-128-R, etc. (see oral argument listing).
Any person attending an open meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).
Jean Ellen (202) 653-5629 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
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, Earth Systems Science and Applications Advisory Committee, Earth Science Data and Information Systems and Services Advisory Subcommittee.
Wednesday, October 3, 2001, 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.; and Thursday, October 4, 2001, 8:15 a.m. to 4 p.m.
NASA Headquarters, 300 E Street SW, Room MIC-7A, Washington, DC 20546
Ms. Martha Maiden, Code YS, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-1078.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating 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 Indian Gaming Commission.
Notice.
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and extend approval for the information collection activity associated with the issuance of a certificate of self-regulation for class II gaming to Indian tribes conducting gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The OMB will consider comments from the public on this information collection activity.
Comments regarding the NIGC's evaluation of the information collection activity and its request to OMB to extend approval for the information collection must be received by October 15, 2001. When providing comment, a respondent should specify the particular collection activity to which the comment pertains. Send comments to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Attn: Desk Officer for the National Indian Gaming Commission), Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. The NIGC regulation to which the information collection pertains is available on the NIGC website,
The Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (Exelon, or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-19, which authorizes operation of the Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a boiling water reactor located in Grundy County, Illinois.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, section
The licensee recently upgraded their inservice examination program by implementing the 1998 Edition of ASME Section XI, Subsection IWE in place of the 1992 Edition. The staff approved this proposal by letter dated September 18, 2000. While the licensee intended to complete the required inservice examinations during the refueling outage of October 1999, the licensee subsequently determined that some of the examinations did not meet either the 1992 or 1998 Edition and, therefore, must be re-performed. Considering that the licensee's next scheduled refueling outage will be in October 2001, the licensee will be unable to complete all inservice examinations required by regulation unless a special outage, for the purpose of performing inservice examinations, is planned prior to September 9, 2001.
In consideration of the above, by letter dated December 8, 2000, and supplemented by letter dated February 2, 2001, the licensee requested a schedular exemption from implementation of inservice examinations of the containment by September 9, 2001, as required by 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(B). The schedular exemption is requested to extend the implementation date by 90 days (i.e., to December 8, 2001) to allow completion of first period examinations during the next refueling outage, scheduled to begin in October 2001.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. According to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii), special circumstances are present whenever compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted. The requested schedular exemption is required to prevent a forced shutdown of the facility for the purpose of conducting inservice examinations prior to September 9, 2001. In addition, according to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), special circumstances are also present whenever the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation. The requested exemption is only needed for a maximum of 90 days, to the start of the next scheduled refueling outage. The staff believes that the licensee made good faith efforts to complete the inservice examinations to satisfy the regulations during their last refueling outage of October 1999.
As described in the staff's safety evaluation dated August 31, 2001, the staff finds that: (1) The requested 90-day extension is a relatively short period that would not permit a significant increase in any degradation that has developed since the general visual examination performed during the most recent refueling outage conducted in October 1999, (2) a separate outage for the performance of containment inspections to meet the date of September 9, 2001, would present undue hardship and costs due to lost generation, and (3) an extra shutdown would increase radiological exposure. On this basis, the staff concludes that (1) the exemption requested by the licensee will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, (2) to meet the date required by the regulation would result in undue hardship or other costs, and (3) the exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation. Therefore, the exemption is authorized pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or common defense and security, and is, otherwise, in the public interest. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Exelon Nuclear an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(ii)(B) for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (66 FR 45876).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued for public comment a proposed revision of a guide in its Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the staff in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The draft guide, temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1109 (which should be mentioned in all correspondence concerning this draft guide), is “Laboratory Investigations of Soils and Rocks for Engineering Analysis and Design of Nuclear Power Plants.” This draft guide is a proposed Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.138, and it is being revised to describe laboratory investigations and testing practices that are acceptable to the NRC staff for determining soil and rock properties and characteristics needed for engineering analysis and design for foundations and earthworks for nuclear power plants. The state of the art of laboratory testing practices of soils and rocks is reflected in existing national standards, and this guide recommends and references such standards where appropriate.
This draft guide has not received complete staff approval and does not represent an official NRC staff position.
Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Written comments may be submitted to the Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking Web site through the NRC home page
Although a time limit is given for comments on this draft guide, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time.
Regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301)415-4737 or (800)397-4205; fax (301)415-3548; e-mail
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing(s) has/have been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application(s) and/or declaration(s) for complete statements of the proposed transaction(s) summarized below. The application(s) and/or declaration(s) and any amendment(s) is/are available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application(s) and/or declaration(s) should submit their views in writing by September 25, 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 September 25, 2001, the application(s) and/or declaration(s), as filed or as amended, may be granted and/or permitted to become effective.
FirstEnergy Corp. (“FirstEnergy”), an Ohio holding company claiming exemption from registration under the Act through rule 2, its utility subsidiaries: Ohio Edison Company (“Ohio Edison”), American Transmission Systems, Incorporated (“ATSI”), The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (“Cleveland Electric”), The Toledo Edison Company (“Toledo Edison”), Pennsylvania Power Company (“Penn Power”), and Northeast Ohio Natural Gas Corp. (“NONGC”), and their respective subsidiaries; FirstEnergy's direct nonutility subsidiaries: FE Acquisition Corp. (“FE Acquisition”), FirstEnergy Properties, Inc. (“FE Properties”), FirstEnergy Facilities Services Group, LLC (“FE Facilities”), FE Holdings, LLC (“FE Holdings”), FELHC, Inc. (“FELHC”), FirstEnergy Securities Transfer Company (“FirstEnergy Transfer”), FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (“FENOC”), FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
Applicants request authority for, among other things, the merger of GPU with and into FirstEnergy (“Merger”); GPU will no longer be a separate entity after the Merger. Following consummation of the Merger, FirstEnergy will register with the Commission as a holding company under the Act. Under the terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated August 8, 2000 (“Merger Agreement”), FirstEnergy will pay cash for 50% and issue FirstEnergy common shares for 50% of the shares of GPU common stock outstanding at the time of the completion of the Merger, subject to a tax adjustment. The total Merger consideration to be paid by FirstEnergy
In addition, Applicants seek approval for the creation and reorganization of certain nonutility subsidiaries and other matters. In connection with the Merger, Applicants seek approval for financing by FirstEnergy for the purpose of paying the cash and common stock portions of the Merger consideration and other general corporate purposes that may be required in the period immediately following the Merger (“Acquisition Financing”). Applicants also seek approvals for the ongoing financing activities of, the provision of intrasystem services and guaranties by, and certain investments and other matters relating to FirstEnergy and its subsidiaries following the Merger. Applicants further seek preliminary and temporary approval for ServeCo (the new service company for the FirstEnergy system) and GPU Service to act as service companies for the FirstEnergy system under section 13 of the Act and applicable rules.
All pre-Merger subsidiaries of FirstEnergy and GPU are referred to as “Subsidiaries.” “FirstEnergy Utility Subsidiaries” include: Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison, Penn Power, NONGC and ATSI; “FirstEnergy Nonutility Subsidiaries” include all the FirstEnergy Subsidiaries, except for the FirstEnergy Utility Subsidiaries; “GPU Subsidiaries” means all current subsidiaries of GPU; “GPU Utility Subsidiaries” include JCP&L, Met-Ed, Penelec, York Haven and Waverly Electric; “GPU Nonutility Subsidiaries” include all GPU Subsidiaries, except for the GPU Utility Subsidiaries; “Utility Subsidiaries” means FirstEnergy Utility Subsidiaries and GPU Utility Subsidiaries; “Nonutility Subsidiaries” means FirstEnergy Nonutility Subsidiaries and GPU Nonutility Subsidiaries; and “Subsidiary” or “Subsidiaries” means all subsidiaries of post-Merger FirstEnergy, including FirstEnergy Utility Subsidiaries, FirstEnergy Nonutility Subsidiaries, GPU Utility Subsidiaries and GPU Nonutility Subsidiaries.
FirstEnergy directly owns all of the issued and outstanding voting securities of Ohio Edison,
For the twelve months ending December 31, 2000, FirstEnergy had total revenue of $7,028,961,000 and net income of $598,970,000. FirstEnergy had total assets of $17,941,294,000, as of December 31, 2000.
Ohio Edison is both a public utility and a public utility holding company exempt from registration under the Act by order of the Commission.
Cleveland Electric is engaged primarily in the generation, distribution and sale of electric energy to approximately 741,000 customers in an area of approximately 1,700 square miles in northeastern Ohio, including the City of Cleveland. Cleveland Electric also has ownership interests in certain generating facilities located in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Cleveland Electric also engages in the sale, purchase and interchange of electric energy with other electric companies. For the twelve months ending December 31, 2000, Cleveland Electric had total revenue of $1,887,039,000 and net income of $202,950,000; Cleveland Electric's operating revenue was principally derived from the sale of electricity. Cleveland Electric had total assets of $5,964,631,000, as of December 31, 2000.
Toledo Edison is a public utility engaged primarily in the distribution and sale of electric energy to approximately 303,000 customers in an area of approximately 2,500 square miles in northwestern Ohio, including the City of Toledo. Toledo Edison owns directly 4% of the issued and outstanding voting securities of OVEC. For the twelve months ending December 31, 2000, Toledo Edison had total revenue of $954,947,000, and net income of $137,233,000; Toledo Edison's operating revenue was principally derived from the sale of electricity. Toledo Edison had total assets of $2,652,267,000, as of December 31, 2001.
ATSI owns and operates certain major, high-voltage transmission facilities, which consist of approximately 7,100 circuit miles (5,752 “pole” miles) of transmission lines with voltages of 345 kV and 138 kV (the “Bulk Transmission System”) and 69 kV (the “Area Transmission System,” and together with the Bulk Transmission System, the “Transmission System”). ATSI has 37 interconnections with six neighboring control areas. ATSI is the control area operator for the FirstEnergy system. The primary function of the Transmission System is to integrate the generation resources of the FirstEnergy Companies with their native retail and wholesale loads. To perform this network function, the Bulk Transmission System and the Area Transmission System are integrated and operate in a parallel manner to each other. The FirstEnergy Companies also operate low voltage 23, 33, 34.5, and 36 kV facilities.
NONGC is a public-utility company that provides gas distribution and transportation service to approximately 5,000 customers located in central and northeast Ohio. NONGC operates approximately 420 miles of distribution and transportation pipeline and ancillary facilities. NONGC receives its gas supplies from local gas producers as well as from interstate pipeline companies. For the twelve months ending December 31, 2000, NONGC had total revenue of $6,074,120, and net
FirstEnergy Properties owns nonutility land and coal rights held for sale, investment or potential development; office buildings rented to affiliated companies and third parties; and also holds the former Centerior Energy Corporation's partnership share of investments in economic development investments. FirstEnergy Properties has one subsidiary, BSG Properties, Inc. (“BSG Properties”).
FirstEnergy Ventures' principal business involves the ownership of stock investments in certain unregulated enterprises and business ventures. FirstEnergy Ventures has eight wholly owned subsidiaries organized under Ohio law.
FirstEnergy Facilities is the parent company of 11 direct subsidiaries which provide mechanical contracting, facilities management and energy management services to regional and national customers.
MARBEL is the parent company of NONGC, a gas utility, and a holding company, Marbel Holdco, Inc. (“Marbel Holdco”).
FirstEnergy Services is a natural gas and power marketer in both wholesale and retail markets. FirstEnergy Services has two wholly owned subsidiaries, Penn Power Energy, Inc. (“Penn Power Energy”)
FirstEnergy directly holds minority interests in nonutility businesses comprised of two real estate companies,
In addition to the utility subsidiaries mentioned above, Ohio Edison owns multiple wholly owned, indirect and direct, nonutility subsidiaries involved in energy operations and financing.
Further, two other FirstEnergy utilities hold interests in nonutility businesses. Cleveland Electric has three nonutility subsidiaries,
GPU directly owns all of the outstanding shares of common stock of three electric utilities: JCP&L, Penelec, and Met-Ed (together, “GPU Energy Companies”).
JCP&L is engaged in the sale, purchase, transmission and distribution of electric power to 1,016,650 customers (as of May 31, 2001) located within 13 counties and 236 municipalities in northern, western and east central New Jersey. For the twelve months ending December 31, 2000, JCP&L had total revenue of $1,979,297,000, and net income of $210,812,000; operating revenues were derived from the distribution and resale of electricity. JCP&L had total assets of $6,217,355,000, as of December 31, 2000.
Penelec is an electric utility company engaged in the sale, purchase, transmission, and distribution of electric power to 576,091 customers (as of May 31, 2001) in approximately 31 counties in northern and central Pennsylvania. Penelec also provides wholesale service to six municipalities in Pennsylvania and five municipalities in New Jersey. Additionally, Penelec, through Waverly Electric, a direct subsidiary of Penelec, provides retail electric service to 3,741 customers (as of May 31, 2001) in Waverly, New York, and vicinity.
Met-Ed was organized under Pennsylvania law in 1922 and is engaged in the sale, purchase, transmission and distribution of electric power to 497,609 customers (as of May 30, 2001) in 14 counties in central and eastern Pennsylvania. Met-Ed owns all of the voting securities of York Haven, a public utility company. For the twelve months ending December 31, 2000, Met-Ed had total revenue of $842,333,000, and net income of $81,895,000; operating revenues were derived from the distribution and resale of electricity. Met-Ed had total assets of $3,161,379,000, as of December 31, 2000.
As mentioned above, the Merger Agreement provides for GPU to be merged with and into FirstEnergy, with FirstEnergy as the surviving corporation and the separate existence of GPU ceasing. The GPU Energy Companies will become direct subsidiaries of FirstEnergy following the merger. On November 21, 2000, the shareholders of FirstEnergy and GPU approved the Merger.
Shortly before the Merger is completed, FirstEnergy will give each GPU shareholder the opportunity to elect to receive, for each share of GPU common stock he or she owns, either: $36.50 in cash, without interest; or, a number of shares of FirstEnergy common stock equal to an exchange ratio designed to provide GPU shareholders with FirstEnergy shares having a value of $36.50.
If GPU shareholders elect to receive cash for more than 50% of the GPU shares, the amount of cash that GPU shareholders will receive for each GPU share for which they made a cash election will be reduced
FirstEnergy will not issue fractional interests in its shares in connection with the Merger. Any GPU shareholder otherwise entitled to a fractional interest, including in connection with a tax adjustment, will instead receive cash in an amount equal to that fraction multiplied by the average of the closing prices of the shares of FirstEnergy common stock over the five-day trading period ending on the trading day before the Merger is completed.
Under certain circumstances it may be necessary for FirstEnergy to reduce the total amount of cash it pays in the Merger in order to ensure that the Merger qualifies as a “reorganization” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In this event, all GPU shareholders who are entitled to receive cash, other than as a result of being a dissenting shareholder or being entitled to cash in lieu of a fractional share of FirstEnergy common stock, will receive a reduced amount of cash, as nearly
After the Merger, FirstEnergy proposes to hold as first tier subsidiaries seven public utility companies: Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison, JCP&L, Penelec, Met-Ed and ATSI. FirstEnergy will hold as second tier subsidiaries five public utility companies: Penn Power, York Haven, Waverly, NONGC and OVEC. FirstEnergy will hold IKEC as a third-tier subsidiary. For the purpose of the Application at issue, Ohio Edison, Cleveland Electric, Toledo Edison, JCP&L, Penelec, and Met-Ed are collectively are referred to as the “Primary Operating Utilities.” FirstEnergy also proposes to own a number of nonutility subsidiaries as described above.
In order to ensure that the FirstEnergy system is able to meet its capital requirements immediately following registration and plan its future financing, FirstEnergy and its Subsidiaries request authorization to enter into numerous types of financing transactions for the period beginning with the effective date of the Commission's order in this matter and continuing to and including June 30, 2003 (“Authorization Period”). In addition to engaging in Acquisition Financing, Applicants request that FirstEnergy be able to engage in other financing transactions as set forth below during the Authorization Period.
FirstEnergy requests authority to engage in Acquisition Financing in order to meet the cash and common stock portions of the Merger consideration. FirstEnergy will issue between 74 million and 95 million shares of common stock in connection with the Merger. Approximately $2.2 billion of cash will be used at closing to fund the cash portion of the Merger consideration. In addition to this Merger consideration, FirstEnergy plans to refinance at or about the effective time of the Merger certain then-outstanding GPU-related short-term debt (expected to be approximately $1.8 billion). Applicants plan to meet the Acquisition Financing requirements through a short-term bank bridge loan, but may use long-term or short-term financing, including preferred stock and preferred stock equivalent securities (collectively, “Preferred Securities”) or securities convertible into common stock. The bridge loan will ultimately be repaid with proceeds from permanent debt financing by FirstEnergy or other entities in the FirstEnergy system as approved by the Commission in this filing or in subsequent requests contained in later submissions to the Commission.
Applicants also seek authority for: (1) External issuances by FirstEnergy of common stock, Preferred Securities, long-term debt, short-term debt and other securities; guarantees of obligations of affiliated or unaffiliated persons in favor of other unaffiliated persons; and the entering into by FirstEnergy of transactions to manage interest rate risk (“Hedging Transactions”); (2) the entering into by the Utility Subsidiaries of hedging transactions to the extent not exempt pursuant to rule 52; (3) lending to non-wholly owned Non-Utility Subsidiaries at a rate not less than the cost of capital of the lending associate company; (4) the establishment of a utility money pool (“Utility Money Pool”) and a nonutility money pool (“Nonutility Money Pool”) and the issuance of intrasystem guaranties by FirstEnergy and the Nonutility Subsidiaries on behalf of the Subsidiaries; (5) the continuation of existing intrasystem debt, guarantees and other financing arrangements; (6) the ability of 50% or more owned Subsidiaries to alter their capital stock in order to engage in financing transactions with their parent company; (7) the ability of FirstEnergy and those Subsidiaries identified below to pay dividends out of capital or unearned surplus; and (8) the formation of financing entities (“Financing Subsidiaries”) and the issuance by these entities of securities otherwise authorized to be issued and sold in accordance with this Application or to applicable exemptions under the Act, including intrasystem guaranties of these securities and the retention of existing Financing Subsidiaries.
Applicant's effective cost of money on long-term debt borrowings under the authorizations granted under this Application will not exceed the greater of (1) 350 basis points over the comparable term U.S. Treasury securities or (2) a gross spread over U.S. Treasuries that is consistent with similar securities of comparable credit
The proceeds from the sale of securities in external financing transactions will be used for general corporate purposes, including: financing the cash and stock portion of the Merger consideration under the Merger Agreement; the financing, in part, of the capital expenditures of FirstEnergy and its Subsidiaries; the financing of working capital requirements of FirstEnergy and its Subsidiaries; the acquisition, retirement or redemption under rule 42 of securities previously issued by FirstEnergy or its Subsidiaries; and authorized investments in energy-related companies, as defined in rule 58 under the Act (“Rule 58 Subsidiaries”), other energy-related companies (“Energy-Related Companies”), exempt wholesale generators (“EWGs”), foreign utility companies (“FUCOs”), ETCs; and for other lawful purposes.
Financings by each Applicant will be subject to the following conditions (“Financial Conditions”): (1) FirstEnergy's
Applicants estimate that FirstEnergy has a $450 million credit agreement outstanding and that the FirstEnergy Operating Companies and ATSI have $7.4 billion outstanding in first mortgage bonds, preferred stock, debentures, and other notes. Applicants seek authority for these existing outstanding securities and financing arrangements to stay in place following the Merger. Applicants also each seek authority, following the Merger, to refinance or refund these existing securities for the purpose of lowering interest costs, changing from fixed rate to variable rate, refunding short-term debt with long-term debt (including any refinancing of the Acquisition Financing), extending the maturity, altering covenants, changing capitalization ratios or for other proper financial purposes. Further, Applicants seek approval for the outstanding securities and financing arrangements of the FirstEnergy Nonutility Subsidiaries to remain in place following consummation of the Merger.
In addition, each of the GPU Energy Companies has in place approval from the Commission for the issuance of short term debt.
In addition to existing financing, Applicants request authority for FirstEnergy to obtain funds externally through sales of common stock, Preferred Securities, long-term debt, and short-term debt securities. With respect to common stock, FirstEnergy also requests authority to issue common stock to third parties in consideration for the acquisition by FirstEnergy or a Nonutility Subsidiary of equity or debt securities of a company being acquired under rule 58 or sections 32, 33 or 34 of the Act. In addition, FirstEnergy seeks the flexibility to enter into certain hedging transactions to manage rate risk and for other lawful purposes. The aggregate amount of new equity, Preferred Securities, long-term debt and short-term debt financing to be obtained by FirstEnergy during the Authorization Period shall be not more than $8.0 billion (“Aggregate Financing Limit”), which includes the common stock and debt portions of the Acquisition Financing. The Aggregate Financing Limit does not include the existing financing, and any refinancing or refunding of outstanding securities as described in Section III. B. above.
FirstEnergy is authorized under its restated articles of incorporation to issue 300 million shares of common stock ($.10 par value).
Common stock financings may be made through underwritten public distributions, private placements, or other non-public offerings to one or more persons. All such common stock sales will be at rates or prices and under conditions negotiated or based upon, or otherwise determined by, competitive capital markets.
FirstEnergy requests authority to issue preferred stock or other types of Preferred Securities in one or more series with such rights, preferences and priorities as may be designated in the instrument creating each such series, as determined by FirstEnergy's Board of Directors. Dividends or distributions on Preferred Securities will be made periodically and to the extent funds are legally available for such purpose, but may be made subject to terms which allow the issuer to defer dividend payments for specified periods. Preferred Securities may be convertible or exchangeable into shares of FirstEnergy common stock or indebtedness.
FirstEnergy proposes to issue long-term debt securities, including bonds, notes, medium-term notes or debentures under one or more indentures (each, the “FirstEnergy Indenture”) or long-term indebtedness under agreements with banks or other institutional lenders. The maturity dates, interest rates, redemption and sinking fund provisions, tender or repurchase and conversion features, if any, with respect to the long-term securities of a particular series, as well as any associated placement, underwriting or selling agent fees, commissions and discounts, if any, will be established by negotiation or competitive bidding. In addition to the long-term debt noted above, FirstEnergy expects to assume $300 million of GPU debentures (7.7% Series A, due December 1, 2005) upon consummation of the Merger. Because it is part of existing capitalization, this $300 million will not count against the Aggregate Financing Limit.
FirstEnergy seeks authority to issue short-term debt in order to provide for the reissuance of pre-Merger letters or lines of credit or commercial paper and to provide financing for general corporate purposes, working capital requirements, and temporary financing of Subsidiary capital expenditures. Any short-term debt outstanding or credit facility of GPU existing at the time of the Merger would be assumed by FirstEnergy. FirstEnergy's proposed short-term debt may also include commercial paper, from time to time, in established domestic or European commercial paper markets. This commercial paper would be sold to dealers at the discount rate or the coupon rate per annum prevailing at the date of issuance for commercial paper of comparable quality and maturities sold to commercial paper dealers generally. The aggregate amount of additional capitalization obtained by FirstEnergy during the Authorization Period from issuance and sale of short-term debt, when combined with common stock (other than for employee benefit plans or stock purchase and dividend reinvestment plans and other than shares issued in the Merger), long-term debt, and Preferred Securities issued then outstanding, as described in this section, shall not exceed the Aggregate Financing Limit. FirstEnergy will limit the amount of short-term debt issued and outstanding at any time under the authority requested in this Application plus any short-term debt outstanding at the date of the Merger, to $5.0 billion. Further, FirstEnergy may, without counting against the above $5.0 billion limit, maintain back-up lines of credit in connection with a commercial paper program in an aggregate amount not to exceed the amount of authorized commercial paper. Credit lines may be set up for use by FirstEnergy for general corporate purposes in addition to credit lines to support commercial paper as described in this subsection. FirstEnergy would borrow and repay under such lines of credit, from time to time, as it is deemed appropriate or necessary.
FirstEnergy requests authority to enter into, perform, purchase and sell financial instruments intended to reduce or manage the volatility of interest rates, including but not limited to interest rate swaps, caps, floors, collars and forward agreements or any other similar agreements. Hedges may also include issuance of structured notes (
In addition, FirstEnergy and the Subsidiaries request authorization to enter into interest rate hedging transactions with respect to anticipated debt offerings (the “Anticipatory Hedges”), subject to certain limitations and restrictions. Anticipatory Hedges would only be entered into with Approved Counterparties, and would be utilized to fix and/or limit the interest rate risk associated with any new issuance through: (1) A forward sale of exchange-traded Hedge Instruments (“Forward Sale”), (2) the purchase of put options on Hedge Instruments (“Put Options Purchase”), (3) a Put Options Purchase in combination with the sale of call options Hedge Instruments (“Zero Cost Collar”), (4) transactions involving the purchase or sale, including short sales, of Hedge Instruments, or (5) some combination of a Forward Sale, Put Options Purchase, Zero Cost Collar and/or other derivative or cash transactions, including, but not limited to, structured notes, caps and collars, appropriate for the Anticipatory Hedges.
ATSI and NONGC each seek approval to issue debt or Preferred Securities on the same terms and conditions as FirstEnergy as described above. The maximum amount of new financing to be obtained by ATSI and NONGC during the Authorization Period shall not exceed $500 million for ATSI and $200 million for NONGC.
Financings obtained by the Utility Subsidiaries within and beyond the scope of rule 52 will be used for general corporate purposes and working capital requirements, including contributions to the Utility Money Pool. These financings may be made under instruments in place at the time of the Merger or new agreements.
Applicants request authority to enter into guaranties, obtain letters of credit, enter into support or expense agreements or otherwise provide credit support with respect to the obligations of the Subsidiaries as may be appropriate or necessary to enable such Subsidiaries to carry on in the ordinary course of their respective businesses, and to enter into guaranties of nonaffiliated third parties' obligations in the ordinary course of FirstEnergy's business (“FirstEnergy Guaranties”). In addition, Applicants request authority for each Nonutility Subsidiary to provide guaranties and other forms of credit support (“Nonutility Guaranties”) (together with FirstEnergy Guaranties, “Guaranties”).
The aggregate amount of the Guaranties will not exceed $4.0 billion outstanding at any one time, not taking into account obligations exempt under rule 45 (“Guaranty Limit”). Excluded from this amount are guaranties and other credit support mechanisms by FirstEnergy and GPU in favor of their respective Subsidiaries which were previously issued and are expected to remain in place following the Merger.
The issuance of any guaranties will also be subject to the limitations of rule 53(a)(1) or 58(a)(1), as applicable. Applicants propose that each Subsidiary be charged a fee for each guaranty provided on its behalf that is not more than that obtainable by the beneficiary of the guaranty from third parties.
Applicants request authority for FirstEnergy and the Utility Subsidiaries to establish the Utility Money Pool. In addition, Applicants request authority for the Utility Subsidiaries, to the extent not exempted by rule 52, to make unsecured short-term borrowings from the Utility Money Pool, to contribute surplus funds to the Utility Money Pool, and to lend and extend credit to (and acquire promissory notes from) one another through the Utility Money Pool.
In addition, FirstEnergy and the Nonutility Subsidiaries request authority to establish the Nonutility Money Pool. FirstEnergy requests authority to contribute its surplus funds and to lend and extend credit to: (1) The Utility Subsidiaries through the Utility Money Pool; and (2) the Nonutility Subsidiaries through the Nonutility Money Pool. Amounts borrowed by each Utility Subsidiary from the Utility Money Pool would be limited to amounts authorized by each applicable state commission. FirstEnergy will receive no loans and will borrow no funds from either Money Pool.
Utility Money Pool participants that borrow would borrow
If only Internal Funds make up the funds available in the Utility Money Pool, the interest rate applicable and payable to or by Utility Subsidiaries for all loans of these Internal Funds will be the greater of the 30-day LIBOR rate as quoted in The Wall Street Journal or the money market rate that a lending Subsidiary could have obtained if it placed its excess cash in such an investment.
If only External Funds comprise the funds available in the Utility Money Pool, the interest rate applicable to loans of such External Funds would be equal to the lending company's cost for such External Funds (or, if more than one Utility Money Pool participant had made available External Funds on such day, the applicable interest rate would be a composite rate equal to the weighted average of the cost incurred by the respective Utility Money Pool participants for such External Funds).
In cases where both Internal Funds and External Funds are concurrently borrowed through the Utility Money Pool, the rate applicable to all loans comprised of these “blended” funds would be a composite rate equal to the weighted average of: (1) The cost of all Internal Funds contributed by Utility Money Pool participants (as determined in accordance with the second-preceding paragraph above) and (2) the cost of all such External Funds (as determined in accordance with the immediately preceding paragraph above). In circumstances where Internal Funds and External Funds are available for loans through the Utility Money Pool, loans may be made exclusively from Internal Funds or External Funds, rather than from a “blend” of these funds, to the extent it is expected that these loans would result in a lower cost of borrowing.
Funds not required by the Utility Money Pool to make loans (with the exception of funds required to satisfy the Utility Money Pool's liquidity requirements) would ordinarily be invested in one or more short-term investments, including: (1) Interest-bearing accounts with banks; (2) obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government and/or its agencies and instrumentalities, including obligations under repurchase agreements; (3) obligations issued or guaranteed by any state or political subdivision of a state, provided that these obligations are rated not less than “A” by a nationally recognized rating agency; (4) commercial paper rated not less than “A-1” or “P-1” or their equivalent by a nationally recognized rating agency; (5) money market funds; (6) bank certificates of deposit; (7) Eurodollar funds; and (8) other investments that are permitted by section 9(c) of the Act and rule 40 under the Act.
The Nonutility Money Pool will be operated on the same terms and conditions as the Utility Money Pool, except that FirstEnergy funds made available to the two money pools will be made available first for loans through the Utility Money Pool and then for loans through the Nonutility Money Pool. Operation of the Utility and Nonutility Money Pools, including record keeping and coordination of loans, will be handled by FirstEnergy's service company, ServeCo, under the authority of the appropriate officers of the participating companies. ServeCo will administer the Utility and Nonutility Money Pools on an “at cost” basis and will maintain separate records for each money pool.
Applicants request authority for FirstEnergy or a Nonutility Subsidiary, as the case may be, to make loans to Nonutility Subsidiaries at interest rates and maturities designed to provide a return to the lending company of not less than its effective cost of capital. If
Applicants also request authority for FirstEnergy or a Nonutility Subsidiary to make loans to Nonutility Subsidiaries that are not wholly owned by FirstEnergy, directly or indirectly, at interest rates and maturities designed to provide a return to the lending company of not less than its effective cost of capital. If these loans are made to a Nonutility Subsidiary, that Nonutility Subsidiary will not sell any services to any associate Nonutility Subsidiary unless that company falls within one of the categories of companies to which goods and services may be sold on a basis other than “at cost,” as described in the Application.
FirstEnergy and the Subsidiaries request authority to acquire, directly or indirectly, the equity securities of one or more Financing Subsidiaries. Financing Subsidiaries may be corporations, trusts, partnerships or other entities created specifically for the purpose of facilitating the financing of the authorized and exempt activities (including exempt and authorized acquisitions) of FirstEnergy and the Subsidiaries through the issuance of long-term debt, Preferred Securities or equity securities, to third parties and the transfer of the proceeds of these financings to FirstEnergy or these Subsidiaries.
FirstEnergy or a Subsidiary may, if required, guarantee or enter into support or expense agreements in respect of the obligations of any such Financing Subsidiaries. Any amounts issued by such financing entities to third parties will be included in the overall external financing limitation, if any, applicable to its immediate parent. However, any intrasystem borrowing by the parent of the proceeds of those issuances would not count against the proposed aggregate financing limitation, if any, applicable to the parent and a guaranty by the parent with respect to those issuances would not count against the Guaranty Limit.
Applicants request the authorization and approval of the Commission to organize and acquire the securities of one or more additional Subsidiaries to act as a holding company for nonutility investments if, in FirstEnergy's judgment, there are organizational, functional, tax or other benefits to be derived in separating nonutility businesses at the first-tier level. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated, references to the “Nonutility Holding Company” shall include such other first-tier Subsidiaries as FirstEnergy may choose to organize to serve a similar purpose. Applicants request authority, through the Authorization Period, to sell or otherwise transfer: (1) Nonutility Subsidiary businesses; (2) the securities of current Subsidiaries engaged in some or all of these nonutility businesses; or (3) investments which do not involve a Subsidiary (
Applicants state that proposed sales of capital securities (
a.
b.
Following the Merger, Applicants request authority for FirstEnergy to
Applicants request authority for FirstEnergy, from time to time, to issue up to 30 million shares of FirstEnergy common stock under the employee benefit and incentive plans described below and under a dividend reinvestment plan currently in place at FirstEnergy and anticipated to continue after the Merger.
After the Merger, FirstEnergy will continue to have several employee and director stock-based plans. These include an Executive and Director Incentive Compensation Plan, an Executive Deferred Compensation Plan, a Deferred Plan for Directors, two Employee Savings Plans and two plans that were assumed by FirstEnergy in connection with the merger between Ohio Edison and Centerior Energy Corporation that resulted in the formation of FirstEnergy. In addition, as a result of the Merger, FirstEnergy will assume certain obligations of GPU under GPU related stock option and incentive plans.
The Applicants request the Commission approve an agreement for the allocation of consolidated tax among FirstEnergy and its Subsidiaries following the Merger (“Tax Allocation Agreement”). Applicants state that the Tax Allocation Agreement is subject to the approval by the Commission under the Act because it provides for the retention by FirstEnergy of certain tax benefits related to the incurrence of indebtedness by FirstEnergy rather than the allocation of such benefits to Subsidiaries. The Applicants request that the Commission reserve jurisdiction over approval of the Tax Allocation Agreement pending completion of the record.
Applicants propose to acquire directly or indirectly the securities of one or more corporations, trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies or other entities (collectively, “Intermediate Subsidiaries”), which would be organized exclusively for the purpose of acquiring, holding and/or financing the acquisition of the securities of or other interest in one or more EWGs, FUCOs, ETCs, Rule 58 Subsidiaries, and Energy Related Companies (collectively, “Exempt Subsidiaries”) and make additional investments in other Nonutility Subsidiaries approved by the Commission as requested in this Application (collectively, “Non-Exempt Securities”). FirstEnergy states that Intermediate Subsidiaries also may engage in development and administrative activities related to these Exempt Subsidiaries and other Nonutility Subsidiaries, and proposes to expand, directly or through Nonutility Subsidiaries up to $300 million in the aggregate outstanding at any one time during the Authorization Period on these development activities. Applicants also maintain that the Intermediate Subsidiaries will provide both development and administrative activities “at cost” in accordance with section 13(b) and rules 90 and 91 of the Act.
Applicants request authority to allow Energy Related Companies to acquire interests in the entities not only within the United States as permitted by rule 58 but also outside the United States. Specifically, Applicants request that they be allowed to engage in energy management and consulting services anywhere outside the United States. Applicants also request that these entities be allowed to engage in energy marketing in Canada and Mexico and request that the Commission reserve jurisdiction with respect to the granting of authority to provide energy marketing services elsewhere outside the United States. Finally, Applicants request authority to allow these entities to engage in infrastructure services anywhere outside the United States and request that the Commission reserve jurisdiction over this proposal.
Applicants propose that ServeCo will enter into a service agreement with each of the Utility Subsidiaries and other affiliates. Applicants seek certain exemptions from or waiver of the Commission's rules regarding the provision of services at cost to FirstEnergy affiliates as described below. GPU's nuclear operating company, GPU Nuclear, is an approved subsidiary service company. FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company also provides operating services to the FirstEnergy nuclear generating plants under the direction and supervision of the plants' owners.
Currently, FirstEnergy provides many common corporate services to its affiliates, including the FirstEnergy Utility Subsidiaries.
FirstEnergy will cause ServeCo to begin at least minimal operations within 90 days following the closing of the Merger and will transfer to ServeCo the service functions currently conducted by FirstEnergy consistent with continued efficient operation of the FirstEnergy system. In any event, Applicants state that all these service functions will be transferred to ServeCo no later than January 1, 2003. Applicants also state that a determination regarding the status of FENOC and GPU Nuclear will made before January 1, 2003. FirstEnergy requests authority under section 13(a) permitting FirstEnergy to continue to provide services to affiliates, including the Utility Subsidiaries, during this interim period. FirstEnergy will file a separate application with the Commission on or before September 1,
During the interim period, in order to assure that an allocable portion of certain services to be provided by FirstEnergy (
Applicants request authorization for ServeCo, GPU Service and the Nonutility Subsidiaries to enter into agreements to provide construction, goods or services to certain associate companies at fair market prices determined without regard to cost and therefore request an exemption (to the extent that rule 90(d) of the Act does not apply) under section 13(b) from the cost standards of rules 90 and 91.
Applicants note that certain associate companies, currently provide services to the FirstEnergy Utility Subsidiaries at a price not restricted to cost. Applicants request authorization to allow these arrangements, as well as extensions, additions and replacements of these arrangements in the ordinary course of business (the “At Market Service Arrangements”), to remain in place for a period ending not later than December 31, 2002, and request an exemption or waiver under section 13 from the cost standards of rules 90 and 91, as applicable, for these At Market Service Arrangements.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
The following item was not considered at the closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 5, 2001: consideration of actions involving foreign governmental authorities.
At times, change in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.
United States Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459], the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681
For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619-5997, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Department of State.
Designation of a foreign terrorist organization.
Pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), as added by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, section 302, 110 Stat. 1214, 1248 (1996), and amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), the Secretary of State hereby designates, effective September 10, 2001, the following organization as a foreign terrorist organization: The “United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia”, also known as the “Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia”, also known as the “AUC”.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Coast Guard intends to seek the approval of OMB for the renewal of one Information Collection Request (ICR). The ICR comprises Submission of Continuous-Discharge Book, Revised Merchant Mariner's Application, Report of Entry-Level Physical, Report of Other Physical, Report of New Sea Service, and Report of Chemical Testing. Before submitting the ICR to OMB, the Coast Guard is requesting comments on it.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before November 9, 2001.
You may mail comments to the Docket Management System (DMS) [USCG 2001-10524], U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT), room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, or deliver them to room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the same address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329.
The DMS maintains the public docket for this request. Comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying in room PL-401, located on the Plaza Level of the Nassif Building at the above address between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also access this docket on the Internet at
Copies of the complete ICR are available through this docket on the Internet at
Barbara Davis, Office of Information Management, 202-267-2326, for questions on this document; or Dorothy Beard, Chief, Documentary Services Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, 202-366-5149, for questions on the docket.
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to submit written comments. Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify this document [USCG 2001-10524], and give the reason for the comments. Please submit all comments and attachments in an unbound format no larger than 8
1.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of meetings.
The Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (HOGANSAC) and its working groups will meet to discuss waterway improvements, aids to navigation, area projects impacting safety on the Houston Ship Channel, and various other navigation safety matters in the Galveston Bay area. All meetings will be open to the public.
The next meeting of HOGANSAC will be held on Wednesday, October 17, 2001 from 9 a.m. to approximately 12 noon. The meeting of the Committee's working groups will be held on Thursday, September 6, 2001, at 9 a.m. The meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Members of the public may present written or oral statements at either meeting.
The full Committee meeting will be held at the Texas Cruise Ship Terminal, Port of Galveston, Galveston, Texas (409-766-6113). The working group meeting will be held at the Center for Maritime Education, The Seaman's Church Institute, Houston, Texas (713-674-1236).
Captain Kevin Cook, Executive Director of HOGANSAC, telephone (713-671-5199), or Commander Peter Simons, Executive Secretary of HOGANSAC, telephone (713-671-5164), e-mail psimons@vtshouston.uscg.mil.
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
The tentative agenda includes the following:
(1) Presentation by each working group of its accomplishments and plans for the future.
(2) Review and discuss the work completed by each working group. Working groups have been formed to examine the following issues: dredging and related issues, electronic navigation systems, AtoN knockdowns, impact of passing vessels on moored ships, recreational boater education issues. All working groups may not necessarily report out at this session, however, working group discussions not reported out at this October meeting will be addressed at a future meeting of HOGANSAC. Further, working group reports may not necessarily include discussions on all issues within the particular working group's area of responsibility. All meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Members of the public may make presentations, oral or written, at either meeting.
For information on facilities or services for the handicapped or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Executive Director or Executive Secretary.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at the Middle Georgia Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 148).
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2001.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Atlanta Airport District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Rex Elder, Aviation Director of the Middle Georgia Regional Airport at the following address: City of Macon, Municipal Aviation Department, 1000 Terminal Drive, Macon, Georgia 31297.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the City of Macon under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Daniel Gaetan, Program Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Suite 2-260, College Park, Georgia 30337-2747, (404) 305-7146. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at the Middle Georgia Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
On August 28, 2001, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City of Macon, Municipal Airport Department, was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 148. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than December 3, 2001.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Middle Georgia Regional Airport.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice is to advise interested persons that RSPA will conduct a public meeting in preparation for the eighteenth meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization's Dangerous Goods Panel to be held October 15-25, 2001 in Montreal, Canada.
October 3, 10 AM-12:30 PM, Room 6332-6336.
The meeting will be held at DOT Headquarters, NassifBuilding, Room 6332-6336, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Bob Richard, International Standards Coordinator, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590; (202) 366-0656.
The purpose of the meeting will be to prepare and discuss positions for the eighteenth meeting of the Dangerous Goods Panel. Topics to be covered during the public meeting will include (1) Air transport packaging requirements, (2) Requirements for lithium batteries, (3) Requirements for cryogenic liquefied gas receptacles, (4) Requirements for UN marked compressed gas cylinders, (5) Harmonization with the 12th revised edition of the UN Model Regulations, (6) Dangerous goods carried by passengers and crew members, (7) Information requirements on the air waybill and notification to pilot in command (NOTOC), (8) Infectious substance requirements, and (9) Incident reporting.
The public is invited to attend without prior notification.
New Hampshire Central Railroad, Inc. (NHCR), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to operate approximately 36.1 miles of certain rail lines owned by the State of New Hampshire by and through the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT).
NHCR will replace New Hampshire and Vermont Railroad Company, which had operated under an agreement with NHDOT that was terminated effective December 31, 2000.
NHCR certifies that its annual revenues will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class III rail carrier and that its annual freight revenues are not projected to exceed $5 million.
The transaction is scheduled to be consummated on August 31, 2001.
If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void
An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34084, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each pleading must be served on Richard A. Currier, P. O. Box 248, Colebrook, NH 03576.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
On August 21, 2001, Monon Rail Preservation Corporation (Monon) and The Indiana Rail Road Company (INRD) (collectively, petitioners) jointly filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 for Monon to abandon and for INRD to discontinue service over a 1,500-foot segment of Monon's Ellettsville Line,
The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in Monon's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuance of this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by December 7, 2001.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(25).
All interested persons should be aware that, following abandonment of rail service and salvage of the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49 CFR 1152.28 or for trail use/rail banking under 49 CFR 1152.29 will be due no later than October 1, 2001. Each trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee. See 49 CFR 1002.2(f)(27).
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket Nos. AB-589X and AB-295 (Sub-No. 4X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) John Broadley, 1054 31st Street NW., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20007. Replies to the petition are due on or before October 1, 2001.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment and discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental issues may be directed to the Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) at (202) 565-1545. (TDD for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-877-8339.)
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
This notice lists the membership to the Departmental Offices' Performance Review Board (PRB) and supersedes the list published in
The names and titles of the PRB members are as follows:
Barbara A. Hagle, Executive Secretary, PRB, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 6109, Metropolitan Square, Washington, DC 20220. Telephone: 202-622-2209. This notice does not meet the Department's criteria for significant regulations.
U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
Customs broker license cancellation.
Pursuant to section 641 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1641) and the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 111.51), the following Customs broker license is canceled without prejudice.
In rule document 01-20628 beginning on page 43080 in the issue of Friday, August 17, 2001, make the following correction:
On page 43081, in the third column, in footnote number 9, in the second line, “NRA's amendment” should read “NFA's amendment”.
In proposed rules document 01-21935 beginning on page 45788 in the issue of Thursday, August 30, 2001, make the following correction:
On page 45788, in the third column, in the first complete paragraph, in the sixth line, “November 15, 2001” should read “November 13, 2001 ”.
In notice document 01-21651 beginning on page 45347 in the issue of Tuesday, August 28, 2001, make the following correction:
On page 45348, in the second column, in the last two sentences of the first paragraph, “[insert date 21 days from the date of publication]” should read “September 18, 2001”.