Agricultural Marketing Service
Export Administration Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
National Drug Control Policy Office
Presidential Documents
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Fiscal Service
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Antitrust Division
Employment and Training Administration
Trade Representative, Office of United States
Fiscal Service
Food and Drug Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Maritime Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau
Comptroller of the Currency
Fiscal Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This rule suspends the continuing assessment rate established for the Colorado Potato Administrative Committee, Area III (Committee) for the 2001-02 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee, which locally administers the marketing order regulating the handling of potatoes grown in Northern Colorado, made this recommendation for the purpose of lowering the monetary reserve to a level consistent with program requirements. The fiscal period began July 1 and ends June 30. The assessment rate will remain suspended until an appropriate rate is reinstated.
September 26, 2001. Comments received by November 26, 2001 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
Dennis L. West, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, room 385, Portland, Oregon 97204-2807; telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 3267440; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 97 and Marketing Order No. 948, both as amended (7 CFR part 948), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the order now in effect, Colorado potato handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. For the 1999-00 fiscal period, an assessment rate of $0.02 per hundredweight of potatoes handled was fixed by the Secretary to continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated. This action suspends the assessment rate for the 2001-02 fiscal period, which began on July 1, 2001, and will continue in effect until reinstated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administration proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule suspends § 948.215 of the order's rules and regulations. Section 948.215 established an assessment rate of $0.02 per hundredweight of potatoes handled for 1999-00 and subsequent fiscal periods. Continuous assessment rates remain in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by the Secretary. This rule suspends the $0.02 assessment rate for 2001-02 and will remain in effect during subsequent fiscal periods until reinstated by the Secretary upon recommendation of the Committee.
Sections 948.75-948.77 of the Colorado potato order provide authority for the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and to collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. In addition, § 948.78 of the order authorizes the use of monetary reserve funds to cover program expenses. The members of the Committee are producers and handlers of Colorado Area III potatoes. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. Recommendations concerning the budget and assessment rate are formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
The Committee met on May 10, 2001, to discuss the proposed 2001-02 budget and assessment rate and to take appropriate action. However, with only three out of nine voting members in attendance at the meeting, the quorum necessary for the Committee to take action was not present. To ensure that the Committee would have a recommendation for the 2001-02 fiscal period budget, the Committee's manager subsequently polled all Committee members by U.S. mail, as provided for in § 948.61 of the order. The resultant unanimous recommendation by all nine members favored the establishment of a budget with expenditures of $18,200 and an assessment rate of $0.005 (
However, section 948.78(a)(2) of the order specifies that the Committee, with the approval of the Secretary, may carry over excess funds into subsequent fiscal periods as a reserve, provided that funds already in the reserve are less than approximately two fiscal periods' expenses. After reviewing the Committee's initial recommendation for a $0.005 rate of assessment, the Department requested that the Committee consider suspension of the assessment rate until the reserve is lowered to a level consistent with the order. Consequently, at its meeting of July 19, 2001, the Committee unanimously recommended suspension of the continuing assessment rate of $0.02 for the 2001-02 and subsequent fiscal periods. The Committee concluded that an assessment rate will not be necessary for operation during the 2001-02 fiscal period as funds in the reserve, combined with interest and rental income, are adequate to meet expenses.
As of July 1, 2001, the Committee had $59,579 in its reserve fund. With the 2001-02 budget set at $18,200, the current maximum reserve permitted by the order is approximately $36,400 (approximately two fiscal periods' expenses). To meet its 2001-02 expenses the Committee plans on drawing approximately $14,700 from its reserve, and may additionally earn approximately $3,500 from interest and other income. Thus, with a suspended assessment rate, the Committee's reserve at the end of the 2001-02 fiscal period could be reduced to approximately $44,879. Projecting a similar level of expenses in 2002-03 and continuation of the assessment rate suspension, the Committee's reserve on July 1, 2003, could be about $30,179. This amount would be consistent with the order's requirements.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2001-02 fiscal period include $7,000 for salary, $6,300 for office expense (which includes equipment, telephone, and utilities), and $3,000 for rent. Minor expenses total $1,900. Budgeted expenses for these items in the 2000-01 fiscal period were $4,250, $6,800, and $3,000, respectively. Minor expenses totaled $3,600 that year.
Although the Committee foresees a need for the suspension of the continuing assessment rate established in this rule to continue in effect for approximately two fiscal periods, it will remain suspended until reinstated by the Secretary upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Since the suspension of the assessment rate will continue for such subsequent fiscal periods as necessary to ensure that the monetary reserve is lowered to a level consistent with the order, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for reinstatement of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or the Department. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information such as the level of the budget and the monetary reserve to determine whether assessment rate reinstatement is needed, and at what level. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2001-02 budget has been reviewed and approved by the Department and budgets for subsequent fiscal periods will also be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by the Department.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 26 producers of Colorado Area III potatoes in the production area and approximately 11 handlers subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000.
Information for the most recent season in which statistics are available, as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, was considered in determining the number of large and small producers by acreage, production, and producer prices. According to the information provided, the average yield per acre was 340 hundredweight, the average farm size was 53 acres, and the season average producer price was $5.95 per hundredweight. This equates to average gross receipts to producers of approximately $107,200. Furthermore, based upon information provided by the Committee, all handlers of Area III potatoes have shipped under $5,000,000 worth of potatoes during the most recent season for which numbers are available. Based on the foregoing, it can be concluded that a majority of producers and handlers of Area III potatoes may be classified as small entities, excluding receipts from other sources.
This rule suspends § 948.215 of the order's rules and regulations, which established an assessment rate of $0.02 per hundredweight of potatoes handled beginning with the 1999-00 fiscal period. This suspension will be in effect for the 2001-02 fiscal period and will remain in effect until reinstated.
Without assessment income to offset its 2001-02 budget of $18,200, the Committee plans on drawing approximately $14,700 from its reserve, and may additionally earn approximately $3,500 from interest and other income.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee in the 2001-02 fiscal period budget include $7,000 for salary, $6,300 for office expenses, and $3,000 for rent. Minor expenses total $1,900. In comparison, the Committee's 2000-01 fiscal period budget of $17,650 included major expenses of $4,250, $6,800, and $3,000, respectively. Minor expenses totaled $3,600.
The Committee recommended that assessment collection be suspended until such time as the monetary reserve reaches a level consistent with the order
Prior to recommending the suspension of the continuing assessment rate, the Committee discussed alternatives, including its earlier recommended assessment rate of $0.005 per hundredweight. However, the Committee concurred with the Department's position that a suspension of the assessment rate is viable since it could rely on its reserve and other income to meet budgeted expenses, and that such a suspension would expedite the reduction of the reserve. Another alternative considered by the Committee was to refund the portion of the reserve that is over that permitted by the order directly to handlers of record. Because many of the handlers assessed in prior years are no longer in business, the Committee concluded this would not be equitable.
This action will reduce handler costs by almost $9,000 (448,750 hundredweight of assessable potatoes × the current rate of assessment of $0.02) during the 2001-02 fiscal period, as no assessment will be collected. Suspension of the assessment rate will reduce the burden on handlers, and may reduce the burden on producers. In addition, the Committee's meetings were widely publicized throughout the Colorado Area III potato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meetings and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 10 and July 19, 2001, meetings were open to the public and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
This action imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Colorado Area III potato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
The Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that the continuing assessment rate established at 64 FR 48081 no longer tends to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. The suspension shall continue in effect until an assessment rate is reinstated by the Secretary, upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee, or other available information.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect, and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects an error in the geographic coordinates of a final rule that was published in the
September 25, 2001.
Mr. Francis T. Jordan, Jr., Airspace Specialist, Airspace Branch, AEA-520 F.A.A. Eastern Region, 1 Aviation Plaza, Jamaica, NY 11434-4809; telephone: (718) 553-4521.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is adopting temporary special local regulations during the Sunset Lake Hydrofest to be held on the waters of Sunset Lake near Wildwood Crest, New Jersey. These special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of Sunset Lake during the event.
This rule is effective from 8 a.m. eastern time on October 6, 2001 until 6:30 p.m. eastern time on October 7, 2001.
Comments and materials received from the public as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket CGD05-01-058 and are available for inspection or copying at Commander (Aoax), Fifth Coast Guard District, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, Virginia 23704-5004, between 9 a.m. and 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Chief Warrant Officer Geoffrey Pagels, Marine Events Coordinator, Commander, Coast Guard Group Atlantic City, telephone number (609) 677-2228.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. In keeping with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM. The high-speed power boat races will take place on October 6 and 7, 2001. The special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of event participants, support vessels, spectator craft and other vessels transiting the event area. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. In addition, advance notifications will be made via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days. For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have these regulations in effect during the event. In addition, the Coast Guard has experience delays in the mails due to the terrorist attack in Washington, D.C., making it impossible to get this document to the
On October 6 and 7, 2001, the Sunset Lake Hydrofest Association will sponsor the Sunset Lake Hydrofest on the waters of Sunset Lake, near Wildwood Crest, New Jersey. The event will consist of approximately 80 inboard hydroplanes, Jersey Speed Skiffs and flat-bottom Ski boats racing in heats counter-clockwise around an oval racecourse. A fleet of 50 to 100 spectator vessels is anticipated. Due to the need for vessel control during the races, vessel traffic will be temporarily restricted to provide for the safety of spectators, participants and transiting vessels.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary special local regulations on specified waters of the Sunset Lake. The temporary special local regulations will be in enforced from 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. eastern time on October 6 and 7, 2001, and will restrict general navigation in the regulated area during the event. Except for participants and vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area. These regulations are needed to control vessel traffic during the event to enhance the safety of participants, spectators and transiting vessels.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of Sunset Lake during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant due to the limited duration of the regulation and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in the effected portions of Sunset Lake during the event.
Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting or anchoring in a portion of Sunset Lake during the event, the effect of this regulation will not be significant because of its limited duration and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, and area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this temporary rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the address listed under
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State law or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial and direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Governments and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. Special local regulations issued in conjunction with a marine event are specifically excluded from further analysis and documentation under that section. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1233 through 1236; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 100.35.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(b)
(1) Except for event participants and persons or vessels authorized by the Coast Guard Patrol Commander, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the regulated area.
(2) The operator of any vessel in the regulated area shall:
(i) Stop the vessel immediately when directed to do so by any official patrol.
(ii) Proceed as directed by any official patrol.
(iii) Unless otherwise directed by the official patrol, operate at a minimum wake speed not to exceed six (6) knots.
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District has issued a
This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on Monday, October 15, 2001 until 6 a.m. on Wednesday, October 17, 2001.
Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this notice are available for inspection or copying at the office of the Eighth Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, Commander (ob), 501 Magazine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70130-3396. The Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.
David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone (504) 589-2965.
During the closure period, the bridges will not be able to open for vessels to transit through the bascule spans of the bridge. The bridges have a vertical clearance of 42 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of small tugs with tows, fishing vessels, sailing vessels, and other recreational craft. In case of an emergency, the bridge owner will be able to hand crank the draws of the bridges to the open to navigation position. As an alternate route, the south channel fixed spans of the dual bridges provides a vertical clearance of 50 feet above mean high water.
The Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission requested a temporary deviation from the normal operation of the drawbridge in order to allow for the connection of new submarine cables to operate the draw spans of the bridges.
This deviation allows the draws of the bridges of the Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission Causeway across Lake Pontchartrain to remain closed to navigation from 6 a.m. on Monday, October 15, 2001 until 6 a.m. on Wednesday, October 17, 2001.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Temporary final rule.
A temporary security zone is being established in the vicinity of the U.S. Coast Guard Group Charleston Facility Base on the Ashley River in Charleston, South Carolina. This temporary security zone is being established to protect U.S. Coast Guard assets. Entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port.
This rule is effective from 6:30 a.m. (EDT) on September 11, 2001 through 6:30 a.m. (EDT) on October 15, 2001.
Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of [COTP Charleston 1-096] and are available for inspection or copying at Marine Safety Office Charleston, 196 Tradd Street, Charleston, SC 29401 between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
LT James Mahney, Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Charleston, at (843) 724-7686.
We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM and making these regulations effective less than 30 days after publication in the
Based on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center buildings in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, there is an increased risk that subversive activity could be launched by vessels or persons in close proximity to the U.S. Coast Guard Group Charleston Facility Base. This security zone will encompass a portion of the Ashley River near this Coast Guard facility. The zone encompasses waters 200 yards up river and 700 yards down river from the Coast Guard pier, from the facility to the centerline of the channel. Buoys, at approximate positions 32°46′45″ N, 79°56′91″ W, and 32°46′13″ N, 079°56′42″ W, mark the length zone. The Coast Guard will issue a broadcast notice to mariners regarding this security zone and Coast Guard vessels will be on scene strictly enforcing the zone.
This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this rule would have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as it will only be in effect for a limited time and vessels will be able to transit around the zone.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the Issuance of Federal Regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those unfunded mandate costs. This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate.
This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded under Figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g) of Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reports and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is approving a revision to the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP) related to the control of oxides of nitrogen (NO
EPA is also taking this opportunity to announce that it is accepting the State's determination that there are no emission sources in the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area (New York Metropolitan Area) from facilities that would be regulated by NYCRR Parts 214, “Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,” 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes,” and 220, “Portland Cement Plants.” With this approval, New York has met the Clean Air Act Section 182 requirements for RACT on stationary sources in the New York Metropolitan Area.
This direct final rule is effective on November 26, 2001 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by October 25, 2001. If EPA receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
All comments should be addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Copies of the State submittal are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3381.
The Clean Air Act (the Act) as amended in 1990 sets forth a number of requirements that states with areas designated as nonattainment for ozone must satisfy and a timetable for satisfying these requirements. The specific requirements vary depending upon the severity of the ozone problem. One of the requirements, and the subject of this proposed rulemaking, requires states to adopt RACT rules for various VOC source categories. EPA has defined RACT as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is reasonably available considering technological and economic feasibility (44 FR 53762; September 17, 1979).
Section 182 of the Act sets forth two separate RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The first requirement, contained in section 182(a)(2)(A) of the Act, and referred to as RACT fix-up, requires the correction of RACT rules for which EPA identified deficiencies before the Act was amended in 1990. The second requirement, set forth in section 182(b)(2) of the Act, applies to moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas as well as to ozone transport regions. The goal of this latter requirement is to ensure that areas not required previously to adopt RACT for some or all of the major stationary sources, adopt rules and “catch-up” to those areas subject to more stringent RACT requirements.
EPA issued three sets of Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) documents, establishing a “presumptive norm” for RACT for various categories of VOC sources. The three sets of CTGs were (1) Group I—issued before January 1978 (15 CTGs); (2) Group II—issued in 1978 (9 CTGs); and (3) Group III—issued in the early 1980's (5 CTGs). Those sources not covered by a CTG are referred to as non-CTG sources. Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires states with ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or worse to develop RACT for all pre-enactment CTG source categories, for all sources subject to post-enactment CTGs and for all non-CTG major sources in those areas. Under the pre-1990 Clean Air Act, ozone nonattainment areas were required to adopt RACT rules for sources of VOC emissions.
New York has previously addressed most of these requirements and EPA has approved these revisions into the New York State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The air quality planning requirements for the reduction of NO
The Act requires that states establish requirements, where practicable, for major stationary sources to include NO
On July 8, 1994, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted to EPA a request to revise its SIP. The revisions consisted of amendments to New York's Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 212 “General Process Emission Sources.” Part 212 was adopted by the State on July 8, 1994 and became effective on September 22, 1994. This regulation is intended to address, at least in part, the requirements of the Act explained in Section I of this notice. It should be noted that because the specific requirements of the Act which New York must address vary relative to the severity of the ozone problem in a specific metropolitan area, the applicability of New York's Part 212 regulations also vary accordingly. A summary of EPA's review and findings concerning the revisions to Part 212 follows. The July 8, 1994 submittal also included revisions to NYCRR Parts 214, “Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,” 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes,” and 220, “Portland Cement Plants.” However, EPA is not acting on these regulations as a SIP revision at this time. For the purpose of the 1-hour Ozone Attainment SIP for the New York Metropolitan Area, on July 11, 2001, New York submitted a “negative declaration” affirming that there are no emission sources in the New York Metropolitan Area from facilities that would be regulated by Parts 214, 216 and 220. The July 11, 2001 submittal also indicates that the attainment demonstration for the New York Metropolitan Area is not dependent upon emission reductions from Part 214, 216 and 220 sources in other parts of the State.
The State of New York has established specific air pollution control requirements for numerous industrial and commercial sources of air pollution. Part 212 provides for control of air pollution sources that are not covered by industry-specific regulations. Part 212 provides for control of such sources throughout the State but also establishes deadlines for compliance with the existing requirements for RACT in the New York City Metropolitan Area which is composed of New York City and the counties of Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester and Rockland and seven municipalities in Orange County—Blooming Grove, Chester, Highlands, Monroe, Tuxedo, Warwick and Woodbury.
Facilities subject to Part 212 must either review their applicable NO
Generic provisions are those portions of a regulation which require the application of RACT to an emission point, but the degree of control is not specified in the rule and is to be determined on a case-by-case basis taking technological and economic factors into consideration. Under the Act, these individually determined RACT limits would then need to be submitted by a state as a SIP revision for EPA approval. On November 7, 1996, EPA issued a policy memorandum providing additional guidance for approving regulations which contain these “generic provisions.” (Sally Shaver, Director, Air Quality Strategies and Standards Division, memorandum to EPA Division Directors, “Approval Options for Generic RACT Rules Submitted to Meet the non-CTG VOC RACT Requirement and Certain NO
EPA policy allows for the full approval of state generic RACT rules prior to actual EPA approval of SIP revisions establishing RACT for each individual major source. However, to allow this, the state must provide an analysis that concludes that the remaining source RACT determinations involve a de minimis level of emissions. Such an approval does not exempt the remaining sources from RACT; but does provide an opportunity for EPA to make a determination that the state has met a non-CTG requirement prior to taking action on all of the individual case-by-case RACT determinations. Provisions within Part 212 establish a procedure for a case-by-case determination of what represents RACT for an item of equipment, process or source.
Section 212.10 provides that owners and/or operators of major sources may petition for an exemption from NO
Pursuant to 40 CFR part 51 subpart I and 40 CFR parts 60 and 61, state requirements, such as subdivision 212.10(d), that provide for “capping out,” must be federally enforceable. Under section 212.10 a facility with federally and state enforceable conditions in Certificates to Operate which limits its annual potential to emit NO
EPA has determined that the subsection 212.10(d) requirements are federally enforceable because the section provides for the incorporation of compliance measures and schedules into operating permits which are issued and/or altered in conformance with Part 201 (“Permits and Certificates”). Part 201 has been previously incorporated into the New York SIP and, therefore, is already federally enforceable. While subsection 212.10(d) does not explicitly define federally enforceable, the provision refers to limitations that would be incorporated into a federally enforceable operating permit, adopted pursuant to the procedures provided in Part 201.
Facilities which conduct a RACT analysis are required to review control device technologies and capture efficiencies of these controls for VOC sources, keeping in mind the reasonable economics of RACT. Pursuant to subsection 212.10(c)(4), the following source categories are considered equipped with RACT: VOC emission points which are equipped with a capture system and control device with an overall removal efficiency of at least 81 percent or surface coating processes that use coatings not exceeding 3.5 pounds VOC per gallon as applied (minus water and excluded VOC). Through these provisions, New York has established a presumptive RACT requirement for VOC consistent with the EPA guidance on generic regulations.
Facilities that are subject to Part 212 and have very small emission points (i.e., NO
For those sources not subject to specific NO
In a letter dated August 31, 2001, New York provided sufficient data for EPA to evaluate the de minimis level of NO
New York has also informed EPA that the permits, pursuant to Title V of the Act, “Operating Permits,” are being processed for the NO
On December 16, 1999 (64 FR 70364), EPA proposed approval of New York's 1-hour Ozone Attainment SIP for the New York Metropolitan Area. EPA must take final action approving all measures relied on for attainment, including the measures associated with the VOC and NO
New York has submitted adopted regulations for all CTG and non-CTG major sources of VOC and NO
On July 11, 2001, New York submitted a “negative declaration” affirming that no sources affected by the provisions of Parts 214, 216 and 220 exist in the Urban Airshed Model modeling domain for the New York Metropolitan Area and that New York does not rely on emission reductions from Parts 214, 216 or 220 to demonstrate attainment in that area. EPA has determined that with this certification and today's approval of Part 212, New York has fulfilled the Section 182(b)(2) and 182(f) of the Act requirements for major non-CTG VOC and NO
EPA has evaluated New York's submittal for consistency with the Act, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA is approving Part 212, “General Process Emission Sources” of New York's regulations as meeting the VOC and NO
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives adverse comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Act.
Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 26, 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. (See section 307(b)(2) of the Act.)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of Nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(101) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted on July 8, 1994 by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that establishes VOC and NO
(i) Incorporation by reference:
(A) Regulation Part 212 of Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations, entitled “General Process Emission Sources” filed on August 23, 1994 and effective on September 22, 1994.
(ii) Additional information.
(A) Letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation dated July 8, 1994, submitting the Part 212 Regulation and amendments as revisions to the New York State Implementation Plan for ozone.
(B) Letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Department Conservation dated August 31, 2001 submitting an analysis of mass NO
(C) Letter from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation dated July 11, 2001 affirming that there are no sources regulated by Parts 214, “Byproduct Coke Oven Batteries,” 216, “Iron and/or Steel Processes,” and 220, “Portland Cement Plants” in, or considered in the attainment demonstration for, the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island severe 1-hour ozone nonattainment area.
3. In section 52.1679, the table is amended by revising the entry for Part 212 to read as follows:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of spinosad in or on asparagus at 0.020 part per million (ppm), bushberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13B) at 0.250 ppm, cranberry at 0.01 ppm, foliage of legume vegetable group (crop group 7) at 8.0 ppm, garden beet roots at 0.10 ppm, globe artichoke at 0.30 ppm, juneberry at 0.250 ppm, leaves of root and tuber vegetable group (crop group 2) at 10.0 ppm, lingonberry at 0.250 ppm, okra at 0.40 ppm, pistachio at 0.020 ppm, pome fruit group (crop group 11) at 0.20 ppm, salal at 0.250 ppm, strawberry at 1.0 ppm, sugar beet roots at 0.10 ppm, and the tree nut group (crop group 14) at 0.020 ppm. The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. This final rule establishes permanent tolerances for spinosad and as part of that process the Agency has reassessed existing tolerances. By law, EPA is required to reassess 66% of the tolerances in existence on August 2, 1996, by August 2002, or about 6,400 tolerances. All permanent tolerances for spinosad were established after August 2, 1996. Consequently, regarding the actions in this final rule, no tolerance reassessments are counted toward the August 2002 review deadline of FFDCA section 408(q).
This regulation is effective September 25, 2001. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket control number OPP-301177, must be received by EPA on or before November 26, 2001.
Written objections and hearing requests may be submitted by mail, in person, or by courier. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit VI. of the
By mail: Hoyt Jamerson, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection
You may be affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action might apply to certain entities. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
In the
The petitions requested that 40 CFR 180.495 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of the insecticide spinosad, in or on food commodities, as follows:
1. PP 0E6173 proposed the establishment of tolerances for the pome fruit group at 0.2 ppm and foliage of legume vegetable group at 8.0 ppm.
2. PP 0E6217 proposed the establishment of a tolerance for asparagus at 0.02 ppm.
3. PP 1E6230 proposed the establishment of tolerances for the tree nut group, and pistachio at 0.02 ppm.
4. PP 1E6236 proposed the establishment of a tolerance for okra at 0.4 ppm.
5. 1E6245 proposed the establishment of tolerances for garden beet roots and sugar beet roots at 0.1 ppm, cranberry at 0.01 ppm, and the leaves of root and tuber vegetable group at 10 ppm.
6. PP 1E6255 proposed the establishment of tolerances for the bushberry subgroup, juneberry, lingonberry, and salal at 0.25 ppm.
7. PP 1E6256 proposed the establishment of a tolerance for globe artichoke at 0.3 ppm.
8. PP 1E6260 proposed the establishment of a tolerance for strawberry at 0.75 ppm. The petition was subsequently amended to propose a tolerance for strawberry at 1.0 ppm.
Spinosad is a fermentation product of
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. * * *.”
EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. For further discussion of the regulatory requirements of section 408 and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see the final rule on Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997) (FRL-5754-7).
Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. The nature of the toxic effects caused by spinosad are discussed in Unit III.A. of the
The dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) from the toxicology study identified as appropriate for use in risk assessment is used to estimate the toxicological level of concern (LOC). However, the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL) is sometimes used for risk assessment if no NOAEL was achieved in the toxicology study selected. An uncertainty factor (UF) is applied to reflect uncertainties inherent in the extrapolation from laboratory animal data to humans and in the variations in sensitivity among members of the human population as well as other unknowns. An UF of 100 is routinely used, 10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences.
For dietary risk assessment (other than cancer) the Agency uses the UF to calculate an acute or chronic reference dose (acute RfD or chronic RfD) where the RfD is equal to the NOAEL divided by the appropriate UF (RfD = NOAEL/UF). Where an additional safety factor is retained due to concerns unique to the FQPA, this additional factor is applied to the RfD by dividing the RfD by such additional factor. The acute or chronic Population Adjusted Dose (aPAD or cPAD) is a modification of the RfD to accommodate this type of FQPA Safety Factor.
For non-dietary risk assessments (other than cancer) the UF is used to determine the LOC. For example, when 100 is the appropriate UF (10X to account for interspecies differences and 10X for intraspecies differences) the LOC is 100. To estimate risk, a ratio of the NOAEL to exposures (margin of exposure (MOE) = NOAEL/exposure) is calculated and compared to the LOC.
The linear default risk methodology (Q*) is the primary method currently used by the Agency to quantify carcinogenic risk. The Q* approach assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of cancer risk. A Q* is calculated and used to estimate risk which represents a probability of occurrence of additional cancer cases (e.g., risk is expressed as 1 x 10
1.
i.
ii.
The chronic dietary analysis used residue values at the established and recommended tolerance levels for all commodities having spinosad tolerances with the exception of meat (all non-poultry sources) and milk. Anticipated residues were used for meat and milk from beef and dairy cattle as follows: Muscle at 0.09 ppm, fat at 2.54 ppm, kidney at 0.19 ppm, liver at 0.48, whole milk at 0.19 ppm, cream at 0.74 ppm, skim milk at 0.037 ppm. The chronic dietary analysis also assumed that 100 percent crop treatment for registered uses and the proposed uses.
iii.
iv.
2.
The Agency lacks sufficient monitoring exposure data to complete a comprehensive dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for spinosad in drinking water. Because the Agency does not have comprehensive monitoring data, drinking water concentration estimates are made by reliance on simulation or modeling taking into account data on the physical characteristics of spinosad.
The Agency uses the Generic Estimated Environmental Concentration (GENEEC) or the Pesticide Root Zone/Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS) to estimate pesticide concentrations in surface water. In general, EPA will use GENEEC (a tier 1 model) before using PRZM/EXAMS (a tier 2 model) for a screening-level assessment for surface water. The GENEEC model is a subset of the PRZM/EXAMS model that uses a specific high-end runoff scenario for pesticides. GENEEC incorporates a farm pond scenario, while PRZM/EXAMS incorporate an index reservoir environment in place of the previous pond scenario. The PRZM/EXAMS model includes a percent crop area factor as an adjustment to account for the maximum percent crop coverage within a watershed or drainage basin.
None of these models include consideration of the impact processing (mixing, dilution, or treatment) of raw water for distribution as drinking water would likely have on the removal of pesticides from the source water. The primary use of these models by the Agency at this stage is to provide a coarse screen for sorting out pesticides for which it is highly unlikely that drinking water concentrations would ever exceed human health levels of concern.
Since the models used are considered to be screening tools in the risk assessment process, the Agency does not use EECs from these models to quantify drinking water exposure and risk as a percent of the reference dose (%RfD) or percent of the population
Based on the PRZM/EXAMS model, the EECs of spinosad for chronic exposures are estimated to be 0.092 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water. The chronic surface water EEC value for spinosad is based on application of the insecticide to cole crops at 0.13 lb active ingredient per acre per application with a maximum of 0.45 lb active ingredient/acre/season.
3.
Registered residential uses for spinosad currently include Conserve SC Turf and Ornamental (EPA Reg. No. 62719-291) and Conserve Fire Ant Bait (EPA Reg. No. 62719-291). Both products are registered for outdoor use only. The risk assessment was conducted using the following residential exposure assumptions: The turf/ornamental and fire ant bait uses may result in non-dietary ingestion of spinosad-treated plant material or soil by children. Half-life estimates for spinosyn A on various plant foliage ranges from 1.6 to 16 days and generally is dependent on the amount of sunlight received on the plant surfaces. To calculate a quantitative risk from a potential ingestion of grass (in the absence of acute-, short-, or intermediate-term oral endpoints), EPA would need to default to the chronic dietary endpoint. This scenario would represent a child eating grass for
4.
EPA does not have, at this time, available data to determine whether spinosad has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a cumulative risk assessment. Unlike other pesticides for which EPA has followed a cumulative risk approach based on a common mechanism of toxicity, spinosad does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has not assumed that spinosad has a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see the final rule for Bifenthrin Pesticide Tolerances (62 FR 62961, November 26, 1997).
1.
2.
3.
To estimate total aggregate exposure to a pesticide from food, drinking water, and residential uses, the Agency calculates DWLOCs which are used as a point of comparison against the model estimates of a pesticide's concentration in water EECs. DWLOC values are not regulatory standards for drinking water. DWLOCs are theoretical upper limits on a pesticide's concentration in drinking water in light of total aggregate exposure to a pesticide in food and residential uses. In calculating a DWLOC, the Agency determines how much of the acceptable exposure (i.e., the PAD) is available for exposure through drinking water e.g., allowable chronic water exposure (mg/kg/day) = cPAD - (average food + residential exposure). This allowable exposure through drinking water is used to calculate a DWLOC.
A DWLOC will vary depending on the toxic endpoint, drinking water consumption, and body weights. Default body weights and consumption values as used by the USEPA Office of Water are used to calculate DWLOCs: 2L/70 kg (adult male), 2L/60 kg (adult female), and 1L/10 kg (child). Default body weights and drinking water consumption values vary on an individual basis. This variation will be taken into account in more refined screening-level and quantitative drinking water exposure assessments. Different populations will have different DWLOCs. Generally, a DWLOC is calculated for each type of risk assessment used: Acute, short-term, intermediate-term, chronic, and cancer.
When EECs for surface water and ground water are less than the calculated DWLOCs, OPP concludes with reasonable certainty that exposures to the pesticide in drinking water (when considered along with other sources of exposure for which OPP has reliable data) would not result in unacceptable levels of aggregate human health risk at this time. Because OPP considers the aggregate risk resulting from multiple exposure pathways associated with a pesticide's uses, levels of comparison in drinking water may vary as those uses change. If new uses are added in the future, OPP will reassess the potential impacts of residues of the pesticide in drinking water as a part of the aggregate risk assessment process.
1.
2.
3.
Though residential exposure could occur with the use of spinosad, no toxicological effects have been identified for short- or intermediate-term toxicity. Therefore, the aggregate risk is the sum of the risk from food and water, which do not exceed the Agency's level of concern.
4.
5.
Adequate enforcement methodology (HPLC/UV is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Calvin Furlow, PIRIB, IRSD (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5229; e-mail address: furlow.calvin@epa.gov.
No Codex, Canadian, or Mexican maximum residue limits have been established for residues of spinosad on any crops.
Therefore, the tolerances are established for residues of spinosad in or on asparagus at 0.020 ppm, bushberry subgroup (crop subgroup 13B) at 0.250 ppm, cranberry at 0.01 ppm, foliage of legume vegetable group (crop group 7) at 8.0 ppm, garden beet roots at 0.10 ppm, globe artichoke at 0.30 ppm, juneberry at 0.250 ppm, leaves of root and tuber vegetable group (crop group 2) at 10.0 ppm, lingonberry at 0.250 ppm, okra 0.40 ppm, pistachio at 0.020 ppm, pome fruit group (crop group 11) at 0.20 ppm, salal at 0.250 ppm, strawberry at 1.0 ppm, sugar beet roots at 0.10 ppm, and tree nut group (crop group 14) at 0.020 ppm.
Under section 408(g) of the FFDCA, as amended by the FQPA, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in 40 CFR part 178. Although the procedures in those regulations require some modification to reflect the amendments made to the FFDCA by the FQPA of 1996, EPA will continue to use those procedures, with appropriate adjustments, until the necessary modifications can be made. The new section 408(g) provides essentially the same process for persons to “object” to a regulation for an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance issued by EPA under new section 408(d), as was provided in the old FFDCA sections 408 and 409. However, the period for filing objections is now 60 days, rather than 30 days.
You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in this unit and in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket control number OPP-301177 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before November 26, 2001.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. C400, Waterside Mall, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. The Office of the Hearing Clerk is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Office of the Hearing Clerk is (202) 260-4865.
2.
EPA is authorized to waive any fee requirement “when in the judgement of the Administrator such a waiver or refund is equitable and not contrary to the purpose of this subsection.” For additional information regarding the waiver of these fees, you may contact James Tompkins by phone at (703) 305-5697, by e-mail at tompkins.jim@epa.gov, or by mailing a request for information to Mr. Tompkins at Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
If you would like to request a waiver of the tolerance objection fees, you must mail your request for such a waiver to: James Hollins, Information Resources and Services Division (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
3.
A request for a hearing will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted shows the following: There is a genuine and substantial issue of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by the requestor would, if established resolve one or more of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issues(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
This final rule establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346(a) and 371.
(a)* * *
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final deletion of the Shenandoah Stables Superfund site from the National Priorities List (NPL).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of the Shenandoah Stables site in Lincoln County, Missouri, from the NPL. The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The EPA and the State of Missouri have determined that the site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, no further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate.
September 25, 2001.
Robert Feild, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Shenandoah Stables site, Lincoln County, Missouri.
A Notice of Intent to Delete for this site was published in the
The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that fund-financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.
Environmental protection, air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Final deletion of the Times Beach Superfund site from the National Priorities List (NPL).
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of the Times Beach site in St. Louis County, Missouri, from the NPL. The NPL is Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. The EPA and the State of Missouri have determined that the site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, no further remedial measures pursuant to CERCLA are appropriate.
September 25, 2001.
Robert Feild, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
The site to be deleted from the NPL is: Times Beach site, St. Louis County, Missouri.
A Notice of Intent to Delete for this site was published in the
The EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Any site deleted from the NPL remains eligible for fund-financed remedial actions in the unlikely event that conditions at the site warrant such action. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that fund-financed actions may be taken at sites deleted from the NPL. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability or impede agency efforts to recover costs associated with response efforts.
Prior to the removal of contaminated materials from the Times Beach site, the EPA did recognize a concern for erosion of surface soils that could potentially occur during flooding of the Meramec River. In response to this concern, a series of spur levees were constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers at Times Beach to reduce water velocities across the site during Meramec River flood events. These spur levees were completed in 1987 and remain in place to limit the potential for scour and erosion of soils at the Times Beach site caused by flooding of the Meramec River. These spur levees further assure that future use of the Times Beach site will remain protective of human health.
The Times Beach site was extensively sampled prior to taking any response action to characterize the areal and vertical extent of contamination. This sampling guided the excavation of contaminated soils at the site. Following excavation and treatment of contaminated soils, verification sampling was performed to confirm that soils and other materials remaining at the site were safe for unrestricted human exposure. The EPA believes that the extensive sampling effort conducted at the Times Beach site successfully identified contaminated materials requiring removal, and verified that site conditions will remain safe for use by the public.
The deletion of the Times Beach site from the NPL does not affect EPA's ability to take appropriate actions to respond to the presence of hazardous substances at the site. The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)(3)) provides that Times Beach will remain eligible for fund-financed remedial actions following deletion from the NPL. In the event that a significant release of a hazardous substance is identified at the site, the NCP specifies that Times Beach shall be restored to the NPL without application of the Hazard Ranking System.
The EPA believes that these measures assure that conditions at Times Beach will remain protective for future use of the site, and that hazardous response capability will continue to be available. The deletion process will not be altered as a result of this comment.
Environmental protection, air pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, Water supply.
42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.
Office of Community Services, ACF, HHS.
Final rule.
This regulation implements a statutory requirement in the Assets for Independence Act under title IV of the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998. The Act provides competitive demonstration grants for projects to establish, support, and evaluate individual development accounts for low income individuals and families. The purpose of the five-year Assets for Independence Program is to encourage low-income individuals to accumulate assets by matching an individual's savings with Federal and private funds in order to determine the effects of asset accumulation incentives on the well-being, savings behavior, and stability of low-income families and their communities.
The statute requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to prescribe regulations that grantees must follow in accounting for amounts grantees deposit in the reserve fund. This final rule implements that provision of the legislation, and includes two changes from the Interim Final Rule published on February 25, 2000. Other factors in the legislation have been, or will be, addressed administratively, through other administrative policy issuances.
These regulations are effective September 25, 2001.
Sheldon Shalit, Office of Community Services, (202) 401-4807, or Richard Saul, Office of Community Services, (202) 401-9341. Hearing impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. eastern time.
These rules implement section 407(b)(2) of the Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-285). Under this provision, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is to prescribe by regulation the rules grantees must follow in accounting for monies in reserve funds, established under the Act, which are used for depositing grant funds; the non-Federal matching funds required for establishing individual development accounts; and the proceeds from any investment of such funds.
The Assets for Independence Act (the Act), or title IV of Pub. L. 105-285, provides for the establishment of Individual Development Account (IDA) demonstration projects to determine how effective IDAs and “asset-building” strategies are in helping low-income people save earned income, acquire productive assets, and achieve economic self-sufficiency. The Act authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct a five-year Individual Development Account demonstration, through which grants are made to non-profit organizations on a competitive basis.
The statute provides specific and detailed requirements for establishing such programs and authorizes grants for projects to be awarded within 10 months of enactment of the Act (August 27, 1999). For these reasons, coupled with the Department's commitment to reduce regulatory burden, we have decided to limit regulating to the one area where the statute indicates regulations are required. Specifically, section 407(b)(2) of the Act requires grantees to maintain a reserve fund in accordance with accounting regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Responding to this legislative provision, these rules stipulate which Departmental uniform administrative requirements must be met in maintaining IDA reserve funds.
The statute requires that amounts in the reserve funds be used as matching contributions to individual development accounts for project participants; for expenses related to collecting and reporting project data and information required for the evaluation; for administration of the project including skill training necessary to achieve economic self-sufficiency; and for other project related expenses. Federal funds can only be drawn down after the match funds have been deposited.
With respect to provisions of the Act other than accounting for the amounts in the reserve fund, on January 27, 1999, the Department issued a Program Announcement in the
An interim final rule was published in the
Additionally, on December 21, 2000, the Assets for Independence Act Amendments of 2000 were signed into law which included an expanded definition of “qualified entities” that may receive a grant from the Department. The expanded definition adds credit unions designated as low-income credit unions by the National Credit Union Administration, and organizations designated as community development financial institutions by the Secretary of the Treasury (or the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund) that collaborate with a local community-based organization. Because the amendments were enacted after the interim final rule was issued, we have revised the definition of “qualified entity” in the final rule so that the definition is expanded consistent with the amendments. Since this revision is necessary in order that the rule is consistent with the amendment, a new interim final rule will not be issued. Rather, this regulation will proceed to final rule, incorporating the expanded definition, and applying the provisions of the rule to accounting amounts for all qualified entities as defined in the legislation. By proceeding with a final rule instead of a re-issuance of an interim final rule, we also are ensuring that current grantees will be bound by the final rule without further delay.
We are adding a new Part 1000 in title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
We are establishing requirements under new 45 CFR part 1000 regarding reserve funds established pursuant to the Assets for Independence Program. We are confirming that Departmental administrative requirements found in 45 CFR part 74 are applicable to reserve funds established by grantees that are not-for-profit organizations as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. We are also confirming that the Departmental administrative requirements found in 45 CFR part 92 are applicable to reserve funds established by State or local government agencies or tribal governments.
New § 1000.1 provides that this part applies to the Community Services Assets for Independence Program.
We are adding a definition of Individual Development Account at § 1000.2(a) to read:
We are adding a definition of qualified entity (which reflects the expanded definition of the Assets for Independence Act Amendments enacted on Dec. 15, 2000) at § 1000.2(b) to read:
We are adding a definition of reserve fund at § 1000.2(c) to read:
(c)
In the last sentence of the definition, we have added the words “Federal grant” in response to a comment asking that we clarify the definition regarding the administrative cap and the use of funds.
Under § 1000.3(a), we are confirming that Reserve Funds under the Assets for Independence Program established by qualified entities, other than State or local government agencies or tribal governments, are subject to the Department of Health and Human Services' uniform administrative requirements under 45 CFR Part 74.
Under § 1000.3(b), we are confirming which requirements are applicable to Reserve Funds by a qualified entity that is a State or local government agency or tribal government. While these entities are not required to establish reserve funds, reserve funds that are established by these entities are subject to the Department of Health and Human Services' uniform administrative requirements under 45 CFR part 92.
The comment period for the February 25, 2000 interim final rule expired on April 21, 2000. HHS received two comments from a State government commission addressing this proposal. Both comments addressed the definition of Reserve Fund. Below are the comments and our responses:
1. Comment: In order to be consistent with the Act, the definition of Reserve Fund should provide that the 9.5% limit on funds that can be used for purposes other than matching contributions, as specified in section 407(c)(3), applies to Federal grant funds only.
• Response: We agree that this revision is necessary in order for the definition to be consistent with section 407(c)(3). Therefore, the regulation is being revised to read, “At least 90.5 percent of the Federal grant funds deposited in the Reserve Fund must be used as matching contributions for Individual Development Accounts.”
2. Comment: Revise the definition of the Reserve Fund to include only the Federal grant funds and the required non-Federal matching contributions for individuals' accounts.
• Response: We disagree that the Reserve Fund is limited to the Federal Grant funds and non-Federal matching contributions for individuals' accounts. The statute states that the Reserve Fund is to include all Federal and non-Federal funds in connection with the demonstration project (section 407(b)(1)(A) of the Act) and any investment proceeds (407(b)(1)(B) of the Act). Therefore, we are not amending the regulation to address this comment.
The Secretary certifies, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), that this regulation does not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact is on a limited number of grantees and the impact is not significant.
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that this rule is consistent with these priorities and principles. The rule implements the statutory provisions by specifying applicable rules grantees are subject to in meeting accounting requirements for reserve funds established for purposes of carrying out demonstration projects under the Assets for Independence Act. This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act) requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.
If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement, section 205 further requires that it select the most
We have determined that this rule does not result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, all Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval any reporting or record keeping requirements inherent in a rule. This rule requires no new reporting or record keeping requirements.
This rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C., Chapter 8.
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a policy or regulation may affect family well-being. If the agency's conclusion is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. These regulations do not have an impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation.
Grant Programs/Social Programs.
42 U.S.C. 604 nt.
This part applies to the Office of Community Services' Assets for Independence Program.
(a) A qualified entity, other than a State or local government agency or tribal government, shall establish a Reserve Fund for use in the Assets for Independence program. Each reserve fund established by a qualified entity, other than a State or local government agency or tribal government, is subject to the Department of Health and Human Services' uniform administrative requirements under 45 CFR part 74.
(b) Any reserve fund established by a qualified entity that is a State or local government agency or tribal government is subject to the Department of Health and Human Services' uniform administrative requirements under 45 CFR part 92.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document revises the Commission's list of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved public information collection requirements with their associated OMB expiration dates. This list will provide the public with a current list of public information collection requirements approved by OMB and their associated control numbers and expiration dates as of July 31, 2001.
Effective September 25, 2001.
Judy Boley, Office of the Managing Director, (202) 418-0214 or via the Internet at
This document adopted on September 10, 2001 and released on September 18, 2001 by the Managing Director in DA 01-2091 revised 47 CFR 0.408 in its entirety.
1. Section 3507(a)(3) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(3), requires agencies to display
2. Section 0.408 of the Commission's rules displays the OMB control numbers assigned to the Commission's public information collection requirements that have been reviewed and approved by OMB.
3. Authority for this action is contained in Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 154(i)), as amended, and section 0.231(b) of the Commission's Rules. Since this amendment is a matter of agency organization procedure or practice, the notice and comment and effective date provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act do not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A)(d).
4. Accordingly,
5. Persons having questions on this matter should contact Judy Boley at (202) 418-0214 or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as revised; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(b)
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; announcement of effective date.
This document announces the effective date of certain sections of the Commission's broadcast signal carriage rules, 47 CFR 76.5(b), 76.56(e), 76.57, 76.62, 76.64, 76.922, and 76.1603(c) which were amended to require that a digital-only television station may assert its right to mandatory carriage. Specifically, new television stations that transmit only digital signals, and current television stations that return their analog spectrum allocation and convert to digital operations, must be carried on cable systems. Certain sections of these rules contained information collection requirements that required the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) before they could become effective. These sections of the broadcast signal carriage rules have been approved by OMB and become effective on September 25, 2001.
The amendments to 47 CFR 76.5(b), 76.56(e), 76.57, 76.62, 76.64, 76.922, and 76.1603(c), published at 66 FR 16533 (March 26, 2001), become effective on September 25, 2001.
Eloise Gore of the Consumer Protection and Competition Division, Cable Services Bureau at (202) 418-7200, TTY (202) 418-7172, or via Internet at
On January 18, 2001, the Commission adopted a Report and Order amending its rules to require cable systems to carry the digital signals of local television broadcast stations under the circumstances described in the Report and Order. A summary of the Report and Order was published in the
Cable television, Carriage, Digital television, Mandatory carriage, Television broadcast stations.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is proposing to amend 12 CFR 8.2(a), which sets forth the formula for the semiannual assessment the OCC charges each national bank. The amendment would revise the formula to establish a minimum base amount for the semiannual assessment for the first assessment bracket ($0-$2 million) of the assessment schedule. This change will enable the OCC to modestly adjust its assessments to better align with its costs of supervision.
Comments must be received October 25, 2001.
Comments should be directed to: Communications Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 250 E Street, SW., Mailstop 1-5, Washington, DC 20219, Attention: Docket No. 01-20. In addition, comments may be sent via facsimile to (202) 874-4448 or via Internet at
Michele Meyer, Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 874-5090; or David Nebhut, Director, Policy Analysis, (202) 874-5220.
The OCC charters, regulates, and supervises approximately 2,200 national banks and 58 Federal branches and agencies of foreign banks in the United States, accounting for approximately 55 percent of the nation's banking assets. Our mission is to ensure a safe, sound, and competitive national banking system that supports the citizens, communities, and economy of the United States.
The OCC funds the activities it undertakes to carry out this mission through assessments on institutions regulated by the OCC. The National Bank Act authorizes the OCC to collect assessments, fees, or other charges as necessary or appropriate to carry out the responsibilities of the Office. 12 U.S.C. 482 (Supp. 2000). The statute requires that our charges be set to meet the Comptroller's expenses in carrying out authorized activities.
Under this formula, the OCC assesses a national bank according to the amount of assets the bank reports on its Consolidated Report of Condition (Including Domestic and Foreign Subsidiaries) (“Call Report”) filed for the quarter preceding the semiannual assessment period. A bank calculates the book-asset component of its assessment by first identifying which of 10 asset categories it fits within. If the bank fits within the smallest category (
If the bank fits within any of the other nine asset categories, the bank pays a base amount provided in the Notice of Fees for that category (which equals the assessment on the largest bank in the next smallest asset category), plus an amount determined by multiplying a marginal rate (also provided in the Notice of Fees) by the amount of its assets that exceed the low end-point of its category. Thus, for example, a bank with $10 million in assets would fall into the second asset category ($2 million to $20 million) and would pay an assessment equal to $3,211, which is
The OCC proposes to revise the table at § 8.2(a) to establish a minimum base amount for the semiannual assessment for the first assessment bracket of the assessment schedule. This would be accomplished by deleting the figure of $0 as the base amount in Column C for the first asset bracket and replacing it with a variable (X1), and deleting the variable Y1 in Column D and replacing it with $0. The proposed revised table at § 8.2(a) would look as follows:
As amended, the OCC's assessment formula would require national banks to pay an assessment equal to the base amount (X1) for assets subject to the first asset bracket. The OCC anticipates that the December 1, 2001, Notice of Fees will include a base amount in the range of $5,000. For example, if this base amount were applied to the smallest asset bracket, this would result in a minimum semiannual assessment charge for these banks of $5,000, or an increase of $1,789 for a bank with balance sheet assets of $2 million. The base amount for each of the larger categories (X2-X10) would increase by the same dollar amount, because the base amount for any category is the maximum that a bank in the immediately preceding asset category would pay.
This modest increase is necessary and appropriate under 12 U.S.C. 482 to carry out the OCC's supervisory responsibilities, particularly in regard to the smallest banks it supervises. The adjustment will help to provide that the assessments received from national banks are better aligned with the banks' fair share of the expenses of the OCC.
The OCC requests comment on all aspects of this proposal, as well as on alternatives to the proposal. We also ask for comment on the impact of this proposal on small banks and on community banks. The OCC recognizes that these banks operate with more limited resources than larger institutions and may present a different risk profile. Thus, the OCC requests comment on the impact of the proposal on small banks' and community banks' current resources, and whether the goals of the proposal could be achieved, for these banks, through an alternative approach.
Section 722 of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Pub. L. 106-102, sec. 722, 113 Stat. 1338, 1471 (Nov. 12. 1999), requires the Federal banking agencies to use plain language in all proposed and final rules published after January 1, 2000. We invite your comments on how to make this proposal easier to understand. For example:
• Have we organized the material to suit your needs? If not, how could this material be better organized?
• Are the requirements in the proposed regulation clearly stated? If not, how could the regulation be more clearly stated?
• Does the proposed regulation contain language or jargon that is not clear? If so, which language requires clarification?
• Would a different format (grouping and order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing) make the regulation easier to understand? If so, what changes to the format would make the regulation easier to understand?
• What else could we do to make the regulation easier to understand?
An agency must prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis if a rule it proposes will have a “significant economic impact” on a “substantial number of small entities.” 5 U.S.C. 603, 605. If, after an analysis of a rule, an agency determines that the rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) provides that the head of the agency may so certify.
The OCC has reviewed the impact this proposed rule will have on small national banks. For purposes of this Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and proposed regulation, the OCC defines “small national banks” to be those banks with less than $100 million in total assets. Based on that review, the OCC certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The basis for this conclusion is that the minimum semiannual assessment for these banks will increase by only approximately $1,789. The OCC does not believe this to be a significant economic impact.
The OCC has determined that this proposal is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4 (2 U.S.C. 1532) (Unfunded Mandates Act), requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act also requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before promulgating a rule. The OCC has determined that the proposed rule will not result in expenditures by state, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Accordingly, this rulemaking requires no further analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Act.
National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the OCC proposes to amend part 8 of chapter I of title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 8 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 93a, 481, 482, 1867, 3102, and 3108; 15 U.S.C. 78c and 781; and 26 D.C. Code 102.
2. In § 8.2, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
(a) Each national bank and each District of Columbia bank shall pay to the Comptroller of the Currency a semiannual assessment fee, due by January 31 and July 31 of each year, for the six-month period beginning 30 days before each payment date. The amount of the semiannual assessment paid by each bank is computed as follows:
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 Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require replacing certain flight warning computers (FWCs) with improved FWCs. This proposed AD is prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness information issued by a foreign civil airworthiness authority. The actions specified in this proposed AD are intended to ensure that radioaltimeter malfunctions are annunciated to the flightcrew, and to prevent consequent erroneous autopilot behavior during approach and landing. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
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. 2000-NM-372-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2000-NM-372-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 Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2141; fax (425) 227-1149.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (e.g., reasons or data) for each request.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this action must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 2000-NM-372-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-NM-372-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Direction Ge
Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-31-1106, Revision 04, dated December 21, 1999, which describes procedures for replacing both FWCs E1 standard with FWCs modified to the E2 standard. The modification to the FWC involves modifying four cards in the FWCs and either replacing or reprogramming the on-board replaceable modules (OBRMs) in the FWCs. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The DGAC classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued French airworthiness directive 2000-320-147(B), dated July 26, 2000, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-31-1106, described previously.
The DGAC classified Airbus Service Bulletin A320-31-1141, dated March 6, 2000, as an alternative method of compliance with the requirements of the French airworthiness directive. The FAA finds it unnecessary to refer to that service bulletin, which specifies the prior or concurrent accomplishment of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-31-1106 (the cited source of service information for the actions in this proposed AD).
Approximately 352 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD. It would take approximately 3 work hours per airplane to do the proposed actions, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would be provided by the manufacturer at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $63,360, or $180 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet done any of the actions of this proposed AD, and that no operator would do those actions in the future unless this proposed AD is adopted. The cost figures discussed in AD's represent only the time necessary to do the specific actions required by an AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as time for access and close, or time for planning and other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been 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 radioaltimeter malfunctions are annunciated to the flightcrew, and to prevent consequent erroneous autopilot behavior during approach and landing, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the flight warning computers (FWCs) in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-31-1106, Revision 04, dated December 21, 1999.
FWC replacement accomplished prior to the effective date of this AD in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin A320-31-1106, dated January 3, 1997; Revision 01, dated April 16, 1997; Revision 02, dated January 20, 1998; or Revision 03, dated July 9, 1999, is acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an FWC, part number 350E017251414, on any airplane.
(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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(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.
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2000-320-147(B), dated July 26, 2000.
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 BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes. This proposal would require a functional test of the shortening mechanism of the nose landing gear for free movement of the capsule in the upper and lower bearings, and corrective action, if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent damage to the capsule, which could result in inability to extend the nose landing gear in normal or emergency situations, and consequent injury to passengers and flight crew. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
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-151-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-151-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 British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1175; fax (425) 227-1149.
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,
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-151-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-151-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The FAA has received reports that previously issued service information provided inadequate procedures for the installation of corrosion resistant replacement bearings in the nose landing gear on BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes. If the bearings are not installed correctly, they can restrict free movement of the capsule in the shortening mechanism of the nose landing gear. This condition, if not corrected, could result in damage to the capsule, inability to extend the nose landing gear in normal or emergency situations, and consequent injury to passengers and flight crew.
The manufacturer has issued BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Service Bulletin J41-32-075, dated April 18, 2001, which references APPH Precision Hydraulics Service Bulletin AIR83586-32-16, dated February 2001, for accomplishment of an initial functional test of the shortening mechanism of the nose landing gear for free movement of the capsule in the upper and lower bearings; and rework of the nose landing gear if the capsule does not move freely.
The BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) service bulletin describes procedures for corrective actions for failure of the functional test specified above. The corrective actions include a full functional test of the extension/retraction system of the nose landing gear and repeating those tests at a certain interval if the landing gear extends/retracts correctly. If the landing gear does not extend/retract, the service bulletin specifies immediate replacement of the landing gear with new landing gear. The Civil Aviation Authority, which is the airworthiness authority for the United Kingdom, classified this service bulletin as mandatory.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
This airplane model is manufactured in United Kingdom and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates that 59 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed functional test, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the functional test proposed by this AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $7,080, or $120 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or
To prevent damage to the capsule in the upper and lower bearings of the shortening mechanism of the nose landing gear, which could result in inability to extend the nose landing gear in normal or emergency situations, and consequent injury to passengers and flight crew, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 300 flight hours or 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first: Do a functional test of the shortening mechanism of the nose landing gear for free movement of the capsule in the upper and lower bearings, according to APPH Precision Hydraulics Service Bulletin AIR83586-32-16, dated February 2001. If the capsule does not move freely, before further flight, do the actions specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable. If the capsule moves freely no further action is required by this paragraph.
(1) Rework according to APPH Precision Hydraulics Service Bulletin AIR83586-32-16, dated February 2001.
(2) If the rework is not done, before further flight, do a full functional test of the extension/retraction system of the nose landing gear according to BAE Systems (Operations) Limited (Jetstream) Service Bulletin J41-32-075, dated April 18, 2001; and do the actions specified in paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) If the nose landing gear extends and retracts correctly, repeat the full functional test every 50 flight hours according to the service bulletin. Within 300 flight hours after the initial test, do the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this AD, which ends the repetitive testing specified in this paragraph.
(ii) If the nose landing gear does not extend and retract correctly, before further flight, replace the nose landing gear with new landing gear according to the service bulletin.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
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 Dornier Model 328-100 and -300 series airplanes. This proposal would require testing of the left- and right-hand potentiometer levers of the aileron flight control system, and follow-on or corrective action, as applicable. This action is necessary to prevent detachment of an aileron potentiometer lever, which could result in jamming of the elevator and/or aileron flight control systems and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
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-185-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-185-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 FAIRCHILD DORNIER, DORNIER Luftfahrt GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D-82230 Wessling, Germany. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Tom Groves, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1503; fax (425) 227-1149.
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-185-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-185-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority for Germany, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Dornier Model 328-100 and -300 series airplanes. The LBA advises that a potentiometer lever without a safety lock function (because of insufficient spline engagement) was found on a manufacturer-owned test airplane. This condition, if not corrected, could cause detachment of an aileron potentiometer lever, which could result in jamming of the elevator and/or aileron flight control systems and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
The manufacturer has issued Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-359, dated March 29, 2001 (for Model 328-100 series airplanes), and Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328J-27-064, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2001 (for Model 328-300 series airplanes), which describe procedures for testing of the potentiometer levers for security of attachment to the splined shaft and follow-on or corrective actions, as applicable. (Follow-on and corrective actions include replacing the loose lever with a new one if available, or temporarily reassembling the existing lever with loctite until a new one is available). Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The LBA classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued German airworthiness directives 2001-167/2, dated June 28, 2001, and 2001-168, dated June 14, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Germany.
These airplane models are manufactured in Germany and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the LBA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins described previously, except as discussed below.
The parallel German airworthiness directives require testing of the potentiometer levers of the aileron, elevator, and rudder flight control systems, but the proposed AD would only require testing of the potentiometer levers of the aileron flight control system. The FAA has determined that detachment of a potentiometer lever of the aileron flight control system could result in jamming of the aileron and/or elevator control systems. But detachment of a potentiometer lever of the rudder or elevator flight control systems will not introduce an unsafe condition. The German airworthiness directives and Dornier Service Bulletins SB-328-27-359, dated March 29, 2001; and SB-328J-27-064, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2001, included testing of the potentiometer levers of the rudder and elevator control systems for economic reasons, because it takes considerably more time to access the testing area than it does to perform the testing and it is cost-efficient to test the remaining areas once they have been accessed. Because detachment of the potentiometer levers of the rudder and elevator flight control systems will not cause an unsafe condition, however, the proposed AD will not require their testing.
Operators should note that, while no compliance date for replacement of defective levers is specified in German airworthiness directives 2001-167/2, dated June 28, 2001, and 2001-168, dated June 14, 2001, this proposed AD would require, within 30 days after the effective date of the AD, replacement of any defective lever, in accordance with Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-359, dated March 29, 2001; or Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328J-27-064, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2001. If replacement levers are needed but unavailable, this proposed AD would require interim corrective measures and then, within 4,000 flight hours or 24 months from the effective date of the AD, whichever comes first, replacement of any defective lever in a manner approved by the FAA or the LBA (or its delegated agent).
Operators should note that, although Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-359, dated March 29, 2001, specifies that for airplanes on which Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-319 has not been accomplished, testing be performed on the installed nose wheel steering potentiometer, the proposed rule does not require that. The FAA has determined that the unsafe condition does not exist for those airplanes on which Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-319 has not been accomplished.
Operators should also note that, although Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-359, dated March 29, 2001; and Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328J-27-064, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2001, specify that the manufacturer may be contacted for disposition of certain repair conditions, this proposal would require the repair of those conditions to be accomplished per a method approved by either the FAA or the LBA (or its delegated agent). In light of the type of repair that would be required to address the identified unsafe condition, and in consonance with existing bilateral airworthiness agreements, the FAA has determined that, for this proposed AD, a repair approved by either the FAA or the LBA would be acceptable for compliance with this proposed AD.
The FAA estimates that 89 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed test, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $10,680, or $120 per airplane, per test cycle.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption “
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) 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 detachment of the aileron potentiometer lever, which could result in jamming of the elevator and/or aileron flight control systems and reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, test the left- and right-hand potentiometer levers of the aileron flight control system to determine whether, with the bolt in position and the clamping force across the splines relaxed, the levers can be pulled off the splined shaft, in accordance with the Dornier service bulletin listed in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes: Accomplishment Instructions, “Aileron System,” of Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-27-359, dated March 29, 2001.
(2) For Dornier Model 328-300 series airplanes: Accomplishment Instructions, “Aileron System,” of Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328J-27-064, Revision 1, dated April 12, 2001.
(b) If, as a result of the test required by paragraph (a) of this AD, any lever cannot be removed, before further flight, retighten the nut and bolt and replace the split pin, in accordance with the Dornier service bulletin listed in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(c) If, as a result of the test required by paragraph (a) of this AD, any lever can be detached from the splined shaft, perform the actions specified in paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) If a new lever is available from stock or from the airplane manufacturer, before further flight, replace the defective lever with a new lever, in accordance with the Dornier service bulletin listed in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable and, after the installation of the new lever and before further flight, test the new lever as required in paragraph (a) of this AD.
(2) If a new lever is not available from stock or from the airplane manufacturer, before further flight, reassemble the existing lever with loctite, in accordance with the Dornier service bulletin listed in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable and, within 4,000 flight hours or 24 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever comes first, replace the lever with a new lever in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate; or the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA) (or its delegated agent).
(d) 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, International Branch, ANM-116. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(e) 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.
The subject of this AD is addressed in German airworthiness directive 2001-167/2, dated June 28, 2001, and German airworthiness directive 2001-168, dated June 14, 2001.
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 Bombardier Model DHC-8-100, -200, and -300 series airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of the observer's seat latch assembly with a new, approved seat latch assembly. This action is necessary to prevent the observer's seat separating from its attachment points in the event of an accident or emergency landing due to an understrength seat latch assembly. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
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-241-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-241-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 Bombardier, Inc., Bombardier Regional Aircraft Division, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York.
Serge Napoleon, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 10 Fifth Street, Third Floor, Valley Stream, New York 11581; telephone (516) 256-7512; fax (516) 568-2716.
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-241-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-241-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, -106, -201, -202, -301, -311, -314, and -315 airplanes. TCCA advises that the observer's seat latch assembly in the flight compartment and its attachment to the cockpit door frame have been found to be understrength on airplanes equipped with Hunting interiors. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the observer's seat separating from its attachment in the event of an accident or emergency landing.
Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 8-25-307, dated November 13, 2000, which describes procedures for replacing the observer's seat latch components with new approved seat latch components in Hunting interior airplanes. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. TCCA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2001-18, dated May 4, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Canada.
These airplane models are manufactured in Canada and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, TCCA has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of TCCA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates that 35 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 4 work hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed replacement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $1,372 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $56,420, or $1,612 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption “
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent the observer's seat separating from its attachment points in the event of an accident or emergency landing, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the observer's seat latch assembly by incorporating ModSum 8Q100890 (including removing and discarding existing latch and installing serrated plate, shim, and new latch assembly), in accordance with Bombardier Service Bulletin 8-25-307, dated November 13, 2000.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, New York 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, New York ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the New York ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Canadian airworthiness directive CF-2001-18, dated May 4, 2001.
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 Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of the low-pressure solenoid valve for the crew oxygen supply with a modified valve. This action is necessary to prevent faulty operation of the low-pressure solenoid valve for the crew oxygen supply, which could prevent oxygen from being supplied to the airplane crew when needed, such as in the event of smoke in the cabin or rapid depressurization of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
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-255-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: 9-anm-nprmcomment@faa.gov. Comments sent via fax or the Internet must contain “Docket No. 2001-NM-255-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 Airbus Industrie, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington.
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149.
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
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-255-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-255-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile (DGAC), which is the airworthiness authority for France, notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Airbus Model A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that the low-pressure solenoid valve for the crew oxygen supply may not operate correctly. In one reported incident, the oxygen supply for the airplane crew was found to be inoperative following an in-flight test. Analysis of certain valves revealed a discrepancy between the position of the valve and the switch for the crew oxygen supply. In some conditions, the solenoid valve would not change position (i.e., open or close) when the push-button switch on the cockpit overhead panel was pressed. Such faulty operation of the low-pressure solenoid valve for the crew oxygen supply, if not corrected, could prevent oxygen from being supplied to the airplane crew when needed, such as in the event of smoke in the cabin or rapid depressurization of the airplane.
Airbus has issued Service Bulletins A320-35-1003, Revision 1, dated January 28, 1993; and A320-35-1016, dated July 31, 1996. Both service bulletins describe procedures for replacement of the existing low-pressure solenoid valve for the crew oxygen supply with a modified valve. The modified valves incorporate a new electronic card. Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1003, Revision 1, refers to EROS Service Bulletin DVE90-35-40, dated September 10, 1991, and Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1016 refers to EROS Service Bulletin DVE90-35-49, dated January 31, 1995, as the appropriate sources of service information for accomplishment of the modification of the valve.
Accomplishment of the actions specified in Airbus Service Bulletins A320-35-1003, Revision 1, and A320-35-1016 is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition. The DGAC classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued French airworthiness directive 2001-237(B) R1, dated July 25, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France.
These airplane models are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the DGAC has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the DGAC, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design registered in the United States, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the applicable Airbus service bulletins described previously.
The FAA estimates that 111 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 replacement, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would be provided at no cost to the operator. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $6,660, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption “
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part
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 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 prevent faulty operation of the low-pressure solenoid valve for the oxygen supply, which could prevent oxygen from being supplied to the airplane crew when needed, such as in the event of smoke in the cabin or rapid depressurization of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 16 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the low-pressure solenoid valve, part number (P/N) DVE90-04, for the crew oxygen supply with a modified valve, P/N DVE90-05 or DVE90-06, as applicable. Do the replacement according to Airbus Service Bulletins A320-35-1003, Revision 1, dated January 28, 1993; or A320-35-1016, dated July 31, 1996; as applicable.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1003, Revision 1, refers to EROS Service Bulletin DVE90-35-40, dated September 10, 1991, as the appropriate source of service information for modifying the low-pressure solenoid valve for the crew oxygen supply.
Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1016 refers to EROS Service Bulletin DVE90-35-49, dated January 31, 1995, as the appropriate source of service information for modifying the low-pressure solenoid valve for the oxygen supply.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person shall install a low-pressure oxygen valve, part number DVE90-04, on any airplane.
(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, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(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.
The subject of this AD is addressed in French airworthiness directive 2001-237(B) R1, dated July 25, 2001.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New York related to development of reasonably available control technologies for source categories of volatile organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen for which EPA has not issued a control techniques guideline. Specifically, EPA is proposing approval of amendments to New York's Code of Rules and Regulations Part 212, “General Process Emission Sources.” In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received on or before October 25, 2001.
All comments should be addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Copies of the State submittal are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Kirk J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10278, (212) 637-3381.
For additional information see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Change in date, time, and location of public scoping meeting and extension of public comment period.
NMFS recently announced 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 is changing the date, time and location of the public scoping meeting and extending the public comment period.
NMFS will accept written comments through November 21, 2001. The public scoping meeting will be held on November 7, 2001, at 7 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 scoping meeting will be held at the Friend Room, Sawyer Free Library, 2 Dale Ave., Gloucester, MA.
Louis A. Chiarella, Essential Fish Habitat Coordinator, 978-281-9277, fax 978-281-9301, e-mail Lou.Chiarella@noaa.gov.
On September 10, 2001 (66 FR 46979), NMFS published notification of its intention to prepare SEISs for the EFH components of the Monkfish, Atlantic Herring, and Atlantic Salmon FMPs. See the September 10, 2001,
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Public meetings and a public hearing.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and its Ecosystem Management Committee and Executive Committee will hold public meetings and a public hearing.
The meetings will be held on Tuesday, October 9, to Thursday, October 11, 2001. See
The meetings will be held at the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center, New Bern, NC; telephone: 252-637-1551. -
Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: 302-674-2331, ext. 19.
Agenda items for the committees and Council meeting(s), as appropriate, are: Review status of Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization, especially as regards inclusion of statutory provisions requiring Councils to adopt ecosystem management planning as part of Councils’ charters, discuss and develop committee actions necessary to provide guidance and direction to Council for development of potential ecosystem management approaches in Mid-Atlantic area (Ecosystem Management Committee); overview of Marine Mammal Protection Act, status of Atlantic Bottlenose Dolphin (BND) stocks along the Atlantic Coast including estimates of abundance and potential biological removal levels, BND/fishery interactions including estimates of mortality and identification of problem fisheries (gears/areas/
On Thursday, October 11, the Council will convene a public hearing to take public comment on a proposed regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fisheries (FMP). The FMP requires NMFS to compile all landings information and compare annual landings to the quotas allocated. Landings in excess of a quote are required to be deducted from the quota allocations in the following fishing year. Because the fishing year does not end until December 31 in any year, it is impossible to have a final accounting of annual landings at the time the specifications are published for the fishing year that begins on January 1. NMFS will review several alternatives under consideration that would allow the annual landings to be tabulated in sufficient time to make the overage deductions in the annual specifications. Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before the Council for discussion, these issues may not be the subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council’s intent to take final actions to address such emergencies. -
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis (see
Pursuant to the Agriculture Market and Transition Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 480, as amended), notice is hereby given that the Draft Supplemental to the Food for Peace Monetization Field Manual—Policy on the Use of Non—fat Dry Milk for Monetization is available to interested parties for the required thirty (30) days comment period.
Individuals who wish to receive a copy of these draft guidelines may download them from the USAID website at:
Contact person: Jean Capps, (202) 712-0086. Individuals who have questions or comments on this draft addendum should contact Richard Newberg at (202) 712-1828.
The thirty day comment period will begin on the date that this announcement is published in the
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Ohio Advisory Committee to the Commission which was to have convened at 1:00 p.m. and adjourned at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, 350 North High Street, Columbus, Ohio, has been canceled.
The original notice for the meeting was announced in the
Persons desiring additional information should contact Constance M. Davis, Director of the Midwestern Regional Office, 312-353-8311 (TDD 312-353-8362).
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Pennsylvania Advisory Committee to the Commission which was to have convened at 12:30 p.m. and adjourned at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, September 28, 2001, at the Philadelphia Convention Center, Conference Room B, 12th and Arch Streets, Philadelphia, has been canceled.
The original notice for the meeting was announced in the
Persons desiring additional information should contact Marc Pentino of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116).
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of the Vermont Advisory Committee to the Commission which was to have convened at 10:45 a.m. and adjourned at 2:45 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2001, at the Hamilton Room-One Flight Up Resturant, Burlington International Airport, 1200 Airport Drive, South Burlington, Vermont, has been canceled.
The original notice for the meeting was announced in the
Persons desiring additional information should contact Marc Pentino of the Eastern Regional Office, 202-376-7533 (TDD 202-376-8116).
In the Matters of: Thane-Coat, Inc. 12725 Royal Drive Stafford, Texas 77477, Jerry Vernon Ford President Thane-Coat, Inc. 12725 Royal Drive Stafford, Texas 77477 and with an address at 58 East Guada Coma New Braunfels, Texas 78130, and Preston John Engebretson Vice-President Thane-Coat, Inc. 12725 Royal Drive Stafford, Texas 77477 and with an address at 8903 Bonhomme Road Houston, Texas 77074, Respondents
On March 20, 2001, then Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement Lisa A. Prager issued a Decision and Order on Renewal of Temporary Denial Order (hereinafter “Order” or “TDO”), renewing for 180
On August 24, 2001, pursuant to § 766.24 of the Export Administration Regulations (currently codified at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2001)) (hereinafter the “Regulations”), issued pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (50 U.S.C. app. secs. 2401-2420 (1994 & Supp. IV 1998)) (hereinafter the “Act”), the Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Export Administration, United States Department of Commerce (hereinafter “BXA”), requested that I renew the Order against Thane-Coat, Inc., Jerry Vernon Ford, and Preston John Engebretson for 180 days in a “non-standard” format, consistent with the terms agreed to by and between the parties in April 1998.
In its request, BXA stated that, as a result of an ongoing investigation, it had reason to believe that, during the period from approximately June 1994 through approximately July 1996, Thane-Coat, Inc., through Ford and Engebretson, and using its affiliated companies, TIC Ltd. and Export Materials, Inc., made approximately 100 shipments of U.S.-origin pipe coating materials, machines, and parts to the Dong Ah Consortium in Benghazi, Libya. These items were for use in coating the internal surface of prestressed concrete cylinder pipe for the Government of Libya's Great Man-Made River Project.
BXA has stated that it believes that the matters under investigation and the information obtained in that investigation support renewal of the TDO issued against the Respondents as the evidence shows that Respondents engaged in a significant, deliberate, and covert scheme to violate U.S. export control laws, including the regulations, over a period of years and are likely to commit future violations without the renewal of the TDO. The Respondents' pattern of extensive, repeated and clandestine shipments combined with the Respondents' business knowledge and practice (e.g., setting up shell companies, both foreign and domestic) and repeated inquiries with foreign entities to acquire contracts to conduct business in Libya and Iran demonstrate a likelihood that Respondents may commit further violations.
In April 1998, BXA and the Respondents reached an agreement, whereby BXA sought a renewal of the TDO, but changing the “standard” format to a “non-standard” format, denying all of the Respondents' U.S. export privileges to the United Kingdom, the Bahamas, Libya, Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and any other country or countries that may be made subject in the future to a general trade embargo by proper legal authority pending resolution of the criminal charges against Respondents. In return, the Respondents agreed that, among other conditions, at least 14 days in advance of any export that any of the Respondents intends to make of any item from the United States to any destination world-wide, the Respondents will provide to BXA's Dallas Field Office (i) notice of the intended export, (ii) copies of all documents reasonably related to the subject transaction, including, but not limited to, the commercial invoice and bill of lading, and (iii) the opportunity, during the 14-day notice period, to inspect physically the item at issue to ensure that the intended shipment is in compliance with the Export Administration Act, the Export Administration Regulations, or any order issued thereunder. BXA has sought renewal of the TDO in a “non-standard” format comparable to the terms of the March 20, 2001 TDO; respondents have hereto not opposed renewal of the TDO in a “non-standard” format.
Based on BXA's showing, I find that it is appropriate to renew the order temporarily denying the export privileges of Thane-Coat, Inc., Jerry Vernon Ford, and Preston John Engebretson in a “non-standard” format, incorporating the terms agreed to by and between the parties in April 1998 with 2 revisions: deleting North Korea from the list of countries to which Respondents' export privileges are denied as North Korea is no longer subject to a general trade embargo and adding Sudan to the list as Sudan is now subject to a general trade embargo. I find that such renewal is necessary in the public interest to prevent imminent violations of the Regulations and to give notice to companies in the United States and abroad to cease dealing with these persons in any commodity, software, or technology subject to the regulations and exported or to be exported to the United Kingdom, the Bahamas, Libya, Cuba, Iraq, Sudan, and any other country or countries that may be made subject in the future to a general trade embargo by proper legal authority, or in any other activity subject to the regulations with respect to these specific countries.
A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;
B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item that is subject to the Regulations and that is exported or to be exported from the United States to any of the Covered Countries, or in any other activity subject to the regulations; or
C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States to any of the Covered Countries that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the regulations.
SECOND, that no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of any of the denied persons any item subject to the Regulations to any of the Covered Countries;
B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition, or attempted acquisition by any of the denied persons of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States to any of the Covered Countries, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby any of the denied persons acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from any of the denied persons of any item subject to the regulations that has been exported from the United States to any of the Covered Countries;
D. Obtain from any of the denied persons in the United states any item subject to the regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States to any of the Covered Countries; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States to any of the Covered Countries, and which is owned, possessed or controlled by any of the denied persons, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by any of the denied persons if such service involves the use of any item subject to the regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States to any of the Covered Countries. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.
Third, that at least 14 days in advance of any export that any of the denied persons intends to make of any item from the United States to any destination world-wide, the denied person will provide to BXA's Dallas Field Office (i) notice of the intended export, (ii) copies of all documents reasonably related to the subject transaction, including, but not limited to, the commercial invoice and bill of lading, and (iii) the opportunity, during the 14-day notice period, to inspect physically the item at issue to ensure that the intended shipment is in compliance with the Export Administration Act, the Export Administration Regulations, or any order issued thereunder.
Fourth, that, without limiting the provisions of the First Ordering Paragraph on page 5, after notice and opportunity for comment, as provided in § 766.23 of the regulations, any persons, firm, corporation, or business organization related to any of the denied persons by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services, may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order.
Fifth, that this Order does not prohibit any export, reexport, or other transaction subject to the Regulations where the only items involved that are subject to the regulations are the foreign-produced direct product of U.S.-origin technology.
Sixth, that, in accordance with the provisions of § 766.24(e) of the regulations, Thane-Coat, Ford, or Engebretson may, at any time, appeal this Order by filing a full written statement in support of the appeal with the Office of the Administrative Law Judge, U.S. Coast Guard ALJ Docketing Center, 40 South Gay Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-4022.
Seventh, that this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect for 180 days.
Eighth, that, in accordance with the provisions of § 766.24(d) of the regulations, BXA may seek renewal of this Order by filing a written request not later than 20 days before the expiration date. Any respondent may oppose a request to renew this Order by filing a written submission with the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, which must be received not later than seven days before the expiration date of the Order.
A copy of this Order shall be served on each Respondent and shall be published in the
Notice of Issuance of an Export Trade Certificate of Review, Application No. 01-00003.
The Department of Commerce has issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to Sun Valley Rice Co., LLC. (“Sun Valley”), Arbuckle, California, effective September 19, 2001. This notice summarizes the conduct for which certification has been granted.
Vanessa M. Bachman, Acting Director, Office of Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, 202-482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or by E-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001
The Office of Export Trading Company Affairs (“OETCA”) is issuing this notice pursuant to 15 CFR 325.6(b), which requires the Department of Commerce to publish a summary of a Certificate in the
California rice and rice products (rough rice, brown rice, milled, under milled, or unpolished rice, coated rice, oiled rice, enriched rice, rice bran, rice polish, head rice, broken rice, second head rice, brewers rice, screenings, rice flour, rice hulls).
All services related to the export of Products.
All intellectual property rights associated with Products or Services, including, but not limited to: patents, trademarks, services marks, trade names, copyrights, neighboring (related) rights, trade secrets, know-how, and sui-generis forms of protection for databases and computer programs.
Export Trade Facilitation Services, including, but not limited to: Consulting and trade strategy, arranging and coordinating delivery of Products to port of export; arranging for inland and/or ocean transportation; allocating Products to vessel; arranging for storage space at port; arranging for warehousing, stevedoring, wharfage, handling, inspection, fumigation, freight forwarding; insurance and financing; documentation and services related to compliance with customs' requirements; sales and marketing; export brokerage; foreign marketing and analysis; foreign market development; overseas advertising and promotion; Products research and design based upon foreign buyer and consumer preferences; inspection and quality control; shipping and export management; export licensing; provisions of overseas sales and distribution facilities and overseas sales staff; legal; accounting and tax assistance; development and application of management information systems; trade show exhibitions; professional services in the area of government relations and assistance with federal and state export assistance programs (
The Export Markets include all parts of the world except the United States (the fifty states of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands).
To engage in Export Trade in the Export Markets, The Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC, on a transaction-by-transaction basis, may:
1. Exchange information with Suppliers or other entities individually regarding availability of and prices for Products for export, and inventories and near-term production and delivery schedules for purposes of determining the availability of Products for purchase and export and coordinating export of Products with its distributors and customers in the Export Markets;
2. Confer with Suppliers, on a one-to-one basis, about the possibility of offers to and purchases by Sun Valley for a specific export sales opportunity;
3. Solicit Suppliers to offer/sell Products through the certified activities of Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC;
4. Solicit orders from potential foreign distributors and purchasers for sale of Products in Export Markets;
5. Prepare and submit offers of Products to potential foreign distributors, purchasers, and other entities for sale in Export Markets;
6. Establish the price and quantity of Products for sale in Export Markets and set other terms for any export sale;
7. Negotiate and enter into agreements for sale of products in Export Markets;
8. Enter into agreements to purchase Products from one or more Suppliers to fulfill specific sale obligations, which may include agreements whereby Suppliers agree to deal exclusively with Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC, for sale of the Products in a particular Export Market or Markets and/or whereby Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC, agrees to purchase exclusively any particular Supplier's (or Suppliers’) Products for resale in the Export Market;
9. Assign sales of Products to, and/or divide export orders among, Suppliers or other persons based on orders, export markets, territories, customers, or any other basis Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC deems fit;
10. Broker and take title to the Products;
11. Enter into agreements with one or more Export Trade Intermediaries or export trade purchasers for the purchase of Products, which may be agreements whereby Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC, agrees to deal exclusively with an entity or customer in a particular Export Market, and/or by which that customer or intermediary agrees to deal exclusively with Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC and/or agrees not to purchase from Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC's, competitors in any Export Market, unless so authorized;
12. Apply for and utilize government export assistance and incentive programs;
13. Participate in the bidding process and award of tender proceeds under “The Association for the Administration of Rice Quotas, Inc.” (part of the US/EU Enlargement Agreement) as may be amended or succeeded providing for EU rice tarriff-rate quotas signed on July 22, 1996;
14. Refuse to purchase Products or provide information regarding export sales of Products to any Supplier(s) or other entities for any reason Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC, deems fit;
15. Refuse to sell Products, to quote prices of Products, to provide information regarding Products, or to market or to sell Products to any customers or distributors in the Export Markets, or in any countries or geographic areas in the Export Markets; and
16. Meet with Suppliers or other entities periodically to discuss general matters specific to the activities approved in this certificate (not related to price and supply arrangements between Applicant and the individual Suppliers) such as relevant facts concerning the Export Markets (e.g., demand conditions, transportation costs and prices in the export markets), or the possibility of joint marketing, bidding or selling arrangements in the Export Markets.
“Supplier” means a person that produces, provides, or sells Products and/or Services.
“Export Intermediary” means a person who acts as distributor, sales representative, sales or marketing agent, or broker, or who performs similar functions including or arranging for the provision of Export Trade Facilitation Services.
1. In engaging in the above Export Trade Activities and Methods of Operation, The Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC, shall not intentionally disclose, directly or indirectly, to any Supplier, any information about any other Supplier's costs, production, capacity, inventories, domestic prices, domestic sales, terms of domestic marketing or sales, or U.S. business plans, strategies, or methods that is not already generally available to the trade or public.
2. The Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC, will comply with requests made by the Secretary of Commerce on behalf of the Secretary or the Attorney General for information or documents relevant to conduct under the Certificate. The Secretary of Commerce will request such information or documents when either the Attorney General or the Secretary believes that the information or documents are required to determine that the Export Trade and/or the Export Trade Activities and Methods of
This Certificate protects The Sun Valley Rice Company, LLC, its directors, officers, and employees acting on its behalf, from private treble damage actions and government criminal and civil suits under U.S. federal and state antitrust laws for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out during its effective period in compliance with its terms and conditions. A copy of this certificate will be kept in the International Trade Administration's Freedom of Information Records Inspection facility Room 4102, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
Notice of Application to Amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review.
The Office of Export Trading Company Affairs (“OETCA”), International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, has received an application to amend an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”). This notice summarizes the proposed amendment and requests comments relevant to whether the Certificate should be issued.
Vanessa M. Bachman, Acting Director, Office of Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, by telephone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the
Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination of whether an amended Certificate should be issued.
If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five (5) copies, plus two (2) copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice to: Office of Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, Room 1104H, Washington, DC 20230. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 87-16A04.”
The Association for Manufacturing Technology's (“AMT”) original Certificate was issued on May 19, 1987 (52 FR 19371, May 22, 1987) and last amended on March 6, 2001 (66 FR 15841, March 21, 2001).
A summary of the application for an amendment follows.
1. Add each of the following companies as a new “Member” of the Certificate within the meaning of § 325.2(1) of the regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): The Beckwood Corporation, Fenton, Missouri; Ultra Tech Machinery, Inc., Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio; ATS Michigan, Brighton, Michigan; ATS Southwest, Tucson, Arizona; ATS Carolina, Rock Hill, South Carolina; Advanced Machine & Engineering Co., Rockford, Illinois; The Gem City Engineering Company, Dayton, Ohio; ATS Oregon, Carvallis, Oregon; and DeVlieg Bullard II, Inc., Rockford, Illinois.
2. Delete the following companies as “Members” of the Certificate: American Pfauter Limited Partnership; Anorad Corporation; Automatic Design Concepts; Belden Inc.; Benchmaster Products, Inc.; Boston Digital Corporation; Buffalo Machine Tools of Niagara, Inc.; Clearing Niagara; Columbus McKinnon for the activities of its CM Positech Division; D&H Machinery, Inc.; Davenport Machine—A Dover Industries Company; Elox Corporation; Esterline Technologies; GEC Alsthom Cyril Bath Company; Harper Surface Finishing System, Inc.; Hayes-Lemmerz Process Control Automation, Inc.; Jesse Engineering Co.; Jewett Automation; Lumonics Corporation; MG Industries; Machine Tool Research, Inc.; MHI Machine Tool USA, Inc.; New Monarch Machine Tool Company; Olofsson Corporation; O.S. Walker Company, Inc.; PMC Industries; P.R. Hoffman Machine Products; Pacific Roller Die Co., Inc.; Parker-Majestic Inc.; The Producto Machine Company; RD & D Corporation; Rendas Tool & Die, Inc.; R. Howard Strasbaugh, Inc.; Teledyne; Themac, Inc.; Tree Machine Tool Co., Inc.; Tyler Machinery Co.; U.S. Amada, Ltd.; Unison Corporation; Utilase Systems, Inc.; Vermont—USA Machine Tool Group; Versa-Mil Inc./Phillips Corporation; Weldun Flexible Assembly Company; W.J. Savage Company, Inc.; and Wisconsin Automated Machinery.
3. Change the listing of two existing Members as follows: “Kleer-Flo Industries” to “Kleer-Flo Company” and “LeBlond Makino Machine Tool Company” to “Makino Inc.”
Notice of Application to Amend Certificate.
The Office of Export Trading Company Affairs (“OETCA”),
Vanessa M. Bachman, Acting Director, Office of Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration by phone at (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or E-mail at oetca@ita.doc.gov.
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4001-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. A Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from state and federal government antitrust actions and from private, treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. Section 302(b)(1) of the Act and 15 CFR 325.6(a) require the Secretary to publish a notice in the
Interested parties may submit written comments relevant to the determination whether an amended Certificate should be issued. If the comments include any privileged or confidential business information, it must be clearly marked and a nonconfidential version of the comments (identified as such) should be included. Any comments not marked privileged or confidential business information will be deemed to be nonconfidential. An original and five copies, plus two copies of the nonconfidential version, should be submitted no later than 20 days after the date of this notice in writing to: Office of Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, Room 1104H, Washington, DC 20230, or transmitted by E-mail to oetca@ita.doc.gov. Information submitted by any person is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). However, nonconfidential versions of the comments will be made available to the applicant if necessary for determining whether or not to issue the Certificate. Comments should refer to this application as “Export Trade Certificate of Review, application number 92-6A001.”
The Aerospace Industries Association of America, Inc. (“AIA”) original Certificate was issued on April 10, 1992 (57 FR 13707, April 17, 1992) and last amended on November 12, 1998 (63 FR 64061, November 18, 1998). A summary of the application for an amendment follows.
1. Add the following companies as new “Members” of the Certificate within the meaning of § 325.2(1) of the regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Groen Brothers Aviation, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT; i2 Technologies, Washington, D.C.; Martin-Baker America, Incorporated, Arlington, VA (Controlling Entity: Martin-Baker Aircraft Company Ltd., Denham, Buckinghamshire, UK); MatrixOne, Inc., Chelmsford, MA; MD Helicopters, Inc., Mesa, AZ; The NORDAM Group, Tulsa, OK; Omega Air, Inc., Alexandria, VA; Space Access, LLC, Palmdale, CA; Spectrum Astro, Inc., Gilbert, AZ; Stellex Aerostructures, Inc., Woodland Hills, CA (Controlling Entity: Stellex Technologies, Inc., Woodland Hills, CA); Swales Aerospace, LLC, Beltsville, MD; Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc., Dallas, TX; W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Newark, DE; BAE Systems North America, Inc., Rockville, MD; GenCorp, Sacramento, CA; Smiths Aerospace Actuation Systems, Los Angeles, CA, Duarte, CA; Triumph Group, Inc.; Wayne, PA; Alcoa Industrial Components; Salt Lake City, UT (Controlling Entity: Alcoa, Pittsburgh, PA); Analytical Graphics, Inc., Malvern, PA; Atlantic Research Corporation, Gainesville, VA (Controlling Entity: Sequa Corporation, New York, NY); Aviall, Inc., Dallas TX; Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corporation, Boulder, CO; Cubic Corporation, San Diego, CA; Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Lyndhurst, NJ; Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, South Hackensack, NJ (Controlling Entity: Dassault Aviation, France); Davis Tool, Inc., Hillsboro, OR; DRS Technologies, Inc., Parsippany, NJ; Embraer Aircraft Corporation, Brazil; Exostar, LLC, Herndon, VA; Fairchild Dormier Corporation, Wessling, Germany; Fairchild Fasteners, Dulles, VA (Controlling Entity: The Fairchild Corporation, Dulles, VA); General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc., San Diego, CA (Controlling Entity: General Atomics, San Diego, CA ); Genuity Solutions, Inc., Woburn, MA; GKN Aerospace, Inc., Reston, VA (Controlling Entity: GKN Westland Aerospace division of GKN, PLC, Worcestershire, UK); ITT Industries, Inc., McLean, VA.
2. Delete the following companies as “Members” of the Certificate within the meaning of § 325.2(1) of the Regulations (15 CFR 325.2(1)): Aerojet-General Corporation, Sacremento, CA; Allied Signal Inc., Morristown, NJ; Hughes Electronic Corporation, El Segundo, CA; CMS, Inc., Tampa, FL; Coltech Industries, Inc., New York, NY; Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard, MA; Cordant Technologies, Inc., Ogden, UT; Dowty Decoto, Inc., Duarte, CA; Dynamic Engineering Incorporated, Newport News, VA; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Savannah, GA; Interturbine Corporation, Peabody, MA; ITT Defense and Electronics Inc., McLean, VA; Litton Industries, Inc., Woodland Hills, CA; Lucas Industries, Inc., Reston, VA; Marconi North America Inc., Wayne, NJ; Pacific Scientific Company, Duarte, CA; Sundstrand Corporation, Rockford, IL; Triumph Controls, Inc., North Wales, PA; Veridian Corporation, Alexandria, VA.
3. Change the listings of the current Members as follows: “BF Goodrich; Akron, OH” to “Goodrich Corporation, Charlotte, NC;” “HEICO Corporation, Hollywood, FL” to “HEICO Corporation; Miami, FL;” “B.H. Aircraft Company, Incorporated, Farmingdale, NY” to “B.H. Aircraft Company, Incorporated, Rokonkoma, NY.”
National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a reopening of an application deadline.
The Department of Commerce is establishing a Federal Advisory Committee on Marine Protected Areas (Committee) pursuant to Executive Order 13158 and is seeking nominations for membership on this Committee.
Nominations must be postmarked on or before September 30, 2001.
Nominations should be sent to the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910, Attn: Federal Advisory Committee on Marine Protected Areas.
Roger Griffis, NOAA, (301) 713-3155, extension 104. E-mail: Roger.B.Griffis@noaa.gov.
On August 10, 2001, (66 FR 42204), NOAA published a notice requesting nominations for the Committee. Additional details about the Committee and the nomination process are provided in the notice and not repeated here. NOAA is re-opening the application deadline until September 30, 2001.
Nominations should be sent to (see
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting a limit.
September 25, 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 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 345 is being increased for 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 and man-made fiber textiles and textile products and silk blend and other vegetable fiber apparel, produced or manufactured in Malaysia and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2001 and extends through December 31, 2001.
Effective on September 25, 2001, you are directed to increase the current limit for Category 345 to 227,168 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,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs adjusting limits.
September 25, 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 limit for Category 666-P is being increased for special shift from Category 666-S, reducing the limit for Category 666-S to account for the special shift being applied to Category 666-P.
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 2, 2000, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton and man-made fiber textile products produced or
Effective on, September 25, 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 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 making provisions for delays in textile visas or exempt certificates due to the recent national emergency
September 11, 2001.
Brian F. Fennessy, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3400.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
In light of the recent national emergency, some textile visas or exempt certificates may be delayed in reaching their destination; visas are often delivered by courier services that have been disrupted by these events. As a result, CITA has determined that copies of visas and exempt certificates shall be accepted for conditional release of merchandise for a limited period of time.
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs, with respect to all textiles and textile product subject to visa requirements entered on or after September 11, 2001 but prior to September 29, 2001, to accept copies of textile visas or exempt certificates for the conditional release of merchandise. The original textile visa or exempt certificate must be presented to the U.S. Customs Service upon receipt and no later than October 12, 2001. Effective for textiles and textile products entered on or after September 29, 2001, original textile visas will be required. U.S. Customs should continue to require an Electronic Visa Information System (ELVIS) transmission for all shipments for which an ELVIS transmission is required.
Absent submission of the original textile visa or exempt certificate on or before October 12, 2001, the goods will be deemed inadmissible.
In light of the recent national emergency, some textile visas or exempt certificates may be delayed in reaching their destination; visas are often delivered by courier services that have been disrupted by these events. As a result, CITA has determined that copies of visas and exempt certificates shall be accepted for conditional release of merchandise for a limited period of time.
CITA directs that, with respect to all textiles and textile product subject to visa requirements entered on or after September 11, 2001 but prior to September 29, 2001, the United States Customs Service shall accept copies of textile visas or exempt certificates for the conditional release of merchandise. The original textile visa or exempt certificate must be presented to the U.S. Customs Service upon receipt and no later than October 12, 2001. Effective for textiles and textile products entered on or after September 29, 2001, original textile visas will be required. U.S. Customs should continue to require an Electronic Visa Information System (ELVIS) transmission for all shipments for which an ELVIS transmission is required.
Absent submission of the original textile visa or exempt certificate on or before October 12, 2001, the goods will be deemed inadmissible.
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Determination
September 24, 2001.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (Committee) has determined, under the AGOA, that certain fabrics, for use in blouses and nightwear, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner, and, under the CBTPA, that 100 percent polyester crushed panne velour fabric of circular knit construction for use in apparel cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. The Committee hereby designates certain apparel articles that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in an eligible country, from these fabrics, as eligible for quota-free and duty-free treatment under the textile and apparel short supply provisions of the AGOA and the CBTPA, and eligible under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheadings 9819.11.24 or 9820.11.27, to enter free of quotas and duties.
Philip J. Martello, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-3400.
Section 112(b)(5)(B) of the AGOA and Section 211 of the CBTPA, amending Section 213(b)(2)(A)(v)(II) of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act (CBERA); Presidential Proclamations 7350
The short supply provision of the AGOA provides for duty-free and quota-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamation 7350, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to such apparel articles of fabrics or yarns designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the Federal Register. In Executive Order 13191, the President authorized the Committee to determine whether particular yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner under the AGOA.
Similarly, the short supply provision of the CBTPA provides for duty-free and quota-free treatment for apparel articles that are both cut (or knit-to-shape) and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more beneficiary CBTPA country from fabric or yarn that is not formed in the United States or a beneficiary CBTPA country if it has been determined that such yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and certain procedural requirements have been met. In Presidential Proclamation 7351, the President proclaimed that this treatment would apply to such apparel articles of fabrics or yarns designated by the appropriate U.S. government authority in the Federal Register. In Executive Order 13191, the President authorized the Committee to determine whether particular yarns or fabrics cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner.
On March 1, 2001, the Committee received a petition alleging that certain fabrics, set forth in Annex I, for use in blouses and nightwear, cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that such apparel articles of such fabrics be eligible for preferential treatment under the AGOA. On March 8, 2001, the Committee requested public comment on the petition (66 FR 13912). On April 10, 2001, the Committee and the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) sought the advice of the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Wholesaling and Retailing and the Industry Sector Advisory Committee for Textiles and Apparel (collectively, the ISACs). On April 10, 2001, the Committee and USTR offered to hold consultations with the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate (collectively, the Congressional Committees). On April 16, 2001, the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provided advice on the petition. Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, the Committee determined that the fabrics set forth in the petition cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On April 30, 2001, the Committee and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained from the ISACs and the USITC. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired, as required by the AGOA.
On March 6, 2001, the Committee received a petition alleging that 100 percent polyester crushed panne velour fabric of circular knit construction, classified in subheading 6001.92.00 and reported under statistical reporting number 6001.92.0030 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner and requesting that apparel articles of such fabrics be eligible for preferential treatment under the CBTPA. On March 12, 2001, the Committee requested public comment on the petition (66 FR 14357). On April 11, 2001, the Committee and USTR sought the advice of the ISACs and offered to hold consultations with the Congressional Committees. On April 23, 2001, the USITC provided advice on the petition. Based on the information and advice received and its understanding of the industry, the Committee determined that the fabric set forth in the petition cannot be supplied by the domestic industry in commercial quantities in a timely manner. On May 3, 2001, the Committee and USTR submitted a report to the Congressional Committees that set forth the action proposed, the reasons for such action, and the advice obtained from the ISACs and the USITC. A period of 60 calendar days since this report was submitted has expired, as required by the CBTPA.
CITA hereby designates as eligible for preferential treatment under subheading 9819.11.24 of the HTSUS, for purposes of the AGOA, blouses and nightwear that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries, provided the fabric of the outer shell is of a fabric set forth in Annex I and that all other fabrics are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible beneficiary sub-Saharan African country. An “eligible beneficiary sub-Saharan African country” means a country which the President has designated as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country under section 506A of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2466a) and which has been the subject of a finding, published in the Federal Register, that the country has satisfied the requirements of section 113 of the AGOA (19 U.S.C. 3722) and resulting in the enumeration of such country in U.S. note 1 to subchapter XIX of chapter 98 of the HTSUS.
CITA hereby designates as eligible for preferential treatment under subheading 9820.11.27 of the HTSUS, for purposes of the CBTPA, apparel articles that are both cut and sewn or otherwise assembled in one or more eligible CBTPA beneficiary countries, provided the fabric of the outer shell is of crushed panne velour fabric wholly of polyester, of circular knit construction, classified in subheading 6001.92.00 (statistical reporting number 6001.92.0030) of the HTSUS and that all other fabrics are wholly formed in the United States from yarns wholly formed in the United States, that are imported directly into the customs territory of the United States from an eligible CBTPA beneficiary country. An “eligible CBTPA beneficiary country” means a country which the President has designated as a CBTPA beneficiary country under section 213(b)(5)(B) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(5)(B)) and which has been the subject of a finding, published in the Federal Register, that the country has satisfied the requirements of section 213(b)(4)(A)(ii) of the CBERA (19 U.S.C. 2703(b)(4)(A)(ii)) and resulting in the enumeration of such country in U.S. note 1 to subchapter XX of chapter 98 of the HTSUS.
Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Education.
Notice of upcoming teleconference meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda of a forthcoming teleconference meeting of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. Individuals who will need accommodations for a disability in order to attend the meeting (i.e., interpreting services assistive listening devices and/or materials in alternative format) should notify Ms. Hope M. Gray at 202-708-7439 or via e-mail at hope.grav@ed.gov no later than 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 25, 2001. We will attempt to meet requests after this date, but cannot guarantee availability of the requested accomodation. The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. This notice also describes the functions of the Committee. Notice of this meeting is required under Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This document is intended to notify the general public.
Due to the circumstances surrounding cancellation of the Advisory Committee's meeting scheduled for September 13-14, 2001, it is necessary to hold a teleconference before September 30 to address the Committee's plans for fiscal year 2002 and other business. Therefore, we were unable to publish this notice 15 days in advance of the scheduled teleconference as required under section10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Wednesday, September 26, 2001, beginning at 3 p.m. and ending at approximately 4:30 p.m.
The Portals Building, 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW., Courtyard Level, Washington, DC 20024.
Dr. Brian K. Fitzgerald, Staff Director, Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Portals Building, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 601, Washington, DC 20202-7582, (202) 708-7439.
The Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance is established under Section 491 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended by Public Law 100-50 (20 U.S.C. 1098). The Advisory Committee serves as an independent source of advice and counsel to the Congress and the Secretary of Education on student financial aid policy. Since its inception, the Committee has been charged with providing technical expertise with regard to systems of need analysis and application forms, making recommendations that result in the maintenance of access to postsecondary education for low- and middle-income students; conducting a study of institutional lending in the Stafford Student Loan Program; assisting with activities related in 1992 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965; conducting a third-year evaluation of the Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (FDLP) and the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1993; and assisting Congress with the 1998 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act.
The recongressional mandate requires the Advisory Committee to conduct objective, nonpartisan, and independent analyses on important aspects of the student assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. The Committee traditionally approaches its work from a set of fundamental goals: promoting program integrity, eliminating or avoiding program complexity, integrating delivery across the Title IV programs, and minimizing burden on students and institutions.
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act has provided the Advisory Committee with a significantly expanded agenda in six major areas, such as Performance-based Organization (PBO); Modernization; Technology; Simplification of Law and Regulation; Distance Education; and Early Information and Needs Assessment. In each of these areas, Congress has asked the Committee to: monitor progress toward implementing the Amendments of 1998; conduct independent, objective assessments; and make recommendations for improvement to the Congress and the Secretary. Each of these responsibilities flows logically from and effectively implements one or more of the Committee's original statutory functions and purposes.
The proposed agenda includes: (a) approval of the Committee's fiscal year 2002 plans; and (b) elections. Space is limited and you are encouraged to contact the Advisory Committee staff through the Internet at
The Advisory Committee will meet in Washington, DC via teleconference on Wednesday, September 26, 2001, from 3 p.m. until approximately 4:30 p.m.
Records are kept of all Committee proceedings, and are available for public inspection at the Office of the Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, Portals Building, 1280 Maryland Avenue, SW., Suite 601, Washington, DC from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. weekdays, except Federal holidays.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Nevada Test Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, October 3, 2001, 6 p.m.-9 p.m.
Great Basin Room, National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Operations Office, 232 Energy Way, North Las Vegas, Nevada.
Kevin Rohrer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 98518, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8513, phone: 702-295-0197, fax: 702-295-5300.
1. Training and educational updates on the Underground Test Area (UGTA) and transportation issues.
Copies of the final agenda will be available at the meeting.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Kevin Rohrer at the address listed above.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Rocky Flats. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, October 4, 2001—6 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Jefferson County Airport Terminal Building, Mount Evans Room, 1175 Airport Way, Broomfield, CO.
Ken Korkia, Board/Staff Coordinator, Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board, 9035 North Wadsworth Parkway, Suite 2250, Westminster, CO 80021; telephone (303) 420-7855; fax (303) 420-7579.
1. Quarterly update by representative from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
2. Part Five: Board recommendation development and ongoing educational discussion regarding the Radionuclide Soil Action Level Review.
3. Approve Board's work plan and budget for 2002.
4. Other Board business may be conducted as necessary.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Dominion Transmission, Inc. (DTI) filed pursuant to Sections 4 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act and the Commission's regulations to convert individually certificated transportation and storage services it provides to Doswell Limited Partnership and Virginia Power Services Energy
As part of its filing, DTI tendered pro forma Fifth Revised Sheet No. 1300 of the Third Revised Volume No. 1 of DTI's tariff, which lists non-conforming agreements. DTI explains that the effective date of the conversions to Part 284 service, and of the tariff sheet, cannot be known at this time because of a series of conditions precedent provided in the agreements. DTI states that it will submit an actual tariff sheet with the effective date in a filing in compliance with a Commission order approving its filing. DTI requests that the Commission act on its filing within sixty days.
DTI states that copies of this filing have been mailed to its customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before September 26, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. 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 on September 14, 2001, Enbridge Pipelines (Midla) Inc., formerly Mid Louisiana Gas Company, (Midla) filed the following tariff sheets to amend its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1 to be made effective October 1, 2001.
Midla states that the purpose of the filing is to reflect a $0.0001 per dekatherm decrease in Midla's rates under its Annual Charge Adjustment (ACA) clause that results from a corresponding decrease in the annual charge assessed Midla by the FERC.
Midla further states that because of confusion resulting from FERC's July 27, 2001 billing and given that its filing results in a decrease of $0.0001 in Midla's FERC approved rate, Midla believed that good cause exists and therefore requested a waiver of the requirements of 154.207 of the Commission's regulations, and any other waiver that may be required, to permit the proposed tariff sheets to be made effective on October 1, 2001.
Midla states that copies of filing have been mailed to its customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before September 26, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. 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
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.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Enbridge Pipelines (KPC), formerly Kansas Pipeline Company (KPC) filed the following tariff sheets to amend its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 to be made effective October 1, 2001.
KPC states that the purpose of the filing is to reflect a $0.0001 per dekatherm decrease in KPC's rates under its Annual Charge Adjustment (“ACA”) clause that results from a corresponding decrease in the annual charge assessed KPC by the FERC.
KPC further states that because of confusion resulting from FERC's July 27, 2001 billing and given that its filing results in a decrease of $0.0001 in KPC's Commission approved rate, KPC believed that good cause exists and therefore requested a waiver of the requirements of 154.207 of the Commission's regulations, and any other waiver that may be required, to permit the proposed tariff sheets to be made effective on October 1, 2001.
KPC states that copies of the filing have been mailed to customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the
Take notice that on September 14, Enbridge Pipelines (Ala Tenn) Inc., formerly Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc., (AlaTenn) filed the following tariff sheets to amend its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1 to be made effective October 1, 2001.
AlaTenn states that the purpose of the filing is to reflect a $0.0001 per dekatherm decrease in AlaTenn's rates under its Annual Charge Adjustment (ACA) clause that results from a corresponding decrease in the annual charge assessed AlaTenn by the FERC.
AlaTenn further states that because of confusion resulting from FERC's July 27, 2001 billing and given that its filing results in a decrease of $0.0001 in AlaTenn's FERC approved rate, AlaTenn believed that good cause exists and therefore requested a waiver of the requirements of Section 154.207 of the Commission's regulations, and any other waiver that may be required, to permit the proposed tariff sheets to be made effective on October 1, 2001.
AlaTenn states that copies of the filing have been mailed to customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before September 26, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. 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 on August 29, 2001 Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed in Docket No. CP01-437-000, a request pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), as amended, and the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), requesting permission and approval to abandon service under an individually certificated agreement, all as more fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission, and open to public inspection. 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
Specifically, Northern proposes to abandon service to Williams Gas Pipeline Central, Inc. (Williams) under Rate Schedule T-54, contained in its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 2. Northern further states that the underlying contract has not provided service for several years and has been terminated in accordance with the contract terms.
Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Keith L. Petersen, Director, Certificates and Reporting for Northern, 111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124, at (402) 398-7421.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before October 10, 2001. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. 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 be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on September 10, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) and Allegheny Power (Allegheny) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) proposed amendments to the PJM Open Access Transmission Tariff, to the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. and to the PJM West Reliability Assurance Agreement PJM. Allegheny states that the proposed amendments are submitted to comply with the Commission's order in this proceeding dated July 12, 2001.
Copies of this filing have been served on all parties, as well as on all PJM Members and the state electric regulatory commissions in the PJM control area and in the PJM West Region.
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 October 1, 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 September 17, 2001, Ameren Energy Generating Company (AEG), One Ameren Plaza, 1901 Chouteau Plaza, P.O. Box 66149, St. Louis, Missouri, 63166-6149, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), an application for determination of continuing exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's Regulations.
AEG states that it acquired the following units, as further detailed in the application: Pinckneyville, Illinois Unit No. 8 and Columbia, Missouri Unit No. 1. Both units are 36 MW gas-fired combustion turbine units, with a commercial operation date of July 28, 2001. AEG states that all of the electric energy from these facilities will be sold at wholesale.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Ameren Services Company (ASC) tendered for filing a Transmission System Interconnection Agreement and Parallel Operating Agreement between ASC and Holland Energy, LLC. ASC asserts that the purpose of the Agreement is to permit ASC to provide transmission service to Holland Energy, LLC pursuant to Ameren's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, American Electric Power Services Corporation (AEPSC), as agent for Appalachian Power Company, Central Power and Light Company, Columbus Southern Power Company, Indiana Michigan Power Company, Kentucky Power Company, Kingsport Power Company, Ohio Power Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric Power Company, West Texas Utilities Company and Wheeling Power Company, submitted for filing a revised, integrated network operating agreement and network service agreement (the Agreement) between the AEP Operating Companies and Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (NTEC).
AEPSC requests and effective date of October 1, 2000 for the revised Agreement.
AEPSC states that a copy of the filing has been served on NTEC, Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation and the Public Utility Commission of Texas.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Doswell Limited Partnership (Doswell) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) the Second Amended and Restated Power Purchase Agreement between Doswell and Virginia Electric and Power Company, designated as Second Revised Service Agreement No. 1 under Doswell's existing market-based rate schedule (FERC Electric Tariff No. 1).
A copy of this filing was served upon Virginia Electric and Power Company.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Doswell Limited Partnership (Doswell) filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (the Commission) the Third Amended and Restated Power Purchase Agreement between Doswell and Virginia Electric and Power Company, designated as Original Service Agreement No. 2 under Doswell's existing market-based rate schedule (FERC Electric Tariff No. 1).
A copy of this filing was served upon Virginia Electric and Power Company.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) filed a Network Integration Transmission Service Agreement and a Network Operating Agreement between SCE&G Electric Transmission and SCE&G Merchant Function (Agreement), under which SCE&G Merchant Function will take transmission service pursuant to SCE&G Electric Transmission's Open Access Transmission Service Tariff in order to provide the transmission service necessary to allow SCE&G to provide power and energy to the City of Orangeburg, South Carolina (Orangeburg) pursuant to an agreement with Orangeburg under SCE&G's Negotiated Market Sales Tariff.
SCE&G has requested an effective date for this Agreement of May 1, 2001.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion Virginia Power) tendered for filing Notice of Termination of Service Agreement with Coastal Electric Services Company designated as First Revised Service No. 24 under FERC Electric Tariff, Original Volume No. 4.
Dominion Virginia Power respectfully requests a waiver of the Commission's regulations to permit an effective date of October 20, 2001, as requested by the customer.
Copies of the filing were served upon El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P., the Virginia State Corporation Commission and the North Carolina Utilities Commission.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company (SIGECO) tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule FPC No. 29, which is a contract between SIGECO and Alcoa Power Generating Inc. (APGI). In conformity with Order No. 614 SIGECO also tendered a canceled rate schedule sheet.
SIGECO respectfully requests that the Commission accept its filing and allow the cancellation to become effective as of November 15, 2001.
Copies of the filing were served upon APGI and the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Hardee Power Partners Limited (HPP) submitted an abbreviated rate filing in connection with amendments (Fifth Amendments) to two power sales agreements providing for the sale of electric capacity and associated energy to Seminole Electric Cooperative, Inc. (Seminole) and Tampa Electric Company (Tampa Electric), the rates under which were previously accepted by the Commission.
HPP requests waiver of the Commission's sixty (60) day notice requirements and an effective date of February 1, 2001.
HPP has served copies of the filing on Seminole, Tampa Electric and the Florida Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Colton Power, L.P. (Colton) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission), in compliance with Section 205(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) and Section 35.1(a) of the Commission's Regulations, the Master Power Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated April 23, 2001 between the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) and the Applicant's predecessor, Alliance Colton LLC (Alliance-Colton)
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 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 September 14, 2001, Eagle Point Cogeneration Partnership (Eagle Point), a New Jersey general partnership with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations.
Eagle Point owns and operates an approximate 225 MW natural gas-fired, combined-cycle, independent power production facility in Westville, County of West Deptford, New Jersey (the Facility). Electric energy produced by the Facility will be sold by Eagle Point to the wholesale power market in the PJM.
Take notice that, on September 13, 2001, Cambridge Electric Light Company (Cambridge) filed an Interim Refund Report in the referenced dockets.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico, and Southern California Edison Company tendered for filing the First Addendum to the Funding Agreement for the Development of a Satellite Switchyard to the ANPP High Voltage Switchyard Between Participating Interconnectors and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Illinois Power Company (Illinois Power), 500 South 27th Street, Decatur, Illinois 65251-2200, filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) service agreement designations as required by the Commission's Order No. 614 and the Letter Order issued on August 22, 2001 in these dockets.
Take notice that on September 13, 2001, PacifiCorp tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) in accordance with 18 CFR Part 35 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, a request to withdraw PacifiCorp's filing under FERC Docket No. ER01-2292-000 and to terminate all future actions under this docket.
Copies of this filing were supplied to the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission and the Public Utility Commission of Oregon.
Take notice that on September 13, 2001, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (PJM) tendered for filing an amendment to section 15.2 of the Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. (Operating Agreement). The proposed amendment clarifies that PJM Members that pay a Weighed Interest assessment shall be creditors of the defaulting PJM Member causing the assessment. Additionally, the proposal establishes a mechanism for the PJM Members to appoint PJM as their agent for collection.
PJM requests that the amendments be made effective on September 14, 2001.
Copies of this filing were served upon all PJM members, each state electric utility regulatory commission and each State Consumer Advocate in the PJM control area.
Take notice that on September 13, 2001, Western Resources, Inc. (WR) tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a Service Agreement between WR and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. (WPSC) and a Service Agreement between WR and the American Municipal Power—Ohio (AMP). WR states that the purpose of these agreements is to permit WPSC and AMP to take service under WR's Market Based Power Sales Tariff on file with the Commission.
These agreements are proposed to be effective August 13, 2001.
Copies of the filing were served upon WPSC, AMP and the Kansas Corporation Commission.
Take notice that on September 13, 2001, the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (Midwest ISO) tendered for filing its Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreement as Attachment R to the Midwest ISO Open Access Transmission Tariff.
The Midwest ISO requests that the amendments become effective November 13, 2001.
Copies of this filing were electronically served upon Midwest ISO Members, Member representatives of Transmission Owners and Non-Transmission Owners, the Midwest ISO Advisory Committee participants, Policy Subcommittee participants, as well as all state commissions within the region.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCS), acting on behalf of Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah Electric and Power Company (collectively referred to as Southern Company), filed the following service agreements under the Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff) of Southern Company (FERC Electric Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 5): (I) one (1) long-term firm point-to-point transmission service agreement between SCS, as agent for Southern Company, and Southern Company Generation and Energy Marketing (OASIS Requests 178070, 178071, 178072, 178073); (II) two (2) short-term firm point-to-point transmission service agreements between SCS, as agent for Southern Company, and the following entities: (i) Entergy-Koch Trading, LP and (ii) Topaz Energy Associates, LLC; and (III) two (2) non-firm point-to-point transmission service agreements between SCS, as agent for Southern Company and the following entities: (i) Entergy-Koch Trading, LP and (ii) Topaz Energy Associates, LLC.
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Eagle Point Cogeneration Partnership (Eagle Point), filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for approval of its initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 1), and for blanket approval for market-based rates pursuant to Part 35 of the Commission's regulations.
Eagle Point is a partnership that owns and operates a 225-MW generating plant
Take notice that on September 14, 2001, Cedar Brakes III, L.L.C. (CBIII), filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) an application for approval of its initial rate schedule (FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 1), and for blanket approval for market-based rates pursuant to Part 35 of the Commission's regulations.
CBIII is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware. CBIII does not own any generating facilities.
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 http://www.ferc.gov using the “RIMS” link, select “Docket#” and follow the instructions (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2001.
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1597.04 and OMB Control No. 2050-0145, to the following addresses: Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
For a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone at (202) 260-2740, by E-mail at
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1597.04 and OMB Control No. 2050-0145 in any correspondence.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2001.
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1051.08 and OMB Control No. 2060-0025, to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at (202) 260-4901, by email at
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1051.08 and OMB Control No. 2060-0025 in any correspondence.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2001.
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1702.03 and OMB Control No. 2060-0302 to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, D.C. 20460-0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20503.
For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at (202) 260-4901, by E-mail at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1702.03 and OMB Control No. 2060-0302 in any correspondence.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 25, 2001.
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1011.05 and OMB Control No. 2070-0070, to the following addresses: Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code: 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone on (202) 260-2740, by e-mail:
Responses to the collection of information are mandatory. The TSCA Inventory Update Rule requires the submission of information on mostly organic chemicals produced or imported in volumes greater than 10,000 pounds per year (see 40 CFR part 710). Respondents may claim all or part of a notice confidential. EPA will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures in TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.
The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the information collection activity and the corresponding burden estimate, which is only briefly summarized here.
According to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 1320.12, EPA has submitted this ICR to OMB for review and approval. Any comments related to the renewal of this ICR should be submitted within 30 days of this notice, as described above.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2001.
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 0186.09 and OMB Control No. 2060-0071, to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15. The
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the above addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 0186.09 and OMB Control No. 2060-0071 in any correspondence.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2001.
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1445.05 and OMB Control No. 2050-0086, to the following addresses: Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
For a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone at (202) 260-2740, by E-mail at
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1445.05 and OMB Control No. 2050-0086 in any correspondence.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2001.
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1189.09 and OMB Control No. 2050-0053, to the following addressees: Sandy Farmer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.
For a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone at (202) 260-2740, by E-mail at
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the addresses listed above. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1189.09 and OMB Control No. 2050-0053 in any correspondence.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before October 25, 2001.
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 0661.07 and OMB Control No. 2060-0002, to the following addresses: Susan Auby, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division (Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20460-0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503.
For a copy of the ICR contact Susan Auby at EPA by phone at (202) 260-2740, by email at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR Number 0661.07 and OMB Control Number 2060-0002, in any correspondence.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP).
Submission for OMB review; Comment request.
The ONDCP has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for proposes to collect information to test the awareness, attitudes and willingness of adults 18 years and older to participate in community anti-drug coalitions.
The National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is a component within the ONDCP that is partnering with the Advertising Council to create a public service campaign that will generate awareness and involvement in local community anti-drug coalitions that mobilize communities to engage in drug prevention measures. To assist the development of the public service campaign, ONDCP proposes to obtain information to sample the awareness, attitudes and willingness of adults 18 years of age and older in order to participate in community anti-drug coalitions. The information will be used to establish a baseline for measuring changes in attitudes and awareness as a result of the public service campaign, and provide data for formative and qualitative evaluation activities. It will assess the public's exposure to and recall of advertising (within a donated media model), and measure change in attitudes about drug prevention and community anti-drug coalitions.
The agency has particular interest in comments on the following issues:
Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; methods to enhance quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and, the means to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques.
To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, please contact Terry Zobeck at (202) 395-5503. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to Lauren Wittenberg, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Alan Levitt, Director for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, directed the preparation of this notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506).
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that
Written comments should be submitted on or before November 26, 2001. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 1-A804, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to lesmith@fcc.gov.
For additional information or copies of the information collections contact Les Smith at (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at lesmith@fcc.gov.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
This document provides notice of the initiation of a cost review proceeding for residential and single-line business subscriber line charge (SLC) caps. Price cap local exchange carriers are directed to file, and parties may provide comment on, cost information so the Commission can determine the appropriate SLC cap.
Cost submissions due October 17, 2001.
Comments due November 14, 2001.
Reply comments due November 28, 2001.
Jennifer McKee, Common Carrier Bureau, Competitive Pricing Division, (202) 418-1530.
On May 31, 2000, the Commission released an order that adopted an integrated interstate access reform and universal service proposal put forth by the members of the Coalition for Affordable Local and Long Distance Service (CALLS).
[W]e shall review any increases to residential and single-line business SLC caps above $5.00 to verify that any such increases are appropriate and reflect higher costs where they are to be applied. We will initiate and complete a cost review proceeding prior to any scheduled increases above this cap taking effect to determine the appropriate SLC cap. For this proceeding, the price cap [local exchange carriers (LECs)] have agreed to provide, and we will examine, forward-looking cost information associated with the provision of retail voice grade access to the public switched telephone network. We will address in that proceeding whether an increase in the SLC cap above $5.00 is warranted and, if not, whether a decrease in common line charges is warranted.
This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
Price cap LECs shall file their cost information no later than October 17, 2001. Interested parties may file comments no later than November 14, 2001. Reply comments may be filed no later than November 28, 2001. When filing cost information and comments, please reference CC Docket Nos. 96-262 and 94-1.
An original and four copies of all cost information, comments and reply comments must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room TW-A225, Washington, DC 20554. In addition, one copy of each submission must be filed with Qualex International, the Commission's duplicating contractor, at its office at Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, and one copy with the Chief, Competitive Pricing Division, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A225, Washington, DC 20554.
Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that at 9:13 a.m. on Friday, September 21, 2001, the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation met in closed session to consider matters relating to the Corporation's corporate, supervisory, and receivership activities.
In calling the meeting, the Board determined, on motion of Director Ellen S. Seidman (Director, Office of Thrift Supervision), seconded by Director John M. Reich (Appointive), concurred in by Director John D. Hawke, Jr. (Comptroller of the Currency), and Chairman Donald E. Powell, that Corporation business required its consideration of the matters on less than seven days' notice to the public; that no earlier notice of the meeting was practicable; that the public interest did not require consideration of the matters in a meeting open to public observation; and that the matters could be considered in a closed meeting by authority of subsections (c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (c)(9)(B), and (c)(10) of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (c)(9)(A)(ii), (C)(9)(B), and (c)(10).
The meeting was held in the Board Room of the FDIC Building located at 550—17th Street, NW., Washington, DC.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
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 22, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 20, 2001.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 11, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 20, 2001.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
11 a.m., Monday, October 1, 2001.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Contact Person for More Information: Michelle A. Smith, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an
Notice is hereby given that I have delegated to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with authority to redelegate, the authorities vested in the Surgeon General of the Public Health Service under 42 CFR part 70—Interstate Quarantine.
This delegation shall be exercised under the Department of Health and Human Service's existing delegation of authority and policy on regulations.
This delegation became effective upon date of signature. In addition, I have affirmed and ratified any actions taken by the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or his subordinates which involved the exercise of the authorities delegated herein prior to the effective date of the delegation.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by November 26, 2001.
Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/oc/dockets/edockethome.cfm. Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Karen Nelson, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
FDA regulations require the distribution of patient labeling, called Medication Guides, for certain prescription human drug and biological products used primarily on an outpatient basis that pose a serious and significant public health concern requiring distribution of FDA-approved patient medication information. These Medication Guides inform patients about the most important information they should know about these products in order to use them safely and effectively. Included are information such as the drug's approved uses, contraindications, adverse drug reactions, and cautions for specific populations, with a focus on why the particular product requires a Medication Guide. These regulations are intended to improve the public health by providing information necessary for patients to use certain medication safely and effectively.
The regulations contain the following reporting requirements that are subject to the PRA. The estimates for the burden hours imposed by the following regulations are listed in table 1 of this document:
21 CFR 208.20—Applicants must submit draft Medication Guides for FDA approval according to the prescribed content and format.
21 CFR 314.70(b)(3)(ii) and 601.12(f)—Application holders must submit changes to Medication Guides to FDA for prior approval as supplements to their applications.
21 CFR 208.24(e)—Each authorized dispenser of a prescription drug product for which a Medication Guide is required, when dispensing the product to a patient or to a patient's agent, must provide a Medication Guide directly to each patient unless an exemption applies under § 208.26 (21 CFR 208.26).
Section 208.26(a)—Requests may be submitted for exemption or deferral from particular Medication Guide content or format requirements.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Submit written comments on the collection of information by October 25, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW., rm. 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Wendy Taylor, Desk Officer for FDA.
Karen L. Nelson, Office of Information Resources Management (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-1482.
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Under section 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 355(a)), a new drug may not be commercially marketed in the United States, imported, or exported from the United States, unless an approval of an application filed with FDA under section 505(b) or 505(j) of the act is effective with respect to such drug. Section 505(b) and 505(j) of the act requires a sponsor to submit to FDA a new drug application (NDA) containing, among other things, full reports of investigations that show whether or not the drug is safe and effective for use, a full list of articles used as components in the drug, a full description of manufacturing methods, samples of the drugs required, specimens of the labeling proposed to be used, and certain patent information as applicable. Under the act, it is the sponsor's responsibility to provide the information needed by FDA to make a scientific and technical determination that the product is safe and effective.
This information collection approval request is for all information requirements under part 314 that are imposed on sponsors who apply for approval of a new drug application in order to market or to continue to market a drug.
Section 314.50(a) requires that an application form (Form FDA 356h) be submitted that includes introductory information about the drug as well as a checklist of enclosures.
Section 314.50(b) requires that an index is submitted with the archival copy of the application and that it references certain sections of the application.
Section 314.50(c) requires that a summary of the application be submitted that presents a good general synopsis of all the technical sections and other information in the application.
Section 314.50(d) requires that the NDA contain the following technical sections about the new drug: Chemistry, manufacturing, and controls; nonclinical pharmacology and toxicology; human pharmacokinetics and bioavailability; microbiology; clinical data; and statistical.
Section 314.50(e) requires the applicant to submit samples of the drug if requested by FDA. In addition, the archival copy of the application must include copies of the label and all labeling for the drug.
Section 314.50(f) requires that case report forms and tabulations be submitted with the archival copy.
Section 314.50(h) requires that patent information, as described under § 314.53, be submitted with the application.
Section 314.50(i) requires that patent certification information be submitted in section 505(b)(2) of the act applications for patents claiming the drug, drug product, method of use, or method of manufacturing.
Section 314.50(j) requires that applicants that request a period of marketing exclusivity submit certain information with the application.
Section 314.50(k) requires that an archival, review, and field copy of the application be submitted.
Section 314.52 requires that notice of certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent to patent holders and NDA holders be sent by section 505(b)(2) of the act applicants.
Section 314.54 sets forth the content requirements for applications filed under section 505(b)(2) of the act.
Section 314.60 sets forth reporting requirements for sponsors who amend an unapproved application.
Section 314.65 states that the sponsor must notify FDA when withdrawing an unapproved application.
Sections 314.70 and 314.71 require that supplements be submitted to FDA
Section 314.72 requires sponsors to report to FDA any transfer of ownership of an application.
Section 314.80(c)(1) and (c)(2) sets forth requirements for expedited adverse drug experience postmarketing reports and followup reports, as well as for periodic adverse drug experience postmarketing reports (Form FDA 3500A). (The burden hours for § 314.80(c)(1) and (c)(2) are already approved by OMB under control numbers 0910-0230 and 0910-0291 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.80(i) establishes recordkeeping requirements for reports of postmarketing adverse drug experiences. (The burden hours for § 314.80(i) are already approved by OMB under control numbers 0910-0230 and 0910-0291 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.81(b)(1) requires that field alert reports be submitted to FDA (Form FDA 3331).
Section 314.81(b)(2) requires that annual reports be submitted to FDA (Form FDA 2252).
Section 314.81(b)(3)(i) requires that drug advertisements and promotional labeling be submitted to FDA (Form FDA 2253).
Section 314.81(b)(3)(iii) sets forth reporting requirements for sponsors who withdraw an approved drug product from sale. (The burden hours for § 314.81(b)(3)(iii) are already approved by OMB under control number 0910-0045 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.90 sets forth requirements for sponsors who request waivers from FDA for compliance with §§ 314.50 through 314.81. (The information collection hour burden estimate for NDA waiver requests is included in table 1 of this document under estimates for §§ 314.50, 314.60, 314.70, and 314.71).
Section 314.93 sets forth requirements for submitting a suitability petition in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and 10.30. (The burden hours for § 314.93 are already approved by OMB under control number 0910-0183 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.94(a) and (d) requires that an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) contain the following information: Application form; table of contents; basis for ANDA submission; conditions of use; active ingredients; route of administration, dosage form, and strength; bioequivalence; labeling; chemistry, manufacturing, and controls; samples; and patent certification.
Section 314.95 requires that notice of certification of invalidity or noninfringement of a patent to patent holders and NDA holders be sent by ANDA applicants.
Section 314.96 sets forth requirements for amendments to an unapproved ANDA.
Section 314.97 sets forth requirements for submitting supplements to an approved ANDA for changes that require FDA approval.
Section 314.98(a) sets forth postmarketing adverse drug experience reporting and recordkeeping requirements for ANDAs. (The burden hours for § 314.98(a) are already approved by OMB under control numbers 0910-0230 and 0910-0291 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.98(c) requires other postmarketing reports for ANDAs: Field alert reports (Form FDA 3331), annual reports (Form FDA 2252), and advertisements and promotional labeling (Form FDA 2253). (The information collection hour burden estimate for field alert reports is included in table 1 of this document under § 314.81(b)(1); the estimate for annual reports is included under § 314.81(b)(2); the estimate for advertisements and promotional labeling is included under § 314.81(b)(3)(i)).
Section 314.99(a) requires that sponsors comply with certain reporting requirements for withdrawing an unapproved ANDA and for a change in ownership of an ANDA.
Section 314.99(b) sets forth requirements for sponsors who request waivers from FDA for compliance with §§ 314.92 through 314.99. (The information collection hour burden estimate for ANDA waiver requests is included in table 1 of this document under estimates for §§ 314.94(a) and (d), 314.96, and 314.97).
Section 314.101(a) states that if FDA refuses to file an application, the applicant may request an informal conference with FDA and request that the application be filed over protest.
Section 314.107(c)(4) requires notice to FDA by ANDA or section 505(b)(2) of the act application holders of any legal action concerning patent infringement.
Section 314.107(e)(2)(iv) requires that an applicant submit a copy of the entry of the order or judgment to FDA within 10 working days of a final judgment.
Section 314.107(f) requires that ANDA or section 505(b)(2) of the act applicants notify FDA of the filing of any legal action filed within 45 days of receipt of the notice of certification. A patent owner may also notify FDA of the filing of any legal action for patent infringement. The patent owner or approved application holder who is an exclusive patent licensee must submit to FDA a waiver that waives the opportunity to file a legal action for patent infringement.
Section 314.110(a)(3) and (a)(4) states that, after receipt of an FDA approvable letter, an applicant may request an opportunity for a hearing on the question of whether there are grounds for denying approval of the application. (The burden hours for § 314.110(a)(3) and (a)(4) are included under parts 10 through 16 (21 CFR parts 10 through 16) hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.110(a)(5) states that, after receipt of an approvable letter, an applicant may notify FDA that it agrees to an extension of the review period so that it can determine whether to respond further.
Section 314.110(b) states that, after receipt of an approvable letter, an ANDA applicant may request an opportunity for a hearing on the question of whether there are grounds for denying approval of the application. (The burden hours for § 314.110(b) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.120(a)(3) states that, after receipt of a not approvable letter, an applicant may request an opportunity for a hearing on the question of whether there are grounds for denying approval of the application. (The burden hours for § 314.120(a)(3) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.120(a)(5) states that, after receipt of a not approvable letter, an applicant may notify FDA that it agrees to an extension of the review period so that it can determine whether to respond further.
Section 314.122(a) requires that an ANDA or a suitability petition that relies on a listed drug that has been voluntarily withdrawn from sale must be accompanied by a petition seeking a determination whether the drug was withdrawn for safety or effectiveness reasons. (The burden hours for § 314.122(a) are already approved by OMB under control number 0910-0183
Section 314.122(d) sets forth requirements for relisting petitions for unlisted discontinued products. (The burden hours for § 314.122(d) are already approved by OMB under control number 0910-0183 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.126(c) sets forth requirements for a petition to waive criteria for adequate and well-controlled studies. (The burden hours for § 314.126(c) are already approved by OMB under control number 0910-0183 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.151(a) and (b) sets forth requirements for the withdrawal of approval of an ANDA and the applicant's opportunity for a hearing and submission of comments. (The burden hours for § 314.151(a) and (b) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.151(c) sets forth the requirements for withdrawal of approval of an ANDA and the applicant's opportunity to submit written objections and participate in a limited oral hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.151(c) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.152(b) sets forth the requirements for suspension of an ANDA when the listed drug is voluntarily withdrawn for safety and effectiveness reasons, and the applicant's opportunity to present comments and participate in a limited oral hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.152(b) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.161(b) and (e) sets forth the requirements for submitting a petition to determine whether a listed drug was voluntarily withdrawn from sale for safety or effectiveness reasons. (The burden hours for § 314.161(b) and (e) are already approved by OMB under control number 0910-0183 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.200(c), (d), and (e) requires that applicants or others subject to a notice of opportunity for a hearing who wish to participate in a hearing file a written notice of participation and request for a hearing as well as the studies, data, and so forth, relied on. Other interested persons may also submit comments on the notice. This section also sets forth the content and format requirements for the applicants' submission in response to notice of opportunity for hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.200(c), (d), and (e) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.200(f) states that participants in a hearing may make a motion to the presiding officer for the inclusion of certain issues in the hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.200(f) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.200(g) states that a person who responds to a proposed order from FDA denying a request for a hearing provide sufficient data, information, and analysis to demonstrate that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact which justifies a hearing. (The burden hours for § 314.200(g) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document.)
Section 314.420 states that an applicant may submit to FDA a drug master file in support of an application, in accordance with certain content and format requirements.
Section 314.430 states that data and information in an application are disclosable under certain conditions, unless the applicant shows that extraordinary circumstances exist. (The burden hours for § 314.430 are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.530(c) and (e) states that, if FDA withdraws approval of a drug approved under the accelerated approval procedures, the applicant has the opportunity to request a hearing and submit data and information. (The burden hours for § 314.530(c) and (e) are included under the parts 10 through 16 hearing regulations, in accordance with § 314.201, and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Section 314.530(f) requires that an applicant first submit a petition for stay of action before requesting an order from a court for a stay of action pending review. (The burden hours for § 314.530(f) are already approved by OMB under control number 0910-0194 and are not included in the hour burden estimates in table 1 of this document).
Respondents to this collection of information are all persons who submit an application or abbreviated application or an amendment or supplement to FDA under part 314 to obtain approval of a new drug, and any person who owns an approved application or abbreviated application.
In the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance entitled “Q7A Good Manufacturing Practice Guidance for Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients.” The guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The guidance describes current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) for manufacturing of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs). The guidance is intended to help ensure that all APIs meet the standards for quality and purity they purport or are represented to possess.
The guidance is effective September 25, 2001. Submit written or electronic comments on agency guidances at any time.
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Drug Information Branch (HFD-210), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; or the Office of Communication, Training and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-3844, FAX 888-CBERFAX. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist the office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. Requests and comments should be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. See the
Regarding the guidance: Edwin Rivera, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-320), Food and Drug Administration, 7520 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-0095, Rivera@cder.fda.gov, or John A. Eltermann, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-670), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-3031, Eltermann@cber.fda.gov.
Regarding the ICH: Janet J. Showalter, Office of Health Affairs (HFY-20), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-0864.
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations, the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA). The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, the Canadian Health Protection Branch, and the European Free Trade Area.
In accordance with the agency’s good guidance practices (GGPs) regulation (21 CFR 10.115), this document is being called a guidance, rather than a guideline.
To facilitate the process of making ICH guidances available to the public, the agency has changed its procedures
In the
After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and endorsed by the three participating regulatory agencies in November 2000.
The guidance describes CGMPs for the manufacturing of APIs. The guidance is intended to help ensure that all APIs meet the standards for quality and purity they purport or are represented to possess. The guidance is not intended to define registration or filing requirements or modify pharmacopeial requirements.
In the guidance, “manufacturing” includes all operations, and related controls, of receipt of materials, production, packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling, quality control, release, storage, and distribution of APIs. The guidance applies to the manufacture of APIs for use in human drug products, including sterile APIs up to the point immediately before the API is rendered sterile. The sterilization and aseptic processing of sterile APIs are not covered by this guidance. CGMP's described in the guidance should be applied to the API manufacturing process beginning with the use of API starting materials.
The guidance applies to APIs that are manufactured by chemical synthesis, extraction, cell culture/fermentation, recovery from natural sources, or any combination of these processes. APIs manufactured using blood or plasma as raw materials are also covered.
The guidance does not apply to vaccines, whole cells, whole blood and plasma, blood and plasma derivatives (plasma fractionation), and gene therapy APIs. The guidance does not apply to cell substrates, medical gases, bulk-packaged drug products, and manufacturing/control aspects specific to radiopharmaceuticals.
This guidance represents the agency's current thinking on CGMPs for manufacturing APIs. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written or electronic comments on the guidance at any time. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at either http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/cber/publications.htm.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “Q1D Bracketing and Matrixing Designs for Stability Testing of Drug Substances and Drug Products.” The draft guidance was prepared under the auspices of the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). This draft guidance is an annex to an ICH draft guidance entitled “Q1A(R) Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products,” that published in the
Submit written or electronic comments on the draft guidance by November 26, 2001.
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Drug Information Branch (HFD-210), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857; or the Office of Communication, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance (HFM-40), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448, 301-827-3844, FAX 888-CBERFAX. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist the office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the draft guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to http://www.fda.gov/dockets/ecomments. See the
In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to
ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for tripartite harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan, and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA). The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World Health Organization, the Canadian Health Protection Branch, and the European Free Trade Area.
In accordance with FDA's good guidance practices (GGPs) regulation (21 CFR 10.115), this document is being called a guidance, rather than a guideline.
To facilitate the process of making ICH guidances available to the public, the agency has changed its procedure for publishing ICH guidances. As of April 2000, FDA no longer includes the text of ICH guidances in the
In November 2000, the ICH Steering Committee agreed that an ICH draft guidance entitled “Q1D Bracketing and Matrixing Designs for Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Drug Products” should be made available for public comment. The draft guidance is the product of the Quality Expert Working Group of the ICH. Comments about this draft will be considered by FDA and the Quality Expert Working Group.
ICH Q1A(R) notes that, if justified, the use of two types of reduced stability study designs (i.e., bracketing and matrixing) can be applied to the testing of new drug substances and products, but ICH Q1A(R) provides no further guidance on the subject. This draft guidance (ICH Q1D) describes the principles for applying bracketing or matrixing in situations where further justification is or is not important. Design factors and other considerations are presented, and potential risks of using reduced designs are discussed. Sample designs are provided as illustrations.
This draft guidance represents the agency’s current thinking on reduced stability testing of new drug substances and products. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments on the draft guidance by November 26, 2001. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The draft guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm or http://www.fda.gov/cber/publications.htm.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of two new drug applications (NDAs) held by Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 901 Sawyer Rd., Marietta, GA 30062. In 1997, the agency informed Solvay of its intention to assess the validity of data and information in all of Solvay's pending and approved applications. However, Solvay does not intend to conduct validity assessments of the two NDAs named in this notice because the products are no longer marketed. Solvay has agreed to permit FDA to withdraw approval of the applications, thereby waiving its opportunity for a hearing.
Effective September 25, 2001.
David Read, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-594-2041.
Recently, FDA determined that Solvay submitted untrue statements of material fact in several applications filed with the agency. These findings, along with other information submitted to the agency by Solvay, provided sufficient justification to question the reliability of data in all of Solvay's applications filed with the agency. Solvay was notified in writing of the agency's determinations and its intention to assess the validity of the data and information in all of Solvay's pending and approved applications. The agency offered Solvay the opportunity to permit FDA to withdraw approval, under § 314.150(d) (21 CFR 314.150(d)), of any application not undergoing a validity assessment.
Subsequently, in letters dated February 29, 2000, Solvay requested withdrawal under § 314.150(d) of the following NDAs held by Solvay:
NDA 16-782; Lithonate (lithium carbonate tablets USP) 300 milligrams (mg); and
NDA 16-980; Lithotabs (lithium carbonate tablets USP) 300 mg.
Therefore, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(e)) and under authority
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 concerning opportunity for public comment on proposed collections of information, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the information collection plans, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (301) 443-7978.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
—(OMB No. 0930-0203, Revision)—The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) is conducting an assessment of its National Leadership Institute (NLI). The goal underlying the technical assistance and training opportunities provided through the NLI is to strengthen the competitive position of nonprofit community-based organizations (CBOs) which are essential components of local substance abuse services for the uninsured and under-insured.
Both a process and an impact assessment are being conducted. The process assessment describes the needs faced by CBOs, the types of training and technical assistance that CBOs receive through the NLI, and CBO satisfaction with services. The impact assessment focuses on specific changes made by CBOs in response to NLI recommendations, and improvements in self-rated organizational performance and several organization status measures.
The assessment design for technical assistance is a pre-post-post design that collects identical information from the TA recipient organizations at initiation of NLI contact and again after 12 and 24 months. These time frames are necessary to allow CBOs the opportunity to address NLI technical assistance recommendations and to plan and implement their changes. In addition, the assessment collects satisfaction measures from the TA recipient organization after each technical assistance event and at 12 and 24 months after the initial TA event.
The training component of NLI is also a pre-post-post design. Participants complete a brief questionnaire prior to receiving either onsite or online training, as well as immediately upon completion of the training. Training participants are also sent a 30-day follow-up questionnaire in the mail. With the introduction of online training, the 30-day follow-up may be submitted via e-mail, as well.
Most of the evaluation forms for both TA and training are undergoing minor revisions. The Organizational Self-Assessment and the 12-Month Follow-Up Organizational Self-Assessment will be revised to eliminate some of the items that were confusing to respondents and to capture some key indicators that will be more useful to TA providers and for evaluation purposes. The Activity Summary will be revised to better capture GPRA data and to better record the nature of the recommendations an agency receives from a TA provider. There will not be substantial changes to any of the TA-related satisfaction forms.
The training forms are undergoing minor revisions that include rewording and the addition and/or deletion of questions to tailor the instrument to persons who participate in NLI's online training.
This request is also to extend OMB clearance to 2005 to allow for a continued assessment of the NLI's services. NLI anticipates receiving inquiries from 80 CBOs per year over the next three years, for a total of 240 programs. NLI anticipates receiving requests for technical assistance from 70 CBOs per year over the next three years, for a total of 210 programs. Data collection burden is borne primarily by directors of the CBOs who provide initial contact information (3 minutes), pre- and post-test versions of organizational self-assessments (75 minutes each), satisfaction forms (5 minutes each for 2 types of questionnaires), and activity summaries/telephone interviews (20 minutes). Finally, an estimated 500 individuals will attend NLI onsite training events and/or complete an online training course per year, for a total of 1,500 individuals. These individuals will receive a brief questionnaire prior to the training and satisfaction questionnaires immediately after the training, as well as 30 days after the training (5 minutes each).
The chart below summarizes the estimated total three-year burden and annual average burden.
Send comments to Nancy Pearce, SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer, Room 16-105, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a closed meeting of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory Council in September 2001.
The agenda of the meeting will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications. Therefore this meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, 10(d). If anyone needs special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please notify the contact listed below.
A roster of committee members may be obtained from Yuth Nimit, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, Rockwall II building, Suite 901, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-8455. Substantive program information may be obtained from the contact person listed below.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Public notice was given in the
Information regarding the next meeting of the Council may be obtained from:
Cynthia Graham, 5600 Fishers Lane, RW II, Ste 618, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-8923; FAX: (301) 480-6077. E-mail: cgraham@samhsa.gov.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Extension of application due dates.
This notice extends by 15 business days the application due date for the designation of seven Round III Empowerment Zones (EZs), from September 28, 2001, to October 22, 2001. This notice also extends the application due date for the designation of 40 Renewal Communities (RCs) by 15 business days, from October 12, 2001, to November 2, 2001.
Completed applications (one original and 2 copies) for Round III EZ designation must be submitted no later than October 22, 2001. See below for specific procedures governing the form of application submission (
Information submitted electronically for Round III EZ designation using the RC/EZ On-Line Application System must be submitted not later than 5:00 PM, Eastern Time on October 22, 2001. This is done by hitting the “Submit” button at each appropriate location in the software. The system will not be available after the deadline.
Completed applications (one original and 2 copies) for RC designation must be submitted no later than November 2, 2001. See below for specific procedures governing the form of application submission (e.g., mailed application or hand delivery). No facsimile (FAX) applications will be accepted for consideration by HUD.
Information submitted electronically for RC designation using the RC/EZ On-line Application System must be submitted not later than 5:00 PM, Eastern Time on November 2, 2001. This is done by hitting the “Submit” button at the appropriate location in the software. The system will not be available after the deadline.
Address for submitting all applications. Completed paper applications (one original and two copies) for either Round III EZ designation or RC designation must be submitted to: Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development, c/o Processing and Control Unit, Room 7255, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, by mail or hand delivery.
The Round III EZ designation publications consist of:
• The Notice Inviting Applications for Round III EZ designation published on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37878);
• Urban Application Guide for Empowerment Zones Round III (Application Guide and Nomination forms);
• The Round II and Round III Rule at 24 CFR part 598;
• Tax Incentive Guide for Businesses in Renewal Communities, Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities; and
• Federal Programs Guide.
The Renewal Community publications consist of:
• The Notice Inviting Applications for RC designation published on August 7, 2001 (66 FR 41432);
• The Renewal Communities Interim Rule (24 CFR part 599);
• Renewal Communities Application Guide, 2001 (RC Application Guide); and
• Tax Incentive Guide for Businesses in the Renewal Communities, Empowerment Zones, and Enterprise Communities.
For technical questions relating to Round III EZ designation, contact Lisa Hill, Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community Initiative; for technical questions relating to RC designation, contact John Haines, Renewal Community Initiative; both with the Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 7130, Washington, DC 20410, (202) 708-6339. Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may call (800) 877-8339 (the Federal Information Relay Service—TTY).
The Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000 (CRTR Act) authorizes HUD to designate up to 40 Renewal Communities within which special tax incentives would be available. The CRTR Act also authorizes the designation of nine Round III Empowerment Zones (EZs). Seven of the Round III EZs are to be designated in urban areas by the Secretary of HUD. The remaining two Round III EZs are to be designated in rural areas by the Secretary of Agriculture.
On July 19, 2001, at 66 FR 37878, HUD published a Notice Inviting Applications for Round III EZ designation, with an application due date of September 28, 2001. A Notice Inviting Applications for RC designation was published on August 7, 2001 (66 FR 41432), with an application due date of October 26, 2001. Because of the widespread disruptions resulting from recent tragic events, HUD in this Notice is extending by 15 business days the application due dates for both the Round III EZ designations, to October 22, 2001, and the RC designations, to November 2, 2001.
While these extended due dates are available to all communities applying for RC or Round III EZ designations, many applicants may still be able to keep their schedules in meeting the original due dates and, to the extent feasible, HUD encourages them to do so.
Office of the Secretary, Interior.
Request for nominations for the Invasive Species Advisory Committee.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13112, the U.S. Department of the Interior, on behalf of the interdepartmental National Invasive Species Council, proposes to appoint new members to the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC). The Secretary of the Interior, acting as administrative lead, is requesting nominations for qualified persons to serve as members of the ISAC.
November 9, 2001.
Nominations should be sent to Lori Williams, Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council, 1951 Constitution Ave, NW, Room 320, Washington, DC 20240.
Kelsey Passé, Program Analyst, at (202) 208-6336, fax (202) 208-1526 or e-mail
The purpose and role of the ISAC is to provide advice to the Invasive Species Council (Council), as authorized by Executive Order 13112, on a broad array of issues including preventing the introduction of invasive species, providing for their control, and minimizing the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The Council is Co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce. The duty of the Council is to provide national leadership regarding invasive species issues. Pursuant to the Executive Order, the Council developed a National Invasive Species Management Plan. The Plan is available on the web at
The role of ISAC is to maintain an intensive and regular dialogue regarding the aforementioned issues. The ISAC provides advice in cooperation with stakeholders and existing organizations addressing invasive species. The ISAC meets up to four (4) times per year.
Terms for current members of the ISAC expire at the end of 2001. Current members of the ISAC are eligible for reappointment. The Secretary of the Interior will appoint members to the ISAC in consultation with the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce. The Secretary of Interior actively solicits new nominees to the ISAC. Members of the ISAC should be knowledgeable in and represent one or more of the following communities of interests: weed science; fisheries science; rangeland management; forest science; entomology; nematology; plant pathology; veterinary medicine; the broad range of farming or agricultural practices; biodiversity issues; applicable laws and regulations relevant to invasive species policy; risk assessment; biological control of invasive species; public health/epidemiology; industry activities, structure, and international trade; environmental education; ecosystem monitoring; natural resource database design and integration; internet-based management of conservation issues.
Members should also have practical experience in one or more of the following areas: representing sectors of the national economy that are significantly threatened by biological invasions (
Members of the ISAC and its subcommittees serve without pay. However, while away from their homes or regular places of business in the performance of services of the ISAC, members shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the same manner as persons employed intermittently in the government service, as authorized by section 5703 of Title 5, United States Code.
Nominations should be typed and should include the following:
1. A brief summary of no more than two (2) pages explaining the nominee's suitability to serve on the ISAC.
2. A resume or curriculum vitae.
3. Three (3) letters of reference.
Current members of the ISAC need only to submit a letter of support from the organization they are representing to be reconsidered for the next ISAC.
Nominations should be sent no later than forty-five days after the
To ensure that recommendations of the ISAC take into account the needs of the diverse groups served, the Department of the Interior is actively soliciting nominations of qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities and members of low income populations.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
The applicant requests a permit to import a female captive-bred giant otter (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The public is invited to comment on the following applications for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The applications were submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
Written data, comments, or requests for copies of these complete applications or requests for a public hearing on these applications should be submitted to the Director (address below) and must be received within 30 days of the date of this notice. Anyone requesting a hearing should give specific reasons why a hearing would be appropriate. The holding of such a hearing is at the discretion of the Director.
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203, telephone 703/358-2104 or fax 703/358-2281.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of document availability.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces the availability for public review of a Draft Supplement and Amendment to the 1998 Final Sonoran pronghorn (
Comments on the Draft Supplement and Amendment to the 1998 Final Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan must be received on or before November 26, 2001 to receive consideration by the Service.
Persons wishing to review the Draft Supplement and Amendment to the 1998 Final Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan may obtain a copy by accessing the Service's Arizona Ecological Service Field Office internet web page at
John Morgart (see
Restoring an endangered or threatened animal or plant species to the point where it is again a secure, self-sustaining member of its ecosystem is a primary goal of the Service's endangered species program. To help guide the recovery effort, the Service prepares recovery plans for most of the listed species native to the United States. Recovery plans describe actions considered necessary for conservation of species, establish criteria for the recovery levels for downlisting or delisting them, and estimate time and cost for implementing the recovery measures needed.
In a recent court decision (Civil Action No. 99-927 [ESH]), the judge ruled that the 1998 Final Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan “* * * fails to establish (1) objective measurable criteria which, when met, would result in a determination that the pronghorn may be removed from the list of endangered species or, if such criteria are not practicable, an explanation of that conclusion and (2) estimates of the time required to carry out those measures needed to achieve the plan's goal and to achieve intermediate steps toward that goal where practicable, or, if such estimates are not practicable, an explanation of that conclusion.” The Court has ordered the Service to reconsider these portions of the 1998 Final Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan. Deadline for completion of this task is November 30, 2001.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The Draft Supplement and Amendment to the 1998 Final Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan updates selected biological sections of the Recovery Plan, addresses the five listing factors mandated by Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, reassesses recovery criteria presented in the Final Recovery Plan, and where practicable, provides estimates of time necessary to carry out measures needed to effect recovery of Sonoran pronghorn as articulated in the Final Recovery Plan. The Draft Supplement and Amendment to the 1998 Final Recovery Plan was developed by the Service in coordination with an appointed Recovery Team that includes a group of scientists and agency biologists with expertise in the ecology of the Sonoran pronghorn. The Draft Supplement and Amendment to the Recovery Plan has undergone peer review by scientists, conservation biologists, range experts, and others experienced in reviewing recovery plans. This Draft Supplement and Amendment to the Recovery Plan incorporates their comments where applicable.
We solicit written comments on the Draft Supplement and Amendment to the 1998 Final Sonoran Pronghorn Recovery Plan. All comments received by the date specified above will be considered prior to approval of the plan.
The authority for this action is Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
On June 15, 2001, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 28, 2001, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
On June 14, 2001 a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 30, 2001, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972,
Documents and other information submitted for these applications are available for review by any party who submits a written request to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203, telephone (703) 358-2104 or fax (703) 358-2281.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has submitted for renewal the information collection for the Housing Assistance Application (1076-0084) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This program and the process of obtaining benefits are codified at 25 CFR Part 256. On May 10, 2001, the BIA published a notice in the
Submit comments on or before October 25, 2001.
Your comments and suggestions on the requirements should be made directly to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Desk Officer for Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget; 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503. Please provide a copy of your comments to June Henkel, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, MS-4660-MIB, Washington, D.C., 20240. Telephone: (202) 208-3667.
Copies of the renewal of collection of information and related self-explanatory form may be obtained by contacting June Henkel, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, MS-4660-MIB, Washington, D.C. 20240. E-mail:
The information is needed to establish whether an applicant is eligible to receive services under the HIP and to establish the priority order in which eligible applicants may receive services under the program. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
We specifically request your comments on the following:
1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the BIA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. The accuracy of the BIA's estimate of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and,
4. How to minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical or other forms of information technology.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Proposed Irrigation Operation and Maintenance Rate Adjustment.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) proposes to adjust the excess water rates assessed to customers of the Colorado River Irrigation Project for the 2001 irrigation season and subsequent years. We request your comments on the proposed rate adjustment.
Interested parties may submit comments on the proposed rate adjustment. Comments must be submitted on or before November 26, 2001.
All comments concerning the proposed rate adjustment must be in writing and addressed to: Director, Office of Trust Responsibilities, Attn.: Irrigation and Power, MS-3061-MIB, Code 210, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240.
Jeff Hikins, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Colorado River Agency, Rt. 1, Box 9-C, Parker, AZ 85334. Phone Number: (520) 669-7111.
You can contact the Colorado River Irrigation Project office at the location stated above or you can use the internet site for the Government Printing Office at
This notice is to notify you that we propose to adjust the irrigation assessment rates for one of our irrigation projects. We are publishing the notice in accordance with the BIA's regulations governing its operation and maintenance of irrigation projects, specifically, sections 171.1(e) and 171.1(f) of part 171, subchapter H, chapter I of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These sections provide for the fixing and announcing of the rates for annual operation and maintenance assessments and related information for BIA irrigation projects.
Our authority to issue this notice is vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 5 U.S.C. 301; the Act of August 14, 1914 (38 Stat. 583; 25 U.S.C. 385). The Secretary has in turn delegated this authority to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs in accordance with part 209 of the Department of the Interior's Departmental Manual, Chapter 8.1A and a memorandum dated January 25, 1994, from the Chief of Staff, Department of the Interior, to Assistant Secretaries, and Heads of Bureaus and Offices.
We calculate the assessment rate in accordance with section 171(f), subchapter H, chapter I of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations by estimating the cost of normal operation and maintenance at our irrigation project for which you receive service. Normal operation and maintenance means the expenses we incur to provide direct support or benefit for the irrigation project's activities for administration, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. These costs are then applied as stated in the rate table in this notice.
We include the following expenses:
(a) Personnel salary and benefits for the project engineer/manager and project employees under their management control;
(b) Materials and supplies;
(c) Major and minor vehicle and equipment repairs;
(d) Equipment, including transportation, fuel, oil, grease, lease and replacement;
(e) Capitalization expenses;
(f) Acquisition expenses;
(g) Maintenance of a reserve fund available for contingencies or emergency expenses for, and insuring, reliable operation of the irrigation system; and
(h) Other expenses we determine necessary to properly perform the activities and functions characteristic of an irrigation project.
We will mail you a bill for your irrigation assessment. You should pay your bill no later than the due date stated on the bill. The due date is normally based on locally established payment requirements at each of our projects.
We must obtain certain information from you to ensure we can properly process, bill for, and collect monies owed the United States. At a minimum, this information is:
(a) Full legal name of person or entity responsible for paying the bill;
(b) Adequate and correct address for mailing or hand delivering our bill; and
(c) The taxpayer identification number or social security number of the person or entity responsible for paying the bill.
We need to collect enough information to properly bill the responsible party and service the account. We are also required to collect
We can refuse to provide you service as prescribed in section 171.17(a), subchapter H, chapter I of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
If you do not pay your bill by the due date, you will receive a past due notice no less than 30 days after the due date. We have the right to refuse water delivery to any of your irrigated project land that the bill is past due. We can continue to refuse water delivery until you pay your bill or make payment arrangements that we agree to. Your bill will have additional information concerning your rights. Our authority to demand payment of your past due bill is the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31, Part 901.2, “Demand for payment.”
Yes. We will use the value of funds to the United States Treasury to calculate the interest you will be assessed beginning 30 days after the due date on your bill. Also, you will be charged an administrative fee of $12.50 for each time we try to collect your past due bill; and, should your bill become over 90 days past due, you will be assessed a penalty charge of 6 percent per year and it will accrue from the date your bill initially became past due. Our authority to assess interest, penalties, and administration fees on past due bills is prescribed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31, part 901.9, “Interest penalties, and administration costs.”
If you do not pay your bill or make payment arrangements that we agree to, we are required to forwarded your past due bill to the United States Treasury (Treasury) for further action. We must forward your bill to Treasury no later than 180 days after the original due date of your irrigation assessment bill. The requirement for us to do this is in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31, part 901.1, “Aggressive agency collection activity.”
The excess water assessment rates for the 2001 irrigation season and subsequent years is proposed to be decreased retroactively to July 1, 2001, for the current irrigation season. A review of the excess water collections indicates the rate can be reduced to better reflect the financial needs of the project. The first 0.5 acre-foot of excess water above the basic per acre allotment of 5.0 acre-feet of water per acre is proposed to be reduced to $7.40 per acre assessed. The assessment for additional excess water over the initial 0.5 acre-foot per acre is unchanged at $17.00 per acre-foot per acre. Consultations with the project water users and the Colorado River Indian Tribes (Tribes) have resulted in the proposed rate adjustment. We are not proposing to adjust the basic assessment charge which includes up to 5.0 acre-feet per acre at this time.
The following table illustrates the proposed rate adjustment:
The proposed rate adjustment was developed in consultation between the irrigators, the BIA and the Tribal Irrigation Committee (Committee). The Committee was established by the Tribes and maintains a membership appointed by the Tribal Council. During the March 2001, committee meeting, a budget subcommittee was appointed and tasked to specifically review the excess water rate and make recommendations to the Committee for proposed adjustments. The subcommittee developed a method and rate which would maintain an excess water rate consistent with the previously developed budget. The proposed rate was reviewed and approved by the Committee during their May 2001 meeting. On June 19, 2001, a meeting was held between the Tribes and the BIA. During the meeting the Tribes were informed of the proposed rate adjustment and the impacts associated with this adjustment. The Tribes agreed to the proposed adjustment to the excess water rate and a verifying letter was sent to the Tribes on July 3, 2001.
Throughout the process of reviewing the excess water rate the BIA has relied upon input and consultation with the Tribes through their Irrigation Committee and Water Resource Program activity, to develop an equitable rate for farmers, maximize water conservation and maintain sufficient funds for operation and maintenance of the project.
This is a notice for a rate adjustment at a BIA owned and operated irrigation project. This rate adjustment will have no significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increase use of foreign supplies) should the proposed rate adjustment be implemented.
This rate adjustment is not a significant regulatory action and does not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
This rate making is not a rule for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it is “a rule of particular applicability relating to rates.” 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2).
This rate adjustment imposes no unfunded mandates on any governmental or private entity and is in compliance with the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995.
The Department has determined that this rate adjustment does not have significant “takings” implications. The rate adjustment does not deprive the public, state, or local governments of rights or property.
The Department has determined that this rate adjustment does not have significant Federalism effects because it pertains solely to Federal-tribal relations and will not interfere with the roles, rights, and responsibilities of states.
In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order.
This rate adjustment does not affect the collections of information which have been approved by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The OMB Control Number is 1076-0141 and expires November 30, 2002.
The Department has determined that this rate adjustment does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and that no detailed statement is required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of approved tribal-State compact.
Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the
This action is effective September 25, 2001.
George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, Amarillo Field Office, Amarillo, Texas.
Public Lands Restrictions.
In accordance with Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations Section 8365.1-6, the State Director may establish supplementary rules in order to provide for the protection of persons, property and public lands and resources. Failure to comply with this supplementary rule will be punishable by a fine not to exceed $100,000 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months. The environmental effects of the proposed rule have been analyzed separately by Environmental Assessment 090-2001-002.
The supplemental rule will take effect with the publication of this Notice.
This supplemental rule was proposed to create a safer environment for the public utilizing the area in and around the public lands in Potter County, Texas. Uncontrolled shooting on the subject public lands in Potter County, Texas, creates a public health and safety hazard by firing solid projectile firearms, that have a long range, into and about a populated rural area. Portions of the area of concern receive heavy use by ranchers, oil and gas development personnel and BLM employees. This supplemental rule will prohibit the firing of any firearm. On those public lands administered by the BLM in Potter County, Texas, (Sections 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 48 in Block 5 of G. M. Survey; Sections 1, 3 and 4 in Block 4 of G.M. Survey; Sections 19, 21, 27, 29 and 35 of Block 21-W of G.C.&S.F.R.R. Survey) it is prohibited to fire any handgun, shotgun or rifle. Archery hunting (bow and arrow) will be allowed pursuant to State of Texas, Parks and Wildlife regulations. By prohibiting all gunfire a safer environment on both public and private lands will be created. During a thirty-day comment period on the proposal of this rule, no suggestions or comments were received. This rule only affects public lands administered by BLM. This special rule is in addition to existing rules and regulations previously established under Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations as well as other Federal laws applicable to the use of public lands.
Paul Tanner, Natural Resource Specialist, BLM Amarillo Field Office, 801 S. Fillmore Street, Suite 500, Amarillo, Texas 79101-3545, telephone (806) 324-2641.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of Availability for the Keechelus Dam Safety of Dams Modification, Yakima Project, Washington, Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), has prepared a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) examining the impacts of structural and nonstructural alternatives to correct safety deficiencies identified at Keechelus Dam.
The impacts of four alternatives that would correct safety deficiencies at Keechelus Dam, as well as the No Action Alternative are evaluated in this FEIS. The alternatives include: Modify Existing Dam (Preferred Alternative); Replace Existing Dam on New Alignment; Dam Breach; and Permanent Reservoir Restriction. The No Action Alternative is considered to be continued operation at the interim restriction to 2510 feet (7 feet below full pool), implemented in November 1998 to protect public safety. The impacts of the other alternatives were compared to the No Action Alternative.
The preferred alternative of modifying the dam would provide for the safe operation of Keechelus Dam and also maintain benefits from Keechelus Lake that include meeting existing contractual commitments for storage space for irrigators within the Yakima Project and controlling seasonal downstream flooding.
The FEIS includes all comment letters received on the DEIS and Reclamation's responses to those comments, as well as a summary of the comments from the public hearings. It also includes minor revisions and additions to the analysis as a result of review comments.
A Record of Decision (ROD) will be completed no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability of the FEIS in the
Copies of the FEIS are available for public inspection and review at the following locations:
• Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, Room 7455, 18th and C Streets NW, Washington, DC 20240.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office Library, Denver Federal Center, Building 67, Room 167, Denver, Colorado 80225.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 1150 North Curtis Road, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho 83706-1234.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Columbia Area Office, 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, Washington 98901.
Carpenter Memorial Library, 302 N Pennsylvania Ave., Cle Elum, WA 98922; (509) 674-2313.
Central Washington University Library, 700 E 8th Ave., Ellensburg WA 98926; (509) 963-1777.
Ellensburg Public Library, 209 N Ruby, Ellensburg WA 98926; (509) 962-7250.
Yakima Valley Regional Library, 102 N 3rd St, Yakima WA 98901; (509) 452-8541.
University of Washington Campus, Suzzallo Library, Government Publications Division, Seattle WA 98195; (206) 543-1937.
The FEIS is also available on the Internet at:
Mr. Dave Kaumheimer at (509) 575-5848, extension 232. Those wishing to obtain a copy of the FEIS in the form of a printed document or on compact disk (CD-ROM with reader included) or a Summary of the FEIS may contact Mr. Kaumheimer.
Keechelus Dam was completed in 1917 as part of Reclamation's Yakima Project, storing Yakima River water in central Washington for irrigation of part of 443,400 acres of prime farmland and for flood control. Recent investigations have shown that the wooden railroad trestle, used to deliver earth material and rocks while constructing the dam, has deteriorated, forming vertical paths where earthen materials within the dam can move, leaving voids in the dam. Examination of the seepage problems indicates the material is internally unstable and is subject to failure, with an associated potential for loss of life and property downstream. Because of the deficiencies identified, Keechelus Lake has been operated at a restricted pool elevation 7 feet below the normal full pool elevation of 2517 feet since November 1998, with increased monitoring and surveillance at the dam. This was identified as the No Action Alternative in the FEIS, and elevation 2510 was used in comparing impacts of the other alternatives.
The Safety of Dams Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-578) and amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-404) authorize the Secretary of the Interior to analyze existing Reclamation dams for changes in the state-of-the-art criteria and additional hydrologic and seismic data developed since the dams were constructed. For dams where a safety concern exists, the Secretary is authorized to modify the structure to ensure its continued safety. Section 3 of the Safety of Dams Act states that construction authorized by the Act shall be for dam safety and not for specific purposes of providing additional conservation storage capacity or developing benefits over and above those provided by the original dams and reservoirs.
The major issue identified during the review of the DEIS was that fish passage is not provided as part of any of the alternatives. Reclamation indicated during scoping that this was outside the scope of the project which is to correct safety deficiencies in order to protect life and property. In addition, neither authority or funding for fish passage is provided under the Safety of Dams Act. None of the alternatives preclude addition of fish passage in the future and this will be pursued under a separate planning action. An appendix discussing fish passage concerns has been added to the FEIS.
United States International Trade Commission.
Scheduling of an expedited five-year review concerning the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty order on clad steel plate from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. For further information concerning the conduct of this review and rules of general application, consult the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, part 201, subpart A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subpart A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
September 4, 2001.
Debra Baker (202-205-3180), Office of
On September 4, 2001, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party group response to its notice of institution (66 FR 29829, June 1, 2001) was adequate and the respondent interested party group response was inadequate. The Commission did not find any other circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review.
A staff report containing information concerning the subject matter of the review will be placed in the nonpublic record on October 1, 2001, and made available to persons on the Administrative Protective Order service list for this review. A public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to § 207.62(d)(4) of the Commission's rules.
As provided in § 207.62(d) of the Commission's rules, interested parties that are parties to the review and that have provided individually adequate responses to the notice of institution,
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the review must be served on all other parties to the review (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.
This review is being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to § 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
In accordance with Department of Justice policy codified at 28 CFR 50.7 and Section 122 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622, 42 U.S.C. 9622, notice is hereby given that on September 7, 2001, a proposed consent decree in
Under the terms of the consent decree, the Settling Defendants agree to pay a total of $110,000 ($45,000 for the claim under CERCLA Section 104(e), and $65,000 for the claims under CERCLA Section 107) with thirty (30) days of entry of the consent decree. In consideration for these payments, the Settling Defendants will receive a covenant not to sue for Site response costs and for the CERCLA Section 104(e) violations alleged in the United States' complaint. The Settling Defendants will also receive contribution protection for Site response costs.
For a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, the Department of Justice will receive comments related to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Acting Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States v. Dayton Power & Light Co., et al., Civil Action No. C-3-98-451; D.J. Ref. No. 90-11-2-1113A.
The consent decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, 602 Federal Building, 200 West 2nd Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402, and at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the consent decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.50 (22 pages at 25 cents per page reproduction cost).
In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Dep0artment of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Kentucky, 110 West Vine Street, Suite 400 Lexington, Kentucky (859) 233-2661 and the Region 4 Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303. A copy of the proposed consent decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. In requesting a copy please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $9.25 (25 cents per page reproduction costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree between the Surfrider Foundation and the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission was lodged with the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on September 12, 2001. The proposed Consent Decree concerns alleged violations of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at 2415 Dairy Mart Road, San Diego County, San Diego, California. The proposed Consent Decree would require the performance of certain environmental studies and evaluations relating to discharges of wastewater from the Plant.
The United States Department of Justice will receive written comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to S. Randall Humm, Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, Washington, D.C. 20026-3986, with copies provided to William A. Wilcox, Jr., International Boundary and Water Commission, Office of the Staff Counsel, 4171 No. Mesa Street; Suite C-310, El Paso, TX 79902, and should reference
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 4290 Edward J. Schwartz Federal Building, 880 Front Street, San Diego, California.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 1, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and BRDC intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 13, 1988, BRDC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 27, 2000. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 20, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 17, 2001. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 27, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project.
On August 6, 1999, General Electric Corporate Research and Development: Bulk Gallium Nitride and Homoepitaxial Device Manufacturing filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 16, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Management Service Providers Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 20, 2000, Management Service Providers Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 15, 2001. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 16, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Mobile Wireless Internet Forum intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 25, 2000, Mobile Wireless Internet Forum filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 13, 2001. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 22, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Industrial Technology Center, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA; PricewaterhouseCoopers AUTOFACTS, Detroit, MI; and SeeBeyond Technology Corporation, Redwood City, CA have been added as parties to this venture.
Also, Focused Research, Inc., Santa Clara, CA; Gougeon Brothers, Inc., Bay City, MI; H.R. Krueger Machine Tool, Inc., Farmington, MI; Kingsbury Corporation, Keene, NH, MAPAL, Inc., Piscataway, NJ; OMNEX Engineering & Management, Ann Arbor, MI; Six Sigma Qualtec, Tempe, AZ; Texas Instruments, Inc., Dallas, TX; and Winco, Inc., LeCenter, MN have been dropped as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 20, 1987, National Center for Manufacturing Sciences, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 15, 2001. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on July 25, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PCA intend to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On January 7, 1985, PCA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on April 18, 2001. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on March 23, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, two parties to this venture, Glaxo Wellcome Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC, and SmithKline Beecham Corporation, Philadelphia, PA have merged their membership into a single membership held by Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC. In addition, another party to this venture, Amersham Pharmacia Biotech Inc., Piscataway, NJ, has become a voting member in this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and TSC intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 20, 1999, TSC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published, a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on August 6, 2001, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Membership in this research group remains open, and the participants intend to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership or planned activities.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Darrin King on (202) 693-4129 or E-Mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: Stuart Shapiro, OMB Desk Officer for OSHA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Darrin King at (202) 693-4129 or E-Mail:
Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for ETA, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 ((202) 395-7316), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Labor.
Notice of extension of closing date.
The Employment and Training Administration is extending the closing date of the availability to fund demonstration grants to provide services aimed at youth who are or have been under criminal justice supervision or involved in gangs.
B. Jai Johnson, Grants Management Specialist, Division of Federal Assistance, Fax (202) 693-2879.
In the
“The closing date for receipt of the application is Tuesday, October 23, 2001 at 4:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) at the address listed.”
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of Meeting Location Change.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a change of location for the meeting of the U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission, Notice Number 01-110.
Thursday, October 4, 2001, 1 pm to 5 pm.
Ms. Beverly Farmarco, Code IW, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, 202/358-1903.
National Science Foundation.
Notice.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Written comments should be received by October 25, 2001, to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
Written comments regarding the information collection and requests for copies of the proposed information collection request should be addressed to Suzanne Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Rm. 295, Arlington, VA 22230, or by e-mail to
Suzanne Plimpton on (703) 292-7556 or send email to splimpto@nsf.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
The proposed continuing information collection involves the estimation of the expenditures on research and development performed within the United States by industrial firms. A mail survey, the Survey of industrial Research and Development, has been conducted annually since 1953. Industry accounts for over 70 percent of total U.S. R&D each year and since its inception, the survey has provided continuity of statistics on R&D expenditures by major industry groups and by source of funds. The survey is the industrial component of the NSF statistical programs that seeks to “* * * to provide a central clearinghouse for the collection, interpretation, and analysis of data on scientific and engineering resources and to provide a source of information for policy formulation by other agencies of the Federal government.” as mandated in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. Statistics from the survey are published in NSF's annual publication series Research and Development in Industry. The proposed collection will continue the survey for three years.
The survey will be mailed to a statistical sample of approximately 24,200 companies to collect information on the amount and sources of funds for and character of R&D performed and contracted out by industrial firms, and information on sales and employment of the firms themselves.
To minimize burden, over 90-percent of the companies selected for the Survey of Industrial Research and Development are asked to respond to the Form RD-1A, the abbreviated version of the basic survey questionnaire, Form RD-1. Further, only companies with five paid employees or more are asked to participate in the survey and extensive use is made of the descriptive codes and information on the establishment list that is the source of the survey sample to avoid sampling firms in industries that traditionally do not perform R&D. NSF, with input from the Bureau of the Census, the collection and compiling agent for the survey, estimates that the average annual reporting and record keeping burden on each Form RD-1A respondent will be 1 hour and on Form RD-1 respondents will be 18 hours. The annual burden is estimated at 51,400 hours, calculated as follows:
RD-1A respondents: 22,600 respondents × 1 response × 1 burden hour = 22,600 hours/year.
RD-1 respondents: 1,600 respondents × 1 response × 18 burden hours = 28,800 hours/year.
All respondents: 51,400 burden hours hours/year during CY 2002, 2003, and 2004.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A copy of the supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance packages are available at the NRC worldwide web site:
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer by October 25, 2001:
Byron Allen, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150- ), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 415-7233.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of operating authority under Facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF-9 and NPF-17 for McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, (McGuire) currently held by Duke Energy Corporation (DEC), which is the owner of McGuire. DEC would continue to own McGuire. The transfer of authority to operate McGuire would be to a new limited liability company, Duke Energy Nuclear, LLC (DEN LLC). DEN LLC will be a subsidiary of DEC, as a result of a corporate restructuring of DEC. The Commission is further considering amending the licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer. If authorized to operate the facility, DEN LLC will also become a general licensee for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at McGuire, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210. The facility is located in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
According to an application for approval filed by DEC, DEC's ownership of McGuire would be unchanged and DEC would continue to be responsible for the costs associated with operating and maintaining McGuire and for decommissioning funding assurance. DEN LLC would become a licensee, authorized to operate the units. No physical changes to the facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed amendments would replace references to DEC in the licenses as the operator of McGuire with references to DEN LLC.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below.
By October 15, 2001, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart M, “Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,” of 10 CFR part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306, and should address the considerations contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a). Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.1308(b)(1)-(2).
Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon: Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department, Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only:
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, by October 25, 2001, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated July 10, 2001, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site (
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50 approving the transfer of operating authority under Renewed Facility Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-38, DPR-47 and DPR-55 for Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (Oconee), and Materials License No. SNM-2503 for the Oconee Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), currently held by Duke Energy Corporation (DEC), which is the owner of the facilities. DEC would continue to own Oconee and the ISFSI. The transfer of authority to operate Oconee and the ISFSI would be to a new limited liability company, Duke Energy Nuclear, LLC (DEN LLC). DEN LLC will be a subsidiary of DEC, as a result of a corporate restructuring of DEC. The Commission is further considering amending the licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer. If authorized to operate Oconee, DEN LLC, will also become a general ISFSI licensee pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210. Oconee and the ISFSI are located in Oconee County, South Carolina.
According to an application for approval filed by DEC, DEC's ownership of Oconee and the ISFSI would be unchanged and DEC would continue to be responsible for the costs associated with operating and maintaining Oconee and the ISFSI and for decommissioning funding assurance. DEN LLC would become a licensee, authorized to operate Oconee and the ISFSI. No physical changes to Oconee or the ISFSI or operational changes are being proposed in the application.
The proposed amendments would replace references to DEC in the licenses as the operator of Oconee and the ISFSI with references to DEN LLC.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80 and 72.50, no license, or any right thereunder, or any part, shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility or the license of an ISFSI which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves, respectively, no significant hazards consideration or no genuine issue as to whether the health and safety of the public will be significantly affected. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below.
By October 15, 2001, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart M, “Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,” of 10 CFR Part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306, and should address the considerations contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a). Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.1308(b)(1)-(2).
Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon: Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department, Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only: OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.1313.
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, by October 25, 2001, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated July 10, 2001, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/ADAMS/index.html). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4737 or by email to pdr@nrc.gov.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the issuance of an order under 10 CFR 50.80 approving the transfer of operating authority under Facility Operating Licenses Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 for Catawba Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Catawba). The Facility Operating License for Catawba Unit 1 is currently held by Duke Energy Corporation (DEC), as a 25% owner and the exclusive licensed operator, and by the North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation and the Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc. as co-owners. The Facility Operating License for Catawba Unit 2 is currently held by DEC as the exclusive licensed operator, and by North Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1 and the Piedmont Municipal Power Agency as the co-owners. The transfer of authority to operate Catawba Unit Nos. 1 and 2 would be to a new limited liability company, Duke Energy Nuclear, LLC (DEN LLC). DEN LLC will be a subsidiary of DEC, as a result of a corporate restructuring of DEC. The Commission is further considering amending the licenses for administrative purposes to reflect the proposed transfer. The facility is located in York County, South Carolina.
According to an application for approval filed by DEC, the proposed transfers do not involve any change in ownership of the nuclear units. DEC will retain its current 25% ownership interest in Catawba Unit 1. The ownership shares of the Catawba Units not held by DEC will be unaffected by
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.80, no license shall be transferred, directly or indirectly, through transfer of control of the license, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing. The Commission will approve an application for the transfer of a license if the Commission determines that the proposed transferee is qualified to hold the license, and that the transfer is otherwise consistent with applicable provisions of law, regulations, and orders issued by the Commission pursuant thereto.
Before issuance of the proposed conforming license amendments, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations.
As provided in 10 CFR 2.1315, unless otherwise determined by the Commission with regard to a specific application, the Commission has determined that any amendment to the license of a utilization facility which does no more than conform the license to reflect the transfer action involves no significant hazards consideration. No contrary determination has been made with respect to this specific license amendment application. In light of the generic determination reflected in 10 CFR 2.1315, no public comments with respect to significant hazards considerations are being solicited, notwithstanding the general comment procedures contained in 10 CFR 50.91.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene, and written comments with regard to the license transfer application, are discussed below.
By October 15, 2001, any person whose interest may be affected by the Commission's action on the application may request a hearing and, if not the applicant, may petition for leave to intervene in a hearing proceeding on the Commission's action. Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be filed in accordance with the Commission's rules of practice set forth in Subpart M, “Public Notification, Availability of Documents and Records, Hearing Requests and Procedures for Hearings on License Transfer Applications,” of 10 CFR Part 2. In particular, such requests and petitions must comply with the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306, and should address the considerations contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a). Untimely requests and petitions may be denied, as provided in 10 CFR 2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure to file on time is established. In addition, an untimely request or petition should address the factors that the Commission will also consider, in reviewing untimely requests or petitions, set forth in 10 CFR 2.1308(b)(1)-(2).
Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene should be served upon: Lisa F. Vaughn, Legal Department, Duke Energy Corporation, 422 South Church Street, Charlotte, North Carolina 28201-1006; the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings regarding license transfer cases only:
The Commission will issue a notice or order granting or denying a hearing request or intervention petition, designating the issues for any hearing that will be held and designating the Presiding Officer. A notice granting a hearing will be published in the
As an alternative to requests for hearing and petitions to intervene, by October 25, 2001, persons may submit written comments regarding the license transfer application, as provided for in 10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments should be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
For further details with respect to this action, see the application dated July 10, 2001, available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of September 24, October 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, 2001.
Commissioner's Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 8, 2001.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 22, 2001.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 29, 2001.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: David Louis Gamberoni (301) 415-1651.
By a vote of 4-0 on September 19, the Commission
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/schedule.htm.
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov.
10:30 a.m., Monday, October 1, 2001; 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, October 2, 2001.
Washington, DC, at U.S. Postal Service Headquarters, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., in the Benjamin Franklin Room.
October 1 (Closed); October 2 (Open).
David G. Hunter, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20260-1000. Telephone (202) 268-4800.
September 10, 2001.
Closed.
66 FR 45066, August 27, 2001.
1. Extension of Experimental Ride Along Case.
2. Filing of Experimental Case for Delivery Confirmation.
At its meeting on September 10, 2001, the Board of Governors of the United States Postal Service voted unanimously to add these items to the agenda of its closed meeting and that no earlier announcement was possible. The General Counsel of the United States Postal Service certified that in her opinion discussion of this term could be properly closed to public observation.
David G. Hunter, Secretary of the Board, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC.
To be published Monday, September 24, 2001.
Open Meeting.
450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC
September 25, 2001 at 1 p.m.
Additional Items.
The following items have been added to the open meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 25, 2001, in Room 1C30, the William O. Douglas Room, at 1 p.m.:
(1) The Commission will consider extending the comment period for the Concept Release on the Effects of Decimal Trading in Subpennies. The Concept Release, which was published in the
For further information, please contact Kevin Campion, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulations at (202) 942-0744.
(2) The Commission will consider extending the deadline for the Exchanges and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (collectively the “Participants”) to submit rule filings concerning the implementation of decimal pricing in equity securities and options pursuant to section 11A(a)(3)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission's Order of May 22, 2001 required the Participants to submit rule filings to establish the minimum price variation in each market for quoting equity securities and options by November 5, 2001, we believe that it may be necessary and appropriate to extend the original deadline. Such an extension would give the Participants adequate time to thoroughly analyze the important investor protection and market integrity issues that need to be addressed in order to preserve the benefits of decimalization. Extending the deadline would also allow the Commission to fully consider the comments submitted in response to the Concept Release on the Effects of Decimal Trading in Subpennies.
For further information, please contact Alton Harvey, Office Head, Office of MarketWatch, Division of Market Regulation at (202) 942-4167 or Kevin Campion, Special Counsel, Division of Market Regulation at (202) 942-0744.
Commissioner Hunt, as duty officer, determined that Commission business required the above change and that no earlier thereof was possible.
At times, changes 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 (202) 942-7070.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 220 to allow floor brokers to accept orders over telephones at or near the specialist's post.
The text of the proposed rule change appears below. New text is in italics; deletions are in brackets.
No member shall establish or maintain any telephonic or electronic communication between the Floor and any other location, or between locations on the Floor, without the prior written approval of the Exchange.
.01 With the approval of the Exchange, a member or member organization may establish and maintain a telephone line which permits a non-member located off the Floor to communicate with such member or member organization on the Floor.
.02 No change.
(1)
(2)
(3)
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Exchange rules and policies currently prohibit floor brokers from taking orders from off-floor at the specialist's post and require off-floor orders to be received at the floor broker's booth. The Exchange believes that this prohibition, at times, impacts the fast and efficient routing and execution of orders at the Exchange. Therefore, the Exchange is now proposing to amend Exchange Rule 220 regarding communications to and on the floor to allow floor brokers to use telephones at or near the specialist's post or Exchange-provided wireless telephone devices to receive off-floor orders from any source (
In addition, the following requirements and conditions would apply to the floor brokers' use of telephone services at or near the specialist's post: (i) only those quotations that have been publicly disseminated pursuant to SEC Rule 11Ac1-1 may be provided over telephones at or near the specialist's post; (ii) floor brokers may only receive orders over the telephones during outgoing telephone calls that they have initiated; and (iii) only those floor brokers properly qualified in accordance with applicable rules and regulations may accept orders from public customers.
The Exchange intends to police compliance with the conditions applicable to use of telephones by floor
The Exchange believes that the use of the telephones by floor brokers to receive off-floor orders would provide more efficient order routing and execution, increase the speed of execution, and satisfy member and non-member customers in an increasingly competitive environment.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(c)(3)(B) of the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2001-73 and should be submitted by October 16, 2001.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed amendment to NYSE Rule 387 (“COD Orders”) would clarify the Rule's application to all “member[s]” and “member organization[s].”
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Office of the Secretary, the NYSE, and at the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Currently, NYSE Rule 387 enumerates the procedures for transactions
NYSE Rule 387, in its present form, refers to “member” and “member organization” only once in the same paragraph (NYSE Rule 387(a)(1)) and thereafter omits reference to “member” throughout the other paragraphs of the Rule. The proposed amendment to NYSE Rule 387 would clarify the Rule's application to all “member[s]” and “Member organization[s].” Specifically, the amendments insert “member” in paragraphs: detailing overall applicability of the Rule (NYSE Rule 387(a)); requiring confirmation (NYSE Rule 387(a)(3)); and affirmation (NYSE Rule 387(a)(4)) of COD/POD transactions.
The Exchange believes the basis for the proposed rule change is the requirement under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not the necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve such proposed rule change; or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filings will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NYSE-2001-31 and should be submitted by October 16, 2001.
For the Commission, by the Division of the Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”)
The Exchange proposes to clarify its interpretation of the PCX Constitution to eliminate the restriction that only public Governors may serve on the Nominating Committee.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in the sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
On November 16, 2000, the Commission approved the Exchange's Constitutional change that required at least one public representative serve on the Nominating Committee (“Committee”) and permitted the service of Governors on the Committee.
The composition of the Committee is governed by Article III, Sections 4(a) and 4(b) of the PCX Constitution. Section 4(a) provides: “At each annual meeting there shall be elected by the membership, by ballot, for a term of one
Permitting Governors to serve on the Committee is consistent with the PCX Constitutional language, and the basic composition is not affected. There must always be at least one public representative on the Committee, and there may be up to two. The Exchange maintains the flexibility it needs to meet its obligation to have a fair representation of Exchange members. Therefore, the Exchange submits this clarification to its interpretation of Article III, Section 4(b) of the PCX Constitution to eliminate the restriction that only public Governors may serve on the Committee.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited nor received.
The proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the PCX. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-PCX-2001-28 and should be submitted by October 16, 2001.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Phlx proposes to amend the definition of controlled accounts under Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i) and Option Floor Procedure Advice (“Advice”) B-6 to
In its filing with the Commission, the Phlx included statements concerning the purpose of, and statutory basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Office of the Secretary, the Phlx, and at the Commission.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i) to expand the definition of the term “controlled account” to include non-member broker-dealers. Currently, a controlled account is defined as any account controlled by or under common control with a member broker-dealer. This includes specialist, Registered Options Trader (“ROT”) and other “firm proprietary” accounts (if for the account of a member broker-dealer). Under the current rule, all other accounts, including non-member broker-dealer accounts, are customer accounts. Thus, the yielding requirements of this rule currently do not apply to non-member broker-dealer accounts, with the result that ROTs must yield priority to these accounts to the same extent as they must yield to “true” customers.
Specifically, with respect to yielding requirements, the rule currently provides that orders of controlled accounts are required to yield priority to customer orders when competing at the same price. Specialists, however, are not subject to the yielding requirements placed upon controlled accounts. Orders of controlled accounts must yield priority to customer orders, except that ROTs closing in-person are not required to yield priority to orders of customer accounts.
The rule further provides that orders of controlled accounts are not required to yield priority to other controlled account orders, except that when both an order of a ROT closing in-person and some other order of a controlled account are established in the crowd at the same price, and then a customer order is established at that price, the order of the controlled account must yield to the customer order while the order of a ROT closing in-person does not have to so yield.
This means that, in most circumstances, an order of a non-member broker-dealer at a given price takes priority over a same-priced order of a ROT, and is on parity with a public customer order. The effect of the proposed rule change is to require a non-member broker-dealer order to yield priority to a public customer order, and to eliminate the requirements that a ROT yields priority to a non-member broker-dealer. For instance, under the current rule, where a non-member broker-dealer bids for 100 contracts at the same time as a ROT bids for 100 contracts at the same price, the non-member broker-dealer has priority over the ROT and is entitled to the entire execution of an incoming sell order for 100 contracts at that price. Under the proposal, the ROT and the non-member broker-dealer would each be entitled to 50 contracts. Thus, non-member broker-dealer orders would no longer be treated like customer orders for parity/priority purposes and the yielding requirements of this Rule.
A further result of the proposal is that non-member broker-dealers would be required to yield to customer accounts. Thus, the proposal creates an advantage for customer accounts, which would receive more preferential treatment in order execution under Phlx Rule 1014 than non-member broker-dealer accounts. Specifically, customers would no longer share parity status with non-member broker-dealers, such that, depending upon the specific circumstances, customers would be more likely to receive more prompt and full executions. For instance, currently, where both a customer and a non-member broker-dealer order bid for 100 contracts at the same time and at the same price, the customer and the non-member broker-dealer would each be entitled to 50 contracts of an incoming order to sell 100 contracts. Under the proposal, the customer's bid would have priority over the non-member broker-dealer and would receive the entire execution of an incoming sell order for 100 contracts at that price. Thus, “true” customers, the intended beneficiaries of priority rule in general, would benefit.
The Exchange believes that changing the status of non-member broker-dealers for purposes of controlled account definition is consistent with many other instances in Exchange rules where non-member broker-dealers are not treated like customers. For instance, non-member broker-dealers are not treated like customers for purposes of the minimum guarantees of Phlx Rules 1015 and 1033; thus, a non-member broker-dealer order must be identified (marked and announced) as “BD” and would not be entitled to the ten-up (or larger) minimum guarantee.
As a consequence of re-defining the term “controlled account,” the Exchange proposed to change an order ticket marking requirements to reflect actual custom and usage. Phlx Rule 1014(g)(i) (and the corollary provision in Advice B-6) would no longer require
Broker-dealers are not treated the same as members for all purposes under the Exchange's rules. Certain functions and entitlements are unique to membership status. For example, only members may transact business on the Exchange trading floor.
For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any inappropriate burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Phlx. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Phlx-2001-38 and should be submitted on or before October 16, 2001.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Butte County and the contiguous counties of Colusa, Glenn, Plumas, Sutter, Tehama and Yuba in the State of California constitute a disaster area as a result of damages caused by severe wildfires that occurred on September 6, 2001. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on November 19, 2001 and for economic injury until the close of business on June 18, 2002 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations: U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 4 Office, P.O. Box 13795, Sacramento, CA 95853-4795.
The interest rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 336505 and for economic damage is 9M7500.
In accordance with section 4314 (c) (4) of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-454), the Office of Inspector General of the Department of State has appointed the following individuals to its Performance Review Board register.
Notice and request for comments.
The African Growth and Opportunity Act Implementation Subcommittee of the Trade Policy Staff Committee (the “Subcommittee”) is requesting written public comments for the annual review of the eligibility of sub-Saharan African countries to receive the benefits of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). This notice identifies the eligibility criteria that must be considered under the AGOA, lists the sub-Saharan African countries that are currently eligible for AGOA, and the sub-Saharan African countries that are currently ineligible for the AGOA. The Subcommittee will consider any such comments in developing recommendations on country eligibility for the President. Comments received related to the child labor criteria may also be considered by the Secretary of Labor in making the findings required under section 504 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.
The deadline for comments is October 10, 2001.
Office of African Affairs, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Room 501, Washington, DC 20508. Telephone (202) 395-9514.
The AGOA amends Title V of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2461
The President may designate a country as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country if he determines that the country meets the eligibility criteria set forth in: (1) Section 104 of the AGOA; and (2) section 502 of the Trade Act. To date, 35 countries have been designated as beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries. These countries, as well as the 14 currently ineligible countries, are listed below. Section 506A of the Trade Act provides that the President shall monitor, review, and report to Congress annually on the progress of each sub-Saharan African country in meeting the foregoing eligibility criteria in order to determine the current or potential eligibility of each country to be designated as a beneficiary sub-Saharan African country. The President's determinations are to be included in an annual report submitted to Congress.
The Subcommittee is seeking public comments in connection with the annual review of the eligibility of sub-Saharan African countries for the AGOA's benefits. The Subcommittee will consider any such comments in developing recommendations on country eligibility for the President. Comments related to the child labor criteria may also be considered by the Secretary of Labor in making the findings required under section 504 of the Trade Act.
The following have been designated as beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries:
The following have not been designated as beneficiary sub-Saharan African countries:
Interested parties are invited to submit comments regarding the continued eligibility of countries and the potential designation as beneficiaries of countries currently not eligible for AGOA benefits. All
Public versions of all documents relating to this review will be available for inspection by appointment in the USTR public reading room (for appointments call (202) 395-6186). Submissions that are granted “business confidential” status and other information submitted in confidence will not be available for public inspection. Submissions that include Business Confidential information are subject to the requirements of 15 CFR 2003.6. A justification as to why the information contained in the submission should be treated confidentially must be included in the submission. If a document contains such business confidential information, an original and twenty (20) copies of the business confidential versions of the document along with an original and twenty (20) copies of a public version must be submitted. The document that contains business confidential information should be clearly marked “business confidential” at the top of each page. The public version should also be clearly marked at the top of each page (either “public version” of “non-confidential”).
Aviation Proceedings, Agreements filed during week ending September 7, 2001. The following Agreements were filed with the Department of Transportation under provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the applications.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of Availability; request for comments.
The Coast Guard announces the availability of and seeks comments on the application for recertification submitted by the Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council (CIRCAC) for September 1, 2001 through August 31, 2002. Under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990, the Coast Guard may certify, on an annual basis, an alternative voluntary advisory group in lieu of a Regional Citizen's Advisory Council for Cook Inlet.
Comments must reach the Seventeenth Coast Guard District on or before October 25, 2001.
You may mail your comments to the Seventeenth Coast Guard District (mor), PO Box 25517, Juneau, AK, 99802-5517. You may also deliver them to the Juneau Federal Building, room 753, 709 W 9th St, Juneau, AK between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Seventeenth Coast Guard District maintains the public docket for this recertification process. Comments regarding recertification will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the Juneau Federal Building, room 753, 709 W 9th St.
A copy of the application is also available for inspection at the Cook Inlet Regional Citizen's Advisory Council Offices at 910 Highland Avenue, Kenai, AK 99611-8033 between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (907) 283-7222 in Kenai, Alaska.
For questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket contact LT Michael Patterson, Seventeenth Coast Guard District (mor), (907) 463-2807.
The Coast Guard encourages interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments. It solicits comments from interested groups including oil terminal facility owners and operators, owners and operators of crude oil tankers calling at terminal facilities, Alaska Native Tribes, fishing, aquacultural, recreational and environmental citizens groups, concerning the recertification application of CIRCAC. Persons submitting comments should include their names and addresses, identify this rulemaking (CGD17-01-04) and the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and attachments in an unbound format, no larger than 8
The Coast Guard plans no public hearing. Persons may request a public hearing by writing to Commander (m), Seventeenth Coast Guard District, PO Box 25517, Juneau, AK, 99802-5517. The request should include reasons why a hearing would be beneficial. If there is sufficient evidence to determine that oral presentations will aid this recertification process, the Coast Guard will hold a public hearing at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
The Coast Guard published guidelines on December 31, 1992 (57 FR 626000), to assist groups seeking recertification under the Oil Terminal and Oil Tanker Environmental Oversight and Monitoring Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2732) (the Act). The Coast Guard issued a policy statement on July 7, 1993 (58 FR 36505), to clarify the factors that the Coast Guard would be considering in making its determination as to whether advisory groups should be certified in accordance with the Act; and the procedures which the Coast Guard would follow in meeting its certification responsibilities under the Act. Most
The Coast Guard has received an application for recertification of CIRCAC, the currently certified advisory group for the Cook Inlet region. In accordance with the review and certification process contained in the policy statement, the Coast Guard announces the availability of that application.
At the conclusion of the comment period, the Coast Guard will review all application materials and comments received and will take one of the following actions:
(a) Recertify the advisory group under 33 U.S.C. 2732(o).
(b) Issue a conditional recertification for a period of 90 days, with a statement of any discrepancies, which must be corrected to qualify for recertification for the remainder of the year.
(c) Deny recertification of the advisory group if the Coast Guard finds that the group is not broadly representative of the interests and communities in the area or is not adequately fostering the goals and purposes of 33 U.S.C. 2732.
The Coast Guard will notify CIRCAC by letter of the action taken on its application. A notice will be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration.
Notice.
The National Park Service (NPS) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accordance with the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, established the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group (NPOAG). The NPOAG was formed to provide continuing advice and counsel with respect to commercial air tour operations over and near national parks. This notice informs the public of the desire to expand the advisory group and delineates the nomination procedures.
Howard Nesbitt, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20591, telephone: (202) 493-4981, or Marvin Jensen, Soundscapes Office, National Park Service, 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 200, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80525, telephone: (970) 225-3563. Persons interested in serving on the advisory group should contact Mr. Nesbitt or Mr. Jensen on or before October 16, 2001.
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000 (the Act) was enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181. The Act required the establishment of the advisory group within 1 year after its enactment. The advisory group is comprised of a balanced group of representatives of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Native American tribes. The Administrator and the Director (or their designees) serve as ex officio members of the group. Representatives of the Administrator and Director serve alternating 1-year terms as chairman of the advisory group. The Administrator's representative will serve the first term, which will terminate at the end of the calendar year following the year in which the advisory group is established.
The advisory group provides “advice, information, and recommendations to the Administrator and the Director—
(1) on the implementation of this title [the Act] and the amendments made by this title;
(2) on commonly accepted quiet aircraft technology for use in commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, which will receive preferential treatment in a given air tour management plan;
(3) on other measures that might be taken to accommodate the interests of visitors to national parks; and
(4) at the request of the Administrator and the Director, safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over a national park or tribal lands.”
Members of the advisory group may be allowed certain travel expenses as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, for intermittent Government service.
An initial assignment was made to the group of seven members representing aviation, environmental and Native American cultural interests. At the first meeting of the group, on August 28, 2001, the group decided that the addition of three new members would achieve a better balance of interests representing the group. The additional members would represent fixed wing air tour operators, environmental interests and Native American cultural interests.
The FAA and NPS invite members of the public from the desired areas, who are interested in serving on the advisory group, to contact the person listed under
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for a new information collection that involves generic customer satisfaction surveys. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by November 26, 2001.
You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to 202/493-2251; or submit electronically at
Mr. Ronald Marshall, 202-366-9393, Corporate Management, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Lahaina, Kaanapali & Pacific Railroad (LKP) requests a waiver of compliance with certain provisions of the 49 CFR part 230,
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-2001-10516) and must be submitted to the Docket Clerk, DOT Central Docket Management Facility, Room Pl-401, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC. 20590-0001. Communications received within 30 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning these proceedings are available for examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web site at http://dms.dot.gov.
On July 11, 2001, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a notice in the
49 CFR 231.18—
Due to the uniqueness of the car design, special construction considerations, operation, and comments received by FRA concerning this waiver petition, FRA has determined that a public hearing is necessary before a final decision is made on this petition. Accordingly, a public hearing is hearby set for 1:30 p.m. on October 18, 2001, in Conference Room #1 on the seventh floor, at the FRA Headquarters Building, 1120 Vermont Avene, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005. Interested parties are invited to present oral statements at this hearing. The hearing will be informal and will be conducted in accordance with Rule 25 of the FRA Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25) by a representative designated by the FRA. The FRA representative will make an opening statement outlining the scope of the hearing, as well as any additional procedures for the conduct of the hearing. The hearing will be a non-adversarial proceeding in which all interested parties will be given the opportunity to express their views regarding this waiver petition, without cross-examination. After all initial statements have been completed, those persons wishing to make a brief rebuttal will be given an opportunity to do so in the same order in which initial statements were made.
In accordance with Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sections 211.9 and 211.41, notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of the Federal safety laws and regulations. The petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), a Class I railroad, requests a waiver of compliance with certain provisions of 49 CFR part 214,
UP requests relief that will permit the use of a system described by UP as the automatic train approach warning system (TAWS). UP proposes that roadway work groups be permitted to substitute TAWS for watchmen/lookouts as the method of train approach warning when fouling a track within equipped interlockings and controlled points. UP also proposes that lone workers be permitted to use TAWS as a method of train approach warning within the limits of those interlockings and controlled points without a requirement to establish working limits.
On December 16, 1996, the FRA published a final rule amending 49 CFR part 214 with the addition to it of the Roadway Worker Protection Standards, which became effective on January 15, 1997. The regulation mandates clearly defined methods of protection against moving trains and railroad equipment for railroad employees who perform certain maintenance and inspection duties on and near railroad tracks. UP previously filed a petition for waiver of certain provisions of that rule to permit the use of TAWS in place of watchmen/lookouts (Docket Number FRA 2000-7912). On December 13, 2000, UP withdrew this petition.
In its new petition, Docket Number 2001-10235, UP states that TAWS will exceed the minimum requirements for warning roadway workers of the approach of trains and will be used at selected control points on the railroad. UP also states that this system will be an integral part of the signal and train control system which includes, incorporating the same level of reliability and principles of a fail-safe design.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proceeding by submitting written views, data, or comments. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment, he or she should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for his or her request. All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (Docket Number FRA-2001-10235) and must be submitted to the DOT Docket Management Facility, Room PL-401 (Plaza level) 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590. Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All written communications concerning this proceeding are available for examination during regular business
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws for the vessel LADY J.
As authorized by Pub. L. 105-383, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S.-build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a description of the proposed service, is listed below. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines that in accordance with Pub. L. 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR Part 388 (65 FR 6905; February 11, 2000) that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels, a waiver will not be granted.
Submit comments on or before October 25, 2001.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2001-10668. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
Kathleen Dunn, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR-832 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-2307.
Title V of Pub. L. 105-383 provides authority to the Secretary of Transportation to administratively waive the U.S.-build requirements of the Jones Act, and other statutes, for small commercial passenger vessels (no more than 12 passengers). This authority has been delegated to the Maritime Administration per 49 CFR § 1.66, Delegations to the Maritime Administrator, as amended. By this notice, MARAD is publishing information on a vessel for which a request for a U.S.-build waiver has been received, and for which MARAD requests comments from interested parties. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commenter's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD'S regulations at 46 CFR Part 388.
(1) Name of vessel and owner for which waiver is requested.
(2) Size, capacity and tonnage of vessel.
(3) Intended use for vessel, including geographic region of intended operation and trade.
(4) Date and Place of construction and (if applicable) rebuilding.
(5) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on other commercial passenger vessel operators.
(6) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on U.S. shipyards.
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
Surface Transportation Board, Department of Transportation
Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.
The Board has approved the fourth quarter 2001 rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) and cost index filed by the Association of American Railroads. The fourth quarter 2001 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 1.078. The fourth quarter 2001 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.581. The fourth quarter 2001 RCAF-5 is 0.556.
October 1, 2001.
H. Jeff Warren, (202) 565-1533. Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, call, or pick up in person from: DA.2.DA LEGAL, Suite 405, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001, telephone (202) 293-7776. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through FIRS: 1-800-877-8339.]
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or energy conservation.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Clyburn, and Commissioner Burkes.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Annual Report of Concentrate Manufacturers and Usual Customary Business Records—Volatile Fruit-Flavor Concentrate Plants.
Written comments should be received on or before November 26, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Linda Barnes, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927-8930.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Thomas Crone, Chief, Regulations Division, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927-8210.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Consignment of Tobacco Products and Cigarette Papers and Tubes Export Shipments.
Written comments should be received on or before November 26, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Linda Barnes, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927-8930.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Thomas Crone, Chief, Regulations Division, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927-8210.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Financial Management Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection. By this notice, the Financial Management Service solicits comments concerning the form “List of Data (A) and List of Data (B).”
Written comments should be received on or before November 26, 2001.
Direct all written comments to Financial Management Service, 3700 East West Highway, Program Branch, Room 144, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Dorothy Martin, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East West Highway, Room 608A, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (202) 874-6775.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial Management Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service; Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Financial Management Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection. By this notice, the Financial Management Service solicits comments concerning the form “Schedule of Excess Risks.”
Written comments should be received on or before November 26, 2001.
Direct all written comments to Financial Management Service, 3700 East West Highway, Programs Branch, Room 144, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Dorothy Martin, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East West Highway, Room 608A, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (202) 874-6775.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial Management Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Financial Management Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection. By this notice, the Financial Management Service solicits comments concerning the form “Assignment Form.”
Written comments should be received on or before November 26, 2001.
Direct all written comments to Financial Management Service, 3700 East West Highway, Programs Branch, Room 144, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Wanda Rogers, Financial Accounting and Services Division, 3700 East West Highway, Room 620D, Hyattsville, MD, (202) 874-8380.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial Management Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below.
Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Financial Management Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection. By this notice, the Financial Management Service solicits comments concerning the form “Application for Payment of a Deceased Depositor's Postal Savings Account.”
Written comments should be received on or before November 26, 2001.
Direct all written comments to Financial Management Service, 3700 East West Highway, Programs Branch, Room 144, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to Wanda Rogers, Financial Accounting and Services Division, 3700 East West Highway, Room 620D, Hyattsville, MD 20782, (202) 874-8380.
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), the Financial Management Service solicits comments on the collection of information described below.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before November 26, 2001.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501 “ 3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
The Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Labor.
Request for information on efforts by certain countries to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.
This notice is a request for information for use in Department of Labor research regarding the implementation of international commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor by countries seeking benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), and/or eligibility for additional benefits provided for in the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act (CBTPA) or the African Growth and Development Act (AGOA). The recently passed Trade and Development Act of 2000 (TDA) establishes a new eligibility criterion, concerning efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, for receipt of these trade benefits. The TDA requires the Secretary of Labor to make findings with respect to beneficiary countries' implementation of their international commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.
Submitters of information are requested to provide two (2) copies of their written submission to the International Child Labor Program at the address below by 5 p.m., October 25, 2001.
Written submissions should be addressed to Chris Camillo at the International Child Labor Program, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-5307, Washington, DC 20210.
Chris Camillo, International Child Labor Program, Bureau of International Labor Affairs at (202) 693-4839; fax (202) 693-4830. The Department of Labor's reports on international child labor can be accessed on the Internet at
The Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-200), signed into law on May 18, 2000, establishes a new eligibility criterion concerning efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor for receipt of trade benefits under the GSP, CBTPA, and AGOA programs. The TDA amends the GSP reporting requirements of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 504) (19 U.S.C. 2464) to require that the annual report include “findings by the Secretary of Labor with respect to the beneficiary country's implementation of its international commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor.”
Title II of the TDA includes as a criteria for receiving benefits under the CBTPA “whether the country has implemented its commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, as defined in section 507(6) of the Trade Act of 1974.” The TDA Conference Report (Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference, 106th Cong. 2d. sess. (2000)) indicates that “the conferees intend that the GSP standard, including the provision with respect to implementation of obligations to eliminate the worst forms of child labor, apply to eligibility for those additional benefits” (provided for in the AGOA.)
Countries presently eligible under the GSP are: Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Congo (Brazzaville), Congo (Kinshasa), Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, the Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of), Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Swaziland, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Republic of Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Countries potentially eligible for additional benefits under the AGOA are: Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of the Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sao Tome & Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
Countries potentially eligible for additional benefits under the CBTPA are: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands.
The Department invites written information relevant to the findings to be made by the Department of Labor under the TDA from all interested parties. Information provided through public submission will be considered by the Department of Labor in preparing its findings. Materials submitted should be confined to the specific topic of the study. In particular, the Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs is seeking written submissions on the following topics as stipulated in the TDA Conference Report:
1. Whether the country has adequate laws and regulations proscribing the worst forms of child labor;
2. Whether the country has adequate laws and regulations for the implementation and enforcement of such measures;
3. Whether the country has established formal institutional mechanisms to investigate and address complaints relating to allegations of the worst forms of child labor;
4. Whether social programs exist in the country to prevent the engagement of children in the worst forms of child labor, and assist in the removal of children engaged in the worst forms of child labor;
5. Whether the country has a comprehensive policy for the elimination of the worst forms of child labor;
6. Whether the country is making continual progress toward eliminating the worst forms of child labor.
Information relating to the nature and extent of child labor in the country is also sought.
As stated in the TDA Conference Report, use of the term “Worst Forms of Child Labor” in the TDA follows International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 182, which defines child as all persons under the age of 18, and the worst forms of child labor as comprising all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances; the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in relevant international treaties; or any work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.
The TDA Conference Report noted that the phrase, * * * work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children * * * is to be defined as in Article II of Recommendation No. 190, which accompanies ILO Convention No. 182. This includes work that exposes children to physical, psychological, or sexual abuse; work underground, under water, at dangerous heights or in confined spaces; work with dangerous machinery, equipment or tools, or work under circumstances which involve the manual handling or transport of heavy loads; work in an unhealthy environment that exposes children to hazardous substances, agents or processes, or to temperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging to their health; and work under particularly difficult conditions such as for long hours, during the night or under conditions where children are unreasonably confined to the premises of the employer.
The TDA Conference Report further indicated that the phrase, * * * work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children * * * be interpreted in a manner consistent with the intent of Article 4 of ILO Convention No. 182, which states that such work shall be determined by national laws or regulations or by the competent authority in the country involved.
This notice is a general solicitation of comments from the public.
(a) foreign persons listed in the Annex to this order;
(b) foreign persons determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States;
(c) persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of those persons listed in the Annex to this order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of this order;
(d) except as provided in section 5 of this order and after such consultation, if any, with foreign authorities as the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, deems appropriate in the exercise of his discretion, persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General;
(i) to assist in, sponsor, or provide financial, material, or technological support for, or financial or other services to or in support of, such acts of terrorism or those persons listed in the Annex to this order or determined to be subject to this order; or
(ii) to be otherwise associated with those persons listed in the Annex to this order or those persons determined to be subject to subsection 1(b), 1(c), or 1(d)(i) of this order.
(a) any transaction or dealing by United States persons or within the United States in property or interests in property blocked pursuant to this order is prohibited, including but not limited to the making or receiving of any contribution of funds, goods, or services to or for the benefit of those persons listed in the Annex to this order or determined to be subject to this order;
(b) any transaction by any United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, or has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate, any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited; and
(c) any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(a) the term “person” means an individual or entity;
(b) the term “entity” means a partnership, association, corporation, or other organization, group, or subgroup;
(c) the term “United States person” means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States; and
(d) the term “terrorism” means an activity that—
(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended—
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.
(b) This order shall be transmitted to the Congress and published in the