Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Engineers Corps
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Reclamation Bureau
Antitrust Division
Immigration and Naturalization Service
Employment Standards Administration
Mine Safety and Health Administration
National Institutes of Health
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
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.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Washington Apricot Marketing Committee (Committee) for the 2002-03 and subsequent fiscal periods from $2.00 to $2.50 per ton of apricots handled. The Committee locally administers the marketing order which regulates the handling of apricots grown in designated counties in Washington. Authorization to assess apricot handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are reasonable and necessary to administer the program. The fiscal period began April 1 and ends March 31. The assessment rate will remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
August 26, 2002.
Teresa Hutchinson, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, suite 385, Portland, OR 97204; telephone: (503) 326-2724, Fax: (503) 326-7440; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; 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, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-8938, or e-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 132 and Marketing Order No. 922, both as amended (7 CFR part 922), regulating the handling of apricots grown in designated counties in Washington, 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 (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the marketing order now in effect, Washington apricot handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate as proposed herein will be applicable to all assessable apricots beginning on April 1, 2002, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA 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 USDA 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 USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee for the 2002-03 and subsequent fiscal periods from $2.00 to $2.50 per ton of apricots handled.
The Washington apricot marketing order provides authority for the Committee, with the approval of USDA, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. The members of the Committee are growers and handlers of Washington apricots. They are familiar with the Committee's needs and with the costs for goods and services in their local area and are thus in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and discussed in a public meeting. Thus, all directly affected persons have an opportunity to participate and provide input.
For the 1997-98 and subsequent fiscal periods, the Committee recommended, and USDA approved, an assessment rate that would continue in effect from fiscal period to fiscal period unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other information available to USDA.
The Committee met on May 15, 2002, and unanimously recommended 2002-03 expenditures of $11,685 and an assessment rate of $2.50 per ton of apricots. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $11,230. The recommended rate is $.50 higher than the rate currently in effect. The increase is necessary to offset an increase in salaries and operating expenses, and an anticipated decrease in production due to the adverse effect of cooler temperatures on the size and quality of the 2002 apricot crop.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2002-03 fiscal period include $5,892 for salaries, $1,000 for travel, $816 for rent and maintenance, and $540 for office equipment and repair. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2001-2002 were $5,731, $1,000, $792, and $264, respectively.
Washington apricot shipments for 2002 are estimated at 3,650 tons which should provide $9,125 in assessment income. This income, along with approximately $2,540 from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses. Funds in the reserve (currently $8,257) would be kept within the maximum
The assessment rate established in this rule will continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by USDA upon recommendation and information submitted by the Committee or other available information.
Although this assessment rate will be in effect for an indefinite period, the Committee will continue to meet prior to or during each fiscal period to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Committee meetings are available from the Committee or USDA. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. USDA will evaluate Committee recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking will be undertaken as necessary. The Committee's 2002-03 budget and those for subsequent fiscal periods will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by USDA.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 200 producers of apricots in the production area and approximately 30 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.
Based on a three-year average fresh apricot production of 4,406 tons (Committee records), a three-year average of producer prices of $832 per ton reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and 200 Washington apricot producers, the average annual producer revenue is approximately $18,329. In addition, based on Committee records and 2001 F.O.B. prices ranging from $14.50 to $22.50 per 24-pound container reported by USDA's Market News Service, all of the Washington apricot handlers ship under $5,000,000 worth of apricots. In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that all of the Washington apricot producers and handlers may be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the assessment rate established for the Committee and collected from handlers for the 2002-03 and subsequent fiscal periods from $2.00 to $2.50 per ton of apricots. The Committee unanimously recommended 2002-03 expenditures of $11,685 and an assessment rate of $2.50 per ton. The increased assessment rate is $.50 higher than the 2001-02 rate. The quantity of assessable apricots for the 2002-03 fiscal period is estimated at 3,650 tons. Income derived from handler assessments (approximately $9,125), along with funds from the Committee's authorized reserve, should be adequate to cover budgeted expenses.
The major expenditures recommended by the Committee for the 2002-03 fiscal period include $5,892 for salaries, $1,000 for travel, $816 for rent and maintenance, and $540 for office equipment and repair. Budgeted expenses for these items in 2001-02 were $5,731, $1,000, $792, and $264, respectively.
The assessment rate increase is necessary to offset increases in salaries and operating expenses, and an anticipated decrease in production due to the adverse effect of cooler temperatures on the size and quality of the 2002 apricot crop. As of March 31, 2002, the Committee's reserve was $8,257. At the previous assessment rate of $2.00 per ton and an estimated 2002 apricot production of 3,650 tons, the projected reserve on March 31, 2003, would have been $3,872. The Committee believed that such a level of reserve would not have been adequate should there have been another reduced crop. At the rate of $2.50 per ton (assessment income of $9,125) and expenditures of $11,685, the Committee may need to draw up to $2,540 from its reserve. If reserve funds in this amount are needed, the projected reserve will be approximately $5,697 on March 31, 2003, which the Committee determined to be acceptable.
The Committee considered alternate levels of assessment but determined that increasing the assessment rate to $2.50 per ton is adequate to maintain the reserve at an acceptable level. The Committee decided that an assessment rate between $2.00 per ton and $2.50 per ton would not have maintained the reserve at an adequate level. Prior to arriving at this rate of assessment, the Committee considered information from various sources, such as the Committee's Finance and Executive Committees.
A review of historical information and preliminary information pertaining to the upcoming fiscal period indicates that the producer price for the 2002-03 fiscal period could range between $800 and $850 per ton of apricots. Therefore, the estimated assessment revenue for the 2002-03 as a percentage of total producer revenue could range between 0.31 and 0.29 percent.
This action increases the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. While assessments impose some additional costs on handlers, the costs are minimal and uniform on all handlers. Some of the additional costs may be passed on to producers. However, these costs are offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the order. In addition, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Washington apricot industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations on all issues. Like all Committee meetings, the May 15, 2002, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue.
This rule imposes no additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Washington apricot 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.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendation submitted by the Committee and other available information, it is hereby found that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Apricots, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after April 1, 2002, an assessment rate of $2.50 per ton is established for the Washington Apricot Marketing Committee.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is adopting, as a final rule, without change, an interim final rule which revised the container and pack requirements currently prescribed under the California grape marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of grapes grown in a designated area of Southeastern California and is administered locally by the California Desert Grape Administrative Committee (Committee). This rule continues in effect the addition of four new containers (38L, 38M, CP, and CP1) to the list of containers authorized for use by grape handlers regulated under the grape order. This rule continues to allow reusable plastic containers (RPCs) in shipping grapes, and continues in effect revisions to lot stamping requirements for RPCs, revisions exempting master containers containing individual consumer packages from the minimum net weight requirements specified under the order, and revisions to marking and minimum net weight requirements for clarity. This rule is expected to help handlers compete more effectively in the marketplace, better meet the needs of buyers, and to improve producer returns.
September 23, 2002.
Rose Aguayo, California Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 2202 Monterey Street, suite 102B, Fresno, California 93721; telephone: (559) 487-5901, Fax: (559) 487-5906; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
This rule is issued under Marketing Order No. 925 (7 CFR part 925), as amended, regulating the handling of grapes grown in California, 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.”
USDA is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA 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. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA 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 USDA'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 continues in effect language in § 925.304 of the order's rules and regulations which added four new containers (38L, 38M, CP, and CP1) to the list of containers authorized for use by grape handlers regulated under the grape order, allowed RPCs in shipping grapes, revised the lot stamping requirements for RPCs, and exempted master containers containing individual consumer packages from the minimum net weight requirements specified under the order. This rule is expected to help handlers compete more effectively in the marketplace, better meet the needs of buyers, and to improve producer returns. The Committee unanimously recommended these changes at its February 12, 2002, meeting and clarified via a fax vote on February 21, 2002.
Section 925.52(a)(4) of the grape order provides authority to regulate size, capacity, weight, dimensions, marking, materials, and pack of containers, which may be used in the handling of grapes.
Prior to publication of the interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), § 925.304(b)(1) of the order's rules and regulations outlined container and pack requirements for grapes and required such grapes to be packed in containers which were new and clean and which otherwise met the requirements of §§ 1380.14, 1380.19(n), 1436.37, and 1436.38 of Title 3: California Code of Regulations (CA Code of Regulations).
Additionally, prior to publication of the above-mentioned interim final rule, §§ 925.304(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of the order's rules and regulations authorized ten containers (28, 38J, 38K, 38Q, 38R, 38S, 38T, 38U, 38V, and a 5 kilo) for use by grape handlers, and also authorized the Committee to approve other types of containers for experimental or research purposes.
Section 925.304(f) states that certain container and pack requirements cited in this regulation are specified in the Code of Regulations and are incorporated by reference and that a notice of any change in these materials will be published in the
Container requirements prescribed under the California grape order were revised in January 1998 (63 FR 655, January 7, 1998). In March 1998, the 38L grape lug was added to the CA Code of Regulations, but had not yet been added to the list of approved containers under the Federal order. The 38L grape lug is defined as any container with an inside depth of 7
Since that time, many retailers had asked handlers to pack grapes in specific RPCs, corrugated lugs, and master containers that are not authorized as containers under § 925.304(b)(1)(i). There are several manufacturers of these containers, and each manufacturer's container dimensions vary slightly. During previous seasons, handlers applied for and obtained Committee approval to use these containers on an experimental basis.
Prior to February 2002, the Grape and Tree Fruit League (League) petitioned the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to add the 38M grape lug to the list of standardized containers in the CA Code of Regulations. Standard containers represent container types that are recognized by the industry and adopted by the retail trade. The CDFA expected the 38M grape lug to be standardized in the CA Code of Regulations by May 2002. The 38M grape lug was standardized in the CA Code of Regulations on May 29, 2002.
At its February 12, 2002, meeting, the Committee unanimously recommended and USDA approved adding most of the containers previously approved as experimental containers, including the 38M grape lug, to the list of containers authorized under the order's rules and regulations. In reviewing container dimensions, the Committee concluded that the depth, width, and length dimensions for the 38L, 38M, CP, and CP1 grape lugs encompass the dimensions for the containers previously approved by the Committee for experimental purposes. Therefore, the Committee unanimously recommended, through a fax vote on February 21, 2002, and USDA approved adding the following four containers to the list of ten containers authorized in the order's rules and regulations (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002):
These containers may be constructed of several different materials (
These containers are an integral part of the marketing efforts used by many handlers to meet market demands. Some of these containers are RPCs. Retailers have requested that fruit be shipped in RPCs, as it can be cooled quickly in these containers. This, in turn, helps ensure that the grapes are fresh when they arrive at destination. The use of RPCs may result in substantial savings to retailers for storage and disposal as retailers return RPCs to a central area for cleaning and redistribution. Cost savings may accrue to handlers, as well, since they do not have to buy new containers for each shipment.
Prior to issuance of an interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), Section 925.304(b)(1) of the rules and regulations required grapes to be packed in new and clean containers. Containers, other than RPCs, are intended to be used once and discarded. RPCs are typically delivered to the retailer, emptied, and returned to the clearinghouse for cleaning and redistribution. As RPCs are reusable, the Committee recommended that the rules and regulations be revised to allow RPCs to be reused, provided such containers are cleaned. Allowing RPCs to be reused is expected to reduce the burden on handlers, as they will not have to apply and obtain Committee approval annually to utilize them.
Adding these four containers to the order's rules and regulations and allowing RPCs to be reused will enable handlers to meet their customer requirements this season. This action will help the industry in providing consumers with high quality grapes, promoting buyer satisfaction, and improving producer returns. This action will not impact the grape import requirements.
Section 925.55 of the order requires inspection and certification of grapes, handled by handlers. Prior to publication of an interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), § 925.304(b)(4) of the grape order's rules and regulations required containers of grapes to be plainly marked with the lot stamp number corresponding to the lot inspection conducted by an authorized inspector, and specified that such requirement shall not apply to containers in the center tier of a 3 box by 3 box pallet configuration.
During the 2001 season, the Committee approved the use of RPCs for experimental purposes. RPCs are made of plastic and retailers send these reusable containers to a central clearinghouse after use for cleaning and sanitizing. Because RPCs are reusable, these plastic containers do not support markings that are permanently affixed to the container. All markings must be printed on cards which slip into tabs on
The industry experimented last season with round adhesive labels on RPCs. The lot stamp number was stamped on the round adhesive label and the label was placed on the RPCs. However, it was difficult to remove the adhesive label in the wash cycle. Additionally, handlers found that workers needed to affix the adhesive label to the RPCs, and inspectors needed to stamp the lot stamp number on the adhesive labels, outside of cold storage facilities. During July 2001, temperatures in the production area reached 100 to 118 degrees Fahrenheit. Committee members estimated that for each hour that grapes were outside of cold storage after harvest, a day's shelf life was lost. Handler members calculated that affixing adhesive labels to RPCs cost the grape industry approximately $0.10 per grape lug in materials and labor. The inspection service and the Committee have presented their concerns to the manufacturers of these types of grape lugs. One manufacturer has indicated a willingness to address the problem by offering an area on the principal display panel where the container markings will adhere to the box. However, the manufacturer believes that this change may not be feasible in the near future.
To address the additional time and cost of affixing adhesive labels to containers, the Committee unanimously recommended and the USDA approved the stamping of lot stamp numbers on two USDA-approved pallet tags, with each pallet tag affixed to opposite sides of each pallet of containers (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002). The pallets will be wrapped with clear plastic immediately after inspection, ensuring the tags cannot be easily removed, although the tags remain visible beneath the wrap. The Committee estimated that affixing lot stamp numbers to pallet tags would reduce handler costs by $950,000, make handler operations more efficient, and will provide consumers with high quality grapes. Additionally, each lot will be traceable through the lot stamp, since the lot stamp number on the pallet tag corresponds to the lot stamp number annotated on the inspection certificate. This action will not affect imports.
Section 925.52(a)(4) of the grape order provides authority to fix the size, capacity, weight, dimensions, markings, materials, and pack of the container, which may be used in the handling of grapes.
Section 925.304(b)(2) of the order's rules and regulations specifies that the minimum net weight of grapes in any container, except for containers containing grapes packed in sawdust, cork, excelsior or similar packing material or packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or paper, and experimental containers, shall be 20 pounds based on the average net weight of grapes in a representative sample of containers.
Prior to publication of an interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), § 925.340(b)(2) further specified that containers of grapes packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or paper prior to being placed in these containers shall meet a minimum net weight requirement of 18 pounds.
Several years ago, the California Table Grape Commission (Commission) funded a 3-year research project designed to determine if current practices were getting the product to the retailer and ultimately the consumer in the best possible condition. A study of grape packaging was conducted by Dr. Harry Shorey of the University of California at Davis and the University of California at Kearney Agricultural Center at Parlier. The study concluded that the California grape industry should modify container dimensions so that containers will fit better on the standard 48 x 40-inch pallets, and that the container minimum net weights should be reduced to 18 and 20 pounds. Based on these conclusions, the Committee recommended and USDA approved reducing the minimum net weight requirements in March 1996 to enhance the deliverability of grapes (61 FR 11129, March 19, 1996).
Since that time, grape handlers have packed grapes in 18 and 20-pound containers and marked such containers as 18 and 20 pounds. The minimum net weight of grapes in 20-pound containers is based on the average net weight of grapes in a representative sample of containers. The minimum net weight of grapes in 18-pound containers also is based on the average net weight of grapes in a representative sample of containers. The language in § 925.304(b)(2) was changed by an interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), to specifically provide that containers containing grapes packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or paper prior to being placed in these containers must meet a minimum net weight requirement of 18 pounds based on an average net weight of grapes in a representative sample of containers.
Approximately 95 percent of all grapes shipped during the 2001 season were shipped in 18-pound containers. Grapes normally lose moisture during shipment. To address mislabeling concerns, it is common practice in the industry to pack containers of grapes slightly over the minimum net weight required to allow for shrink, and to mark these containers as 18 or 20 pounds, respectively. Last season, some containers were packed with slightly more than 21 pounds and marked as 21 pounds. Marking containers other than 18 or 20 pounds caused confusion in the marketplace and impacted handler assessments and statistical reporting. Thus, the Committee unanimously recommended at its February 12, 2002, meeting, that containers packed with slightly more than 18 or 20 pounds shall be marked as 18 and 20 pounds, respectively. To address this issue, the text of the interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002) provided that containers other than master containers containing individual consumer packages are to be marked with the minimum net weight of 18 or 20 pounds, as appropriate.
Recently, retailers have requested master containers containing individual consumer packages that weigh a total of 24 pounds, 16 pounds, or 10 pounds. An individual consumer package is a package that is customarily produced and distributed for sale to individuals for their personal consumption.
The Committee discussed the best means of allowing handlers to meet orders for master containers containing individual consumer packages that had different minimum net weight requirements. The Committee estimated that approximately 2 percent of the crop is shipped in master containers containing individual consumer packages and unanimously recommended and USDA approved revising § 925.304(b)(2) to exempt master containers containing individual consumer packages from the minimum net weight requirements of 18 or 20 pounds (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002). These changes will enable handlers to compete more effectively in the marketplace and to better meet the needs of buyers. These revisions do not impact the grape import regulation.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of
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 80 producers of grapes in the production area and approximately 26 handlers subject to regulation under the order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $5,000,000.
Last year, about 69 percent of the handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition and about 31 percent could be considered large businesses. It is estimated that about 88 percent of the producers have annual receipts of less than $750,000. Therefore, the majority of handlers and producers of grapes may be classified as small entities.
This rule continues in effect language in § 925.304 of the order's rules and regulations which added four new containers (38L, 38M, CP, and CP1) to the list of containers authorized for use by grape handlers regulated under the grape order, which covers grapes grown in a designated area of Southeastern California. This rule continues to allow handlers to ship grapes in RPCs, continues in effect the revised the lot stamping requirements for RPCs, and continues to exempt master containers containing individual consumer packages from the minimum net weight requirements specified under the order. Additionally, this rule continues to clarify marking requirements for 18 and 20 pound containers and continues in effect the removal of obsolete language in §§ 925.304(a) and 925.304(b)(iii) that was applicable to the period June 1, 1998, through August 15, 1998.
The order regulates the handling of grapes grown in California and is administered locally by the Committee. This rule is expected to help handlers compete more effectively in the marketplace, better meet the needs of buyers, and to improve producer returns. The Committee unanimously recommended these changes. Authority for these actions is provided in §§ 925.52 and 925.55 of the order.
Prior to publication of an interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), § 925.304(b)(1) of the order's rules and regulations outlined container and pack requirements for grapes and required grapes be packed in containers which were new and clean and which otherwise met the requirements of §§ 1380.14, 1380.19(n), 1436.37, and 1436.38 of CA Code of Regulations.
Prior to publication of an interim final rule, (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002) §§ 925.304(b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(iii) of the order's rules and regulations authorized ten containers for use by grape handlers, and also authorized the Committee to approve other types of containers for experimental or research purposes.
Section 925.304(f) states that certain container and pack requirements cited in this regulation are specified in the Code of Regulations and are incorporated by reference and that a notice of any change in these materials will be published in the
Container requirements prescribed under the California grape order were revised in January 1998 (63 FR 655, January 7, 1998). In March 1998, the 38L grape lug was added to the CA Code of Regulations, but had not yet been added to the list of approved containers under the order. The 38L grape lug is defined as any container with an inside depth of 7
Since that time, many retailers have asked handlers to pack grapes in specific RPCs, corrugated lugs, and master containers that are not authorized as containers under § 925.304(b)(1)(i). There are several manufacturers of these containers, and each manufacturer's container dimensions vary slightly. During previous seasons, handlers applied for and obtained Committee approval to use these containers on an experimental basis.
Prior to the Committee's February 12, 2002, meeting, the League had petitioned the CDFA to add the 38M grape lug to its list of standardized containers in the CA Code of Regulations. Standard containers represent container types that are recognized by the industry and adopted by the retail trade.
The range of dimensions allowed for the 38M grape lug encompasses the dimensions of many of the containers used experimentally during previous seasons, including some RPCs. The CDFA expected to standardize the 38M grape lug in the Code of Regulations by May 2002. The 38M grape lug was standardized in the Code of Regulations effective May 29, 2002.
At its February 12, 2002, meeting, the Committee unanimously recommended adding most of the containers previously approved as experimental containers during the 2001 season, including the 38M grape lug, to the list of containers authorized under the order's rules and regulations. In reviewing container dimensions, the Committee concluded that the 38L, 38M, CP, and CP1 grape lugs' depth, width, and length dimensions will encompass the containers previously approved by the Committee for experimental purposes. Therefore, the Committee unanimously recommended, through a fax vote on February 21, 2002, and USDA approved adding the following four containers to the list of ten containers authorized in the order's rules and regulations (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002):
These containers may be constructed of several different materials (
The Committee discussed alternatives to this change, including making no changes to the list of containers authorized under the grape order's rules and regulations. The Committee determined that the 38L, 38M, CP, and
Prior to publication of an interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), Section 925.304(b)(1) of the rules and regulations required such grapes to be packed in new and clean containers. Containers, other than RPCs, are intended to be used once and discarded. RPCs are typically delivered to the retailer, emptied, and returned to the clearinghouse for cleaning and redistribution. As RPCs are reusable, the Committee recommended that the rules and regulations be revised to allow RPCs to be reused, provided such containers are cleaned. Allowing cleaned RPCs to be reused is expected to help handlers better meet buyer needs.
Adding these four containers to the rules and regulations will enable handlers to meet their customer requirements this season. This action will continue to help the industry in providing consumers with high quality grapes, promoting buyer satisfaction, and improving producer returns. This action will not impact the grape import requirements.
Prior to publication of an interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), Section 925.304(b)(4) of the grape order's rules and regulations required containers of grapes to be plainly marked with the lot stamp number corresponding to the lot inspection conducted by an authorized inspector, and specified that such requirement shall not apply to containers in the center tier in a 3 box by 3 box pallet configuration.
During the 2001 season, the Committee approved usage of RPCs for experimental purposes. RPCs are made of plastic and retailers send these reusable containers to a central clearinghouse after use for cleaning and sanitizing. Because RPCs are reusable, these plastic containers do not support markings that are permanently affixed to the container. All markings must be printed on cards, which slip into tabs on the front or sides of the containers. The cards are easily inserted and removed, and further contribute to the efficient use of the container. Because of their unique portability, the industry and inspection service are concerned that the cards on pallets of inspected containers could easily be moved to pallets of uninspected containers.
The industry experimented last season with round adhesive labels on RPCs. The lot stamp number was stamped on the round adhesive label and the label was placed on the RPCs. However, manufacturers found that it was difficult to remove in the wash cycle. Additionally, handlers found that workers need to affix the adhesive label to the RPCs, and inspectors needed to stamp the lot stamp number on the adhesive labels, outside of cold storage facilities. During July 2001, temperatures in the production area reached 100 to 118 degrees Fahrenheit. Committee members estimated that for each hour that grapes were outside of cold storage after harvest, a day's shelf life was lost. Handler members calculated that affixing adhesive labels to RPCs cost the grape industry approximately $0.10 per grape lug in materials and labor. The inspection service and the Committee have presented their concerns to the manufacturers of these types of grape lugs. One manufacturer has indicated a willingness to address the problem by offering an area on the principle display panel where the container markings will adhere to the box, which will meet the needs of the industries, the inspection service, and the manufacturer. However, the manufacturer believes that this change may not be feasible in the near future.
To address the additional time and cost of affixing adhesive labels to containers, the Committee unanimously recommended the stamping of lot stamp numbers be on two USDA-approved pallet tags, with each pallet tag affixed to opposite sides of each pallet of containers. The pallets will be wrapped with clear plastic immediately after inspection ensuring the tags cannot be easily removed, although the tags remain visible beneath the wrap. The Committee estimated that affixing lot stamp numbers to pallet tags would reduce handler costs by $950,000, make handler operations more efficient, and will provide consumers with high quality grapes. Additionally, each lot will be traceable through the lot stamp, since the lot stamp number on the pallet tag corresponds to the lot stamp number annotated on the inspection certificate.
The Committee discussed alternatives to this change, including making no changes to the lot stamp-numbering requirement. The Committee believes that relaxing the lot stamp numbering requirement under the rules and regulations will result in better quality grapes being shipped to consumers, a reduction in handler costs, and improved producer returns. Thus, the Committee recommended and USDA approved revising § 925.304(b)(4) to require the number be stamped on two USDA-approved pallet tags for RPCs, and that the pallet tags be placed on opposite sides of each pallet (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002). This action will not affect imports.
Section 925.304(b)(2) of the order's rules and regulations specifies that the minimum net weight of grapes in any container, except for containers containing grapes packed in sawdust, cork, excelsior or similar packing material or packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or paper. It specifies that approved experimental containers shall be 20 pounds based on the average net weight of grapes in a representative sample of containers.
Prior to publication of an interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002), § 925.340(b)(2) further specified that containers of grapes packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or paper prior to being placed in these containers shall meet a minimum net weight requirement of 18 pounds.
Several years ago, the Commission funded a 3-year research project designed to determine if current practices were getting the product to the retailer and ultimately the consumer in the best possible condition. A study of grape packaging was conducted by Dr. Harry Shorey of the University of California at Davis and the University of California at Kearney Agricultural Center at Parlier. The study concluded that the California grape industry should modify container dimensions so that containers will fit better on the standard 48 x 40-inch pallets, and that the container minimum net weights should be reduced to 18 and 20 pounds. Based on these conclusions, the Committee recommended and USDA approved reducing the minimum net weight requirements in March 1996 to enhance the deliverability of grapes (61 FR 11129, March 19, 1996).
Since that time, grape handlers have packed grapes in 18 and 20-pound containers and marked such containers as 18 and 20 pounds. Approximately 95 percent of all grapes shipped during the 2001 season were shipped in 18-pound containers. Grapes normally lose moisture during shipment. To address
The Committee discussed alternatives to this change. The Committee believes that allowing markings other than 18 or 20-pound markings could cause confusion in the marketplace and may not address the mislabeling concerns as grapes lose moisture and shrink during shipment. Thus, the Committee unanimously recommended at its February 12, 2002, meeting, that the container marking requirements in § 925.304(b)(2) be revised as provided in the interim final rule (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002).
Recently, retailers have requested master containers containing individual consumer packages that weigh a total of 24 pounds, 16 pounds, or 10 pounds. An individual consumer package is a package that is customarily produced and distributed for sale to individuals for their personal consumption.
The Committee discussed alternatives to this change, including making no change to the minimum net weight requirement for master containers containing individual consumer packages, but believes that providing this exception for mater containers is in the best interest of handlers. The Committee estimated that approximately 2 percent of the crop is shipped in master containers containing individual consumer packages. The 2002 crop was estimated to be 9.5 million lugs. Allowing master containers containing individual consumer packages will enable handlers to market an additional 190,000 lugs of grapes. Therefore, the Committee unanimously recommended and USDA approved revising § 925.304(b)(2) to exempt master containers containing individual consumer packages from the minimum net weight requirements of 18 or 20 pounds. (67 FR 20607, April 26, 2002).
Finally, the language in § 925.304(b)(2) was changed for clarity to specifically provide that containers containing grapes packed in bags or wrapped in plastic or paper prior to being placed in these containers must meet a minimum net weight requirement of 18 pounds based on an average net weight of grapes in a representative sample of containers.
These revisions will enable handlers to compete more effectively in the marketplace and to better meet the needs of buyers. Imported grapes will not be affected by this action.
This rule continues in effect the minor changes to remove obsolete language in paragraphs (a) and (b)(iii) of § 925.304. These paragraphs included references to the period June 1, 1998, through August 15, 1998, which marked the trial usage of the “DGAC Consumer No. 1 Institutional” (DGAC) grade.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large grape 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.
In addition, as noted in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the grape industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the February 12, 2002, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. A fax vote was conducted to clarify the recommendation regarding the number and dimensions of containers to be added to the list currently authorized under the grape order. All handlers were provided information on the number and dimensions of containers to be added to the order.
An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule, without change, as published in the
Grapes, Marketing agreements and orders, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Forest Service, USDA; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Seasonal adjustments.
This provides notice of the Federal Subsistence Board's in-season management actions to protect sockeye salmon escapement in three Southeastern Alaska lake systems and to
The Falls Lake, Salmon Lake, and Klag Bay Lake action is effective July 24, 2002, through August 31, 2002. The Redoubt Lake action is effective July 25, 2002, through September 21, 2002.
Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone (907) 786-3888. For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Ken Thompson, Subsistence Program Manager, USDA—Forest Service, Alaska Region, telephone (907) 786-3592.
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126) requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) implement a joint program to grant a preference for subsistence uses of fish and wildlife resources on public lands in Alaska, unless the State of Alaska enacts and implements laws of general applicability that are consistent with ANILCA and that provide for the subsistence definition, preference, and participation specified in Sections 803, 804, and 805 of ANILCA. In December 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the rural preference in the State subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution and, therefore, negated State compliance with ANILCA.
The Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture (Departments) assumed, on July 1, 1990, responsibility for implementation of Title VIII of ANILCA on public lands. The Departments administer Title VIII through regulations at Title 50, Part 100 and Title 36, Part 242 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Consistent with Subparts A, B, and C of these regulations, as revised January 8, 1999, (64 FR 1276), the Departments established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The Board's composition includes a Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture; the Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service; the Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management; the Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Alaska Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service. Through the Board, these agencies participate in the development of regulations for Subparts A, B, and C, which establish the program structure and determine which Alaska residents are eligible to take specific species for subsistence uses, and the annual Subpart D regulations, which establish seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means for subsistence take of species in specific areas. Subpart D regulations for the 2002 fishing seasons, harvest limits, and methods and means were published on February 7, 2002, (67 FR 5890).
Because this rule relates to public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical closures and adjustments would apply to 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), under the direction of the Alaska Board of Fisheries (BOF), manages sport, commercial, personal use, and State subsistence harvest on all lands and waters throughout Alaska. However, on Federal lands and waters, the Federal Subsistence Board implements a subsistence priority for rural residents as provided by Title VIII of ANILCA. In providing this priority, the Board may, when necessary, preempt State harvest regulations for fish or wildlife on Federal lands and waters.
These adjustments are necessary because of weak returns of the sockeye salmon run in the Afognak Lake, Falls Lake, Salmon Lake, and Klag Bay Lake systems based on in-season run assessments. The adjustment for Redoubt Lake is necessary because of strong returns of sockeye salmon to that lake system. These actions are authorized and in accordance with 50 CFR 100.19(d)-(e) and 36 CFR 242.19(d)-(e).
The Falls Lake system was closed because sockeye salmon returns were very low, and to avoid excessive harvest effort for this relatively small sockeye population. The current harvest to date has exceeded the previous 5-year average and the weir counts have been very low.
The Salmon Lake system was closed because sockeye salmon returns were very low, and to avoid excessive harvest effort for this relatively small sockeye population. The total escapement to July 23, 2002, was 259 at Salmon Lake. In 2001 total escapement for Salmon Lake was 1039 sockeye salmon.
The Klag Bay Lake system was closed since sockeye salmon returns were very low, and to avoid excessive harvest effort for this relatively small sockeye population. The current harvest to date has exceeded the previous 5-year average and the weir counts have been very low.
This regulatory action was necessary to assure the continued viability of the sockeye salmon runs and provide a long-term subsistence priority during a period of limited harvest opportunity. These closures brought the Federal subsistence fishing regulations in line with the similar ADF&G action for unified management and minimized confusion under the dual management system.
On July 25, 2002, the Federal Subsistence Board suspended the sockeye harvest closure for non-Federally qualified users on the Redoubt Lake system. The projected escapement for 2002 of 32,887 fish is well above the previous 10-year average escapement. As a result of the larger than expected return, the Board suspended the now unnecessary, closure restrictions on non-Federally qualified users. This action also allowed users to fish under a State subsistence fishing permit rather than having to obtain a Federal permit.
The Board finds that additional public notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for these emergency closures are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. Lack of appropriate and immediate conservation measures could seriously affect the continued viability of fish populations, adversely impact future subsistence opportunities for rural Alaskans, and would generally fail to serve the overall public interest. Therefore, the Board finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) to waive additional public notice and comment procedures prior to implementation of these actions and pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to make this rule effective as indicated in the
A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on
The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. A Section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process. The final Section 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD which concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting hunting and fishing regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but the program is not likely to significantly restrict subsistence uses.
The adjustment and emergency closures do not contain information collection requirements subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
The adjustments have been exempted from OMB review under Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence preference on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, the adjustments have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Service has determined and certifies pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Service has determined that the adjustments meet the applicable standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the adjustments do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands. Cooperative salmon run assessment efforts with ADF&G will continue.
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175, and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no effects. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a participating agency in this rulemaking.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use. This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As these actions are not expected to significantly affect energy supply, distribution, or use, they are not significant energy actions and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
William Knauer drafted this document under the guidance of Thomas H. Boyd, of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Taylor Brelsford, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management; Rod Simmons, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Bob Gerhard, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs; and Ken Thompson, USDA-Forest Service, provided additional guidance.
16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
On January 15, 2002, the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted a request to EPA to redesignate the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Carbon Monoxide (CO) nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment of the National Ambient Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO. EPA is approving this request from the State of New Jersey because it meets the
EPA is also approving the New Jersey CO attainment demonstration that was submitted on August 7, 1998. This provides for full approval of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for CO.
Additionally, EPA is approving the 2007 and 2014 transportation conformity budgets found in New Jersey's CO maintenance plan. Finally, EPA is approving the 1997 transportation conformity budget submitted on December 10, 1999 as an addendum to the New Jersey CO attainment demonstration submitted on August 7, 1998.
The intended effect of this action is to approve a plan that demonstrates that the CO standard has been attained and will continue to be attained.
This direct final rule will be effective on October 22, 2002 unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 23, 2002. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the
Written 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 submittals and EPA's Technical Support Document are available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment, at the following addresses:
Henry Feingersh, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, (212)637-4249.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990, air quality designations can be revised if sufficient data is available to warrant such revisions.
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA identifies five specific requirements that an area must meet in order to be redesignated from nonattainment to attainment.
a. The Area Must Have Attained the Applicable NAAQS
b. The area must have a fully approved SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.
c. The air quality improvement must be permanent and enforceable.
d. The area must have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to section 175A of the CAA.
e. The area must meet all applicable requirements under section 110 and Part D of the CAA.
Pursuant to sections 107, 186, and 187 of the CAA, the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island CO nonattainment area is classified as a moderate 2 area (
The CO design value used for designation and control program development purposes was 13.5 ppm and was based on ambient CO data from a monitor in Kings County, New York. Kings County was chosen because this site recorded the highest CO values in the multistate nonattainment area. (See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) and 57 FR 56762 (November 30, 1992), codified at 40 CFR 81.333.) For moderate 2 CO nonattainment areas, the CAA required attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) by December 31, 1995. The remainder of the State of New Jersey is designated attainment for CO.
In the area being redesignated today, there was a measured exceedance of the CO NAAQS in 1994. Consequently, on April 24, 1996, the State of New Jersey submitted a request for a one year extension of the attainment date to December 31, 1996 as allowed for in the CAA if adjoining states concur. On July 31, 1996 and June 27, 1996, the States of New York and Connecticut respectively submitted letters to EPA concurring with New Jersey's request and requested their own extensions. Pursuant to section 186(a)(4), EPA granted the request for a one year extension to December 31, 1996 in a November 5, 1996
On August 7, 1998, New Jersey submitted its CO attainment demonstration. This proposed revision is contained in a document entitled “State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision for the Attainment and Maintenance of the Carbon Monoxide National Ambient Air Quality Standards—Attainment Demonstration for the New Jersey Portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Carbon Monoxide Nonattainment Area.” The State held a public hearing for this SIP revision on August 11, 1997.
In an effort to comply with the CAA and to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS, on January 15, 2002, the State of New Jersey submitted a CO redesignation request and maintenance plan for the New Jersey portion of the CO nonattainment area. New Jersey held a public hearing for this proposal on December 18, 2001.
The following is a brief description of how the State has fulfilled each of the CAA redesignation requirements.
New Jersey's CO air monitoring data shows that from calendar year 1995 through calendar year 2000, no violations of the CO NAAQS have occurred. A violation is considered to have occurred when measured levels exceed the standard more than once at the same CO monitor during a calendar year.
In addition, in order to demonstrate attainment of the CO NAAQS, the data must be quality-assured and not show a violation of the standard for the last two consecutive years. New Jersey's CO data has been quality assured and shows no more than one exceedance of the NAAQS per year over the most recent two complete years of data (1999 and 2000). Moreover, EPA's review of available data for 2001 and the first few
The 1990 CAA required that nonattainment areas meet specific new requirements depending on the severity of the nonattainment classification. Requirements for New Jersey include an attainment demonstration, forecast of vehicle miles traveled, the preparation of a 1990 emission inventory with periodic updates, the development of contingency measures, implementation of an enhanced inspection and maintenance (I/M) program, and adherence to the transportation and general conformity rules. In today's action EPA is fully approving New Jersey's January 15, 2002 CO SIP revision as meeting all of the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(I) of the CAA, including the requirements of Part D (relating to nonattainment), which were due prior to the date of New Jersey's redesignation request.
New Jersey's emissions inventory and contingency measures were approved by EPA as part of the New Jersey CO SIP on December 7, 1995 (60 FR 62741). Similarly, the vehicle miles traveled forecast was approved on July 25, 1996 (61 FR 38591).
Implementation of New Jersey's enhanced I/M program began on December 13, 1999. After the State successfully demonstrated its decentralized test and repair effectiveness rate credit claim and revised its performance standard modeling to reflect the program as implemented, EPA published a final approval of the enhanced I/M program on January 22, 2002 (67 FR 2811).
New Jersey submitted an August 7, 1998 CO attainment demonstration to EPA in which all of the modeled intersections attained the 8-hour CO standard of 9 ppm. Since air quality values at the most congested intersections were determined to not exceed the standard, New Jersey has demonstrated that the entire area is and will continue to be in attainment for CO. New Jersey used appropriate modeling techniques and modeling inputs in its demonstration. EPA is, therefore, approving the attainment demonstration at this time. Accordingly, as a result of today's action and the previous EPA actions noted above, New Jersey's CO SIP is fully approved.
Section 176 of the CAA contains requirements related to conformity. Although EPA regulations require that states adopt transportation conformity provisions (40 CFR 51.390) and general conformity provisions (40 CFR 51.851) in their SIPs for areas designated nonattainment, or that are subject to an EPA approved maintenance plan, EPA has determined that transportation and general conformity SIPs are not applicable requirements for purposes of evaluating a redesignation request under section 107(d) of the CAA. This decision is reflected in EPA's approval of the Boston, Massachusetts CO redesignation, where EPA modified its national policy regarding the interpretation of the provisions of section 107(d)(3)(E) concerning the applicable requirements for purposes of reviewing a CO redesignation request (61 FR 2918, January 30, 1996).
EPA's decision is based on a combination of two factors. First, the requirement to submit SIP revisions to comply with the conformity provisions of the CAA continues to apply to areas after redesignation to attainment. Therefore, the State remains obligated to adopt the transportation and general conformity rules even after redesignation and would risk sanctions for failure to do so. Unlike most requirements of section 110 and part D, which are linked to the nonattainment status of the area, the conformity requirements apply to both nonattainment and maintenance areas. Second, EPA's federal conformity rules require the performance of conformity analyses in the absence of approved state rules. Therefore, a delay in approving State rules does not relieve an area from the obligation to implement conformity requirements.
New Jersey does not yet have approved transportation and general conformity SIPs, however, EPA may approve this redesignation. Areas are subject to the conformity requirements regardless of whether they are redesignated to attainment and must implement conformity under Federal rules, if State rules are not yet approved. The State has developed new conformity budgets for CO that must be used in future conformity determinations, in accordance with the Federal conformity rules. These budgets are discussed in detail later in this notice. Accordingly, EPA believes it is appropriate to evaluate New Jersey's redesignation request independent of the status of the State's conformity regulations.
Consistent with the October 14, 1994 EPA guidance from Mary D. Nichols, entitled “Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,” EPA is not requiring full approval of a Part D NSR program by New Jersey as a prerequisite to redesignation to attainment. Under this guidance, nonattainment areas may be redesignated to attainment notwithstanding the lack of a fully approved Part D NSR program so long as the program is not relied upon for maintenance. New Jersey has not relied on a NSR program to maintain air quality within the CO standard. Moreover, because the New Jersey portion of the CO nonattainment area is being redesignated to attainment by this action, New Jersey's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, not Part D NSR, will be applicable to new or modified sources of CO.
As part of the August 7, 1998 CO SIP revision, New Jersey submitted a demonstration that the improvement in air quality within the nonattainment area is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions of CO resulting from implementation of a number of measures to control motor vehicle CO emissions. These measures include the Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program, Federal reformulated gasoline regulation, and New Jersey's pre-1990 modifications to its motor vehicle I/M program.
The State of New Jersey has demonstrated that actual enforceable emission reductions are responsible for the air quality improvement and that the CO emissions in the base year are not artificially low due to, for example, a local economic downturn. EPA finds that the combination of existing EPA-approved SIP and federal measures contribute to the permanence and enforceability of reduction in ambient CO levels that have allowed New Jersey to attain the NAAQS since 1995.
Section 175A of the CAA sets forth the elements of a maintenance plan for areas seeking redesignation from nonattainment to attainment. The plan
Sections 172(c)(3) and 187(a)(1) of the CAA require that CO plan provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, and current emission inventory from all sources of relevant pollutants in the nonattainment area. In addition, page 8, section 5a of the September 4, 1992 memorandum from John Calcagni, former Director, Air Quality Management Division, to EPA Regional Air Division Directors entitled “Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,” requires States to “develop an attainment inventory to identify the level of emissions in the area which is sufficient to attain the NAAQS. This inventory should be consistent with EPA's most recent guidance on emission inventories for nonattainment areas available at the time and should include emissions during the time period associated with the monitoring data showing attainment.”
New Jersey originally provided an estimate of 1996 attainment year emissions in its August 7, 1998 attainment demonstration. This was supplemented on October 1, 2001, when New Jersey submitted a revised 1996 attainment year CO inventory. The inventory, which is based on the winter time months spanning from December 1995 through February 1996, includes average winter time daily emissions from stationary point sources, stationary area sources, on-road mobile sources, and non-road mobile sources of CO. New Jersey's submittal reflects emission estimates that have been revised to incorporate methodological changes, including new control assumptions and updated vehicle registration data since that original submittal. The inventory was prepared in a manner consistent with EPA's most recent guidance for preparing actual emission inventories. Table I below shows the source sector contributions by county to the overall CO emissions in 1996.
For the reader's information, New Jersey has chosen to use countywide emission inventory values for attainment demonstration and projection purposes in Passaic County, rather than limiting the inventory to the three nonattainment municipalities. The State believes countywide CO inventory and projection values are more technically sound than sub-county estimates would have been in this case and are adequately protective of air quality.
EPA has reviewed New Jersey's 1996 attainment year inventory and finds that it was prepared in a manner acceptable to EPA. Therefore, EPA is approving the CO inventory for the counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union, and Passaic.
As part of the January 15, 2002 SIP submittal, New Jersey included projection year inventories for 2007 and 2014. These emissions, which reflect post-1996 control measure assumptions, are provided in Table 2 below in comparison to the 1996 attainment year inventory.
Based on the projections provided above, New Jersey estimates that total CO emissions within the nonattainment area will decrease from 1,365.31 tons per day in the 1996 attainment year to 1,071.93 tons per day in 2014. Such a reduction in CO emissions clearly supports New Jersey's contention that the CO NAAQS will be maintained into the forseeable future. Both the attainment and projected inventories submitted by New Jersey were prepared in accordance with EPA's most recent guidance. The attainment year and projection year totals in Tables 1 and 2 show that the future CO emissions are expected to be below the level of emissions in the attainment year and takes into account national, regional, and local (state) emission reduction benefits from the following control programs: Tier I—Post 1990 Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program; Federal Reformulated Gasoline; National Low Emission Vehicle Program; Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance Program; and Phase I of the Federal Spark Ignition Small Engine Rule. For more details on how New Jersey prepared its attainment year and projection year inventories, the reader is referred to the technical support document which accompanies this action. EPA finds that New Jersey has projected its 2007 and 2014 emissions using appropriate growth factors and methodology and is therefore, approving the CO projection year inventories for the counties of Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Union, and Passaic.
The submittal included transportation conformity budgets based on the control strategies, growth projections and assumptions used in the attainment demonstration and maintenance plans for the CO nonattainment area. Table 3 presents the 1997, 2007 and 2014 CO transportation conformity budgets in tons of CO per winter day. The transportation conformity budget for 1997 was submitted on December 10, 1999 as an addendum to the New Jersey CO attainment demonstration submitted by NJDEP on August 7, 1998. EPA announced its findings that the 1997 budget was adequate for transportation conformity purposes on June 9, 2000 (65 FR 36689). The transportation conformity budgets for 2007 and 2014 were included in the maintenance plan portion of the January 15, 2002 submittal. EPA sent a letter to NJDEP on April 22, 2002 stating that the 2007 and 2014 CO budgets are adequate for transportation conformity purposes. This finding was published in the
New Jersey has committed to continue to operate its existing air monitoring network and quality assurance program in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 to ensure the development of complete and accurate air monitoring data.
Continued attainment of the CO NAAQS in New Jersey depends, in part, on the State's efforts toward tracking indicators of continued attainment during the maintenance period. The State has projected CO emissions out to 2014 with the interim year of 2007. New Jersey will review monitoring data each year and will check for trends. If upward trends are observed, the State will review conditions to determine the cause of the increase. If this review does not reveal the cause of the increase and an exceedance is possible, emission estimates will be generated and compared to those from the 1996 attainment inventory. New Jersey has committed to report to EPA within six months of finding any upward air quality trends.
EPA is approving the State of New Jersey's plans for verifying continued attainment of the CO standard and for identifying areas at risk of exceeding the CO standard.
The level of CO emissions in New Jersey will largely determine its ability to stay in compliance with the CO NAAQS in the future. Despite the State's best efforts to demonstrate continued compliance with the NAAQS, it is possible that the ambient air pollutant concentrations may exceed or violate the NAAQS based upon some unforeseeable condition. In order to avoid this, the CAA requires states to develop contingency measures to offset unexpected emission increases. New Jersey has committed to implement a set of actions which will reduce truck idling emissions. In addition, the State will work with the local metropolitan planning organization, the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, to implement various transportation control measures.
In section 2.b. of this document EPA sets forth the basis for its conclusion that New Jersey has a fully approved SIP which meets the applicable requirements of section 110 and Part D of the CAA. EPA notes that section 110 also requires that states include in their SIPs, where applicable, oxygenated gasoline programs. The oxygenated fuels program was removed from the New Jersey SIP because the entire CMSA, including the New York and Connecticut portions, were attaining the CO NAAQS. Consequently, the State demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction that the program was no longer necessary to continue to attain the CO NAAQS (see 64 FR 63690 (November 22, 1999)).
EPA has determined that the information received from the NJDEP constitutes complete redesignation requests under the general completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, sections 2.1 and 2.2. Additionally, the New Jersey redesignation request meets the five requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E), noted earlier.
EPA is approving New Jersey's request for redesignating the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island CO nonattainment area to attainment, because the State has demonstrated compliance with the requirements of section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation. EPA is also approving the New Jersey CO maintenance plan because it meets the requirements set forth in section 175A of the CAA. In addition, EPA is approving the New Jersey CO attainment demonstration that was submitted on August 7, 1998. Finally, EPA is approving the 2007 and 2014 transportation conformity budgets found in New Jersey's CO maintenance plan and the 1997 transportation conformity budget submitted on December 10, 1999 as an addendum to New Jersey's August 7, 1998 CO attainment demonstration.
The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
If the EPA receives adverse comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state 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
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 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 Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 22, 2002. 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).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(a) Approval—The September 28, 1995 revision to the carbon monoxide state implementation plan for Camden County and the Nine not-classified areas (the city of Trenton, the City of Burlington, the Borough of Penns Grove (part), the Borough of Freehold, the City of Morristown, the City of Perth Amboy, the City of Toms River, the Borough of Somerville, and the City of Atlantic City). This revision included a maintenance plan which demonstrated continued attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for carbon monoxide through the year 2007.
(b) The base year carbon monoxide emission inventory requirement of section 187(a)(1) of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments has been satisfied for the entire State. The inventory was submitted on November 15, 1992 and amended on September 28, 1995 by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection as a revision to the carbon monoxide State Implementation Plan.
(c) Approval—The November 15, 1992, October 4, 1993, and August 7, 1998 revisions to the carbon monoxide state implementation plan for the New Jersey portion of the New York—Northern New Jersey—Long Island
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
This rulemaking contains EPA's final determination that the San Diego area has attained the 1-hour ozone air quality standard by the deadline required by the Clean Air Act. If adverse written comments are received, we will withdraw the direct final rule and address the comments received in a new final rule; otherwise no further rulemaking will occur on this action. Elsewhere in this issue of the
This direct final finding is effective October 22, 2002, without further notice, unless we receive adverse comments by September 23, 2002. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Please address your comments to: Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the State's submittal are available for public inspection during normal business hours at EPA's Region 9 office and at the following locations:
Dave Jesson, US EPA Region 9, at (415) 972-3957, or
When the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments were enacted in 1990, each area of the country that was designated nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), including the San Diego area, was classified by operation of law as marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem.
Upon the San Diego area's reclassification as serious, the CAA required submittal of a state implementation plan (SIP) demonstrating attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than November 15, 1999. CAA sections 181(a)(1) and 182(c)(2)(A). The SIP had to meet several other CAA requirements for serious areas. See generally CAA section 182(c). The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) adopted a serious area plan addressing these provisions, and we approved the SIP submittal on January 8, 1997 (62 FR 1150).
Although the San Diego area did not attain the standard by the November 15, 1999 deadline, the area did qualify to have that deadline extended, since the area had complied with all requirements and commitments in the SIP and recorded no more than 1 exceedance of the NAAQS in 1999. For areas meeting these provisions, CAA section 181(a)(5) allows us to grant up to two 1-year extensions. On October 11, 2000 (65 FR 65025), we granted the San Diego area a 1-year attainment date extension to November 15, 2000, and on August 6, 2001 (66 FR 40908), we granted the area a second 1-year extension to November 15, 2001, since the area again had no more than 1 exceedance in the previous year.
On March 28, 2002, Richard J. Smith, Acting Director, SDCAPCD, addressed a letter to Michael P. Kenny, Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), asking that the State petition us to make an attainment finding because quality-assured ambient ozone data show no more than one exceedance at any monitoring station in the San Diego area for the 1999-2001 period. On June 21, 2002, CARB formally requested that we make a finding of attainment for the San Diego area based on the area's design value as of the 2001 attainment date (letter from Michael P. Kenny to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9).
Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we must determine within six months of the applicable attainment date whether an ozone nonattainment area has attained the standard. If we find that a serious area has not attained the standard and does not qualify for an extension, it is reclassified by operation of law to severe. Under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A), we must base our determination of attainment or failure to attain on the area's design value as of its applicable attainment date, which for the San Diego area was November 15, 2001.
The 1-hour ozone NAAQS is 0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded on average more than 1 day per year over any 3-year period. 40 CFR 50.9 and appendix H. Under our policies, we determine if an area has attained the 1-hour standard by calculating, at each monitor, the average number of days over the standard per year during the preceding 3-year period.
The design value is an ambient ozone concentration that indicates the severity of the ozone problem in an area and is used to determine the level of emission reductions needed to attain the standard, that is, it is the ozone level around which a State designs its control strategy for attaining the ozone standard. A monitor's design value is the fourth highest ambient concentration recorded at that monitor over the previous 3 years. An area's design value is the highest of the design values from the area's monitors.
We make attainment determinations for ozone nonattainment areas using all available, quality-assured air quality data for the 3-year period up to and including the attainment date.
Determining whether or not an area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard under CAA section 181(b)(1)(A) is based on monitored air quality data. Thus, the validity of a determination of attainment depends on whether the monitoring network adequately measures ambient ozone levels in the area.
We evaluate 4 basic elements in determining the adequacy of an area's ozone monitoring network. The network needs to meet the design requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix D; the network needs to utilize monitoring equipment designated as reference or equivalent methods under 40 CFR part 53; and the agency or agencies operating the equipment need to have a quality assurance plan in place that meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58, appendix A. The ozone network in the San Diego area meets or exceeds these requirements and is therefore adequate for use in determining the ozone attainment status of the area.
We have listed in Table 1 the design values and the average number of exceedance days per year for the 1999 to 2001 period for each monitoring site in the San Diego area. We calculated the design values following the procedures in the Laxton memo.
From Table 1, the highest design value at any monitor, and thus the design value for the San Diego area, is .12 ppm at the Alpine site. No monitor in the San Diego area recorded an average of more than 1 exceedance of the 1-hour ozone standard per year during the 1999 to 2001 period.
Because the area's design value does not exceed the 0.12 ppm 1-hour ozone standard and the area has averaged less than 1 exceedance per year at each monitor for the 1999 to 2001 period, we find that the San Diego area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard by its Clean Air Act mandated attainment date of November 15, 2001.
A finding that an area has attained the 1-hour ozone standard under CAA section 181(b)(1)(A) does not redesignate the area to attainment for the 1-hour standard nor does it guarantee a future redesignation to attainment.
The redesignation of an area to attainment under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E) is a separate process from a finding of attainment under CAA section 181(b)(1)(A). Unlike an attainment finding where we need only determine that the area has had the prerequisite number of clean years, a redesignation to attainment requires additional submittals and multiple determinations. Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), we must make the following determinations:
1. The area has attained the relevant NAAQS at the time of redesignation.
2. The State has a fully approved SIP for the area.
3. The improvements in air quality are due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions resulting from implementation of the SIP and applicable federal regulations and other permanent and enforceable reductions.
4. We have fully approved a maintenance plan for the area under CAA section 175A.
5. The State has met all the nonattainment area requirements applicable to the area.
To address the provisions of CAA section 175A, SDCAPCD is preparing an ozone redesignation request and maintenance plan, which is scheduled for adoption later this year. It is possible, although not expected, that the San Diego area might violate the 1-hour ozone NAAQS before the maintenance plan is approved and the area is redesignated to attainment. If such a violation were to occur after EPA's finding of attainment under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) in this rulemaking, EPA believes that issuance of a SIP call under CAA section 110(k)(5) would be an appropriate response. This SIP call could require the State to submit, by a reasonable deadline but not to exceed 18 months, a revised plan demonstrating expeditious attainment and compliance with other requirements of subpart 2 applicable to the area at the time of this finding.
We are finding that the San Diego area has attained the 1-hour ozone NAAQS under CAA section 181(b)(2)(A).
We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial finding and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely determines that the San Diego area has attained a previously-established national ambient air quality standard based on an objective review of measured air quality data. As such, the action 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
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely makes a determination based on air quality data, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's final action because the action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes a time-limited tolerance for residues of triflumizole (1-(1-((4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl) phenyl)imino)-2-propoxyethyl)-1
This regulation is effective August 23, 2002. Objections and requests for hearings, identified by docket ID number OPP-2002-0183, must be received on or before October 22, 2002.
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 VII. of the
By mail: Andrea Conrath, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9356; e-mail address: conrath.andrea@epa.gov.
You may be potentially 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.
EPA, on its own initiative, in accordance with sections 408(e) and 408(l)(6) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, is establishing a tolerance for residues of the fungicide triflumizole, (1-(1-((4-chloro-2-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino)-2- propoxyethyl)-1
Section 408(l)(6) of FFDCA requires EPA to establish a time-limited tolerance or exemption from the requirement for a tolerance for pesticide chemical residues in food that will result from the use of a pesticide under an emergency exemption granted by EPA under section 18 of FIFRA. Such tolerances can be established without providing notice or period for public comment. EPA does not intend for its actions on section 18-related tolerances to set binding precedents for the application of section 408 and the new safety standard to other tolerances and exemptions. Section 408(e) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance or an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance on its own initiative, i.e., without having received any petition from an outside party.
Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of 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. . . .”
Section 18 of FIFRA authorizes EPA to exempt any Federal or State agency from any provision of FIFRA, if EPA determines that “emergency conditions exist which require such exemption.” This provision was not amended by the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). EPA has established regulations governing such emergency exemptions in 40 CFR part 166.
Since the discovery of Eastern Filbert Blight (EFB) in Oregon in the late 1980's, none of the control tactics have provided complete control, and the disease continues to spread.
Without adequate control of EFB, not only are significant economic losses likely, but the long-term viability of the filbert industry is also in jeopardy, as 98% of U.S. filbert production occurs in Oregon. Efficacy trials have indicated that the triflumizole provides better control, as compared to the currently available alternatives, none of which are systemic in nature. EPA has authorized under FIFRA section 18 the use of triflumizole on filberts for control of Eastern Filbert Blight in Oregon. After having reviewed the submission, EPA concurs that emergency conditions exist for this State.
As part of its assessment of this emergency exemption, EPA assessed the potential risks presented by residues of triflumizole in or on filberts. In doing so, EPA considered the safety standard in FFDCA section 408(b)(2), and EPA decided that the necessary tolerance under FFDCA section 408(l)(6) would be consistent with the safety standard and with FIFRA section 18. Consistent with the need to move quickly on the emergency exemption in order to address an urgent non-routine situation and to ensure that the resulting food is safe and lawful, EPA is establishing this tolerance without notice and opportunity for public comment as provided in section 408(l)(6). Although this tolerance will expire and is revoked on June 30, 2004, under FFDCA section 408(l)(5), residues of the pesticide not in excess of the amounts specified in the tolerance remaining in or on filberts after that date will not be unlawful, provided the pesticide is applied in a manner that was lawful under FIFRA, and the residues do not exceed the level that was authorized by this tolerance at the time of that application. EPA will take action to revoke this tolerance earlier if any experience with, scientific data on, or other relevant information on this pesticide indicate that the residues are not safe.
Because this tolerance is being approved under emergency conditions, EPA has not made any decisions about whether triflumizole meets EPA's registration requirements for use on filberts or whether a permanent tolerance for this use would be appropriate. Under these circumstances, EPA does not believe that this tolerance serves as a basis for registration of triflumizole by a State for special local needs under FIFRA section 24(c). Nor do these tolerances serve as the basis for any State other than Oregon to use this pesticide on this crop under section 18 of FIFRA without following all provisions of EPA's regulations implementing section 18 as identified in 40 CFR part 166. For additional information regarding the emergency exemption for triflumizole, contact the Agency's Registration Division at the address provided under
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 scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of triflumizole and to make a determination on aggregate exposure, consistent with section 408(b)(2), for a time-limited tolerance for residues of triflumizole in or on filbert at 0.05 ppm.
The most recent estimated aggregate risks resulting from the use of triflumizole are discussed in the
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. A summary of the toxicological dose and endpoints for triflumizole for use in human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.A. of the final rule mentioned above, published in the
EPA assessed risk scenarios for triflumizole under acute and chronic exposure scenarios.
The Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM
The following assumptions were made for the acute exposure assessments: A conservative, unrefined Tier 1 acute dietary exposure assessment was conducted for females 13-50 years old using tolerance level residues and modified DEEM
Using these exposure assessments, EPA concluded that triflumizole exposure from food consumption will utilize 19% of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for the US population subgroup of concern, females 13 years and older. No acute toxicity endpoint was selected for the general U.S. population, including infants and children; therefore, an acute dietary exposure assessment was not conducted for these groups. In addition, despite the potential for acute dietary exposure to triflumizole in drinking water, after calculating drinking water levels of concern (DWLOCs) and comparing them to conservative model estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of triflumizole in surface water and ground water, EPA does not expect the aggregate exposure to exceed 100% of the aPAD, as shown in the following Table 1.
The following assumptions were made for the chronic exposure assessments: A partially refined, Tier 3 chronic dietary assessment was conducted for the general U.S. population and all population subgroups (including infants and children) using anticipated residues, modified DEEM
Using these exposure assessments, EPA concluded that exposure to triflumizole from food will utilize 11% of the cPAD for the population subgroup infants
Triflumizole is classified as a “Group E” chemical (evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans) based on adequate studies in 2 species of animal. Therefore, a cancer dietary exposure assessment was not performed.
Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). For triflumizole, the Agency did not perform short-term or intermediate-term assessments because there are currently no registered or proposed uses for homeowner application and residential post-application exposures are expected to be negligible.
Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, and to infants and children from aggregate exposure to triflumizole residues.
Adequate enforcement methodology is available to enforce the tolerance expression. The method may be requested from: Francis Griffith, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 701 Mapes Road, Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number (410)
There are no Codex maximum residue limits established for triflumizole residues in/on any crop commodities. Therefore, no compatibility problems exist for the proposed tolerance.
A maximum of four applications may be made. A maximum of 0.125-0.25 pound active ingredient may be applied using ground or aerial equipment. No more than 1 pound active ingredient may be applied per acre per season.
Therefore, the tolerance is established for residues of triflumizole (1-(1-((4-chloro-2- (trifluoromethyl)phenyl)imino)-2-propoxyethyl)-1
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 ID number OPP-2002-0183 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 October 22, 2002.
1.
Mail your written request to: Office of the Hearing Clerk (1900C), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. You may also deliver your written request to the Office of the Hearing Clerk in Rm. 104, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. 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 (703) 603-0061.
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 time-limited tolerance under FFDCA section 408. 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 374.
(b)
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
Final rule.
This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), that are suspended on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will be withdrawn by publication in the
The effective date of each community's suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.
If you wish to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date, contact the appropriate FEMA Regional Office or the NFIP servicing contractor.
Edward Pasterick, Division Director, Program Marketing and Partnership Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 500 C Street, SW.; Room 411, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3098.
The NFIP enables property owners to purchase flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program, 42 U.S.C. 4001
In addition, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has identified the special flood hazard areas in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The date of the FIRM if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in the identified special flood hazard area of communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year, on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial flood insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
Each community receives a 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification addressed to the Chief Executive Officer that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications have been made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless they take remedial action.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, October 26, 1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp.; p. 252.
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR 55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp.; p. 309.
Flood insurance, Floodplains.
42 U.S.C. 4001
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rules; withdrawal.
The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM). This action is necessary due to technological advances that have occurred since we published these documents. The effect of this action is to inform the public of our decision to discontinue work on these proposals. This action is part of our effort to address recommendations of the Government Accounting Office and the Management Advisory Council by reducing the number of items in the Regulatory Agenda.
Patrick W. Boyd, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-23), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone 202-267-7320.
On May 2, 1989, the FAA published an ANPRM seeking information on the feasibility of installing, in all air carrier aircraft, fuselage fuel tanks and fuel lines that are rupture resistant and that disconnect and seal in the event of an accident (54 FR 18824). We issued the ANPRM in response to section 9(a) of the Aviation Safety Research Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-591). The comment period closed on October 30, 1989.
Since the FAA published the ANPRM, many technological advancements in fuel tank design have occurred. In addition, we are currently engaged in a process of harmonizing fuel tank and fuel line requirements with the European Joint Aviation Authority. For these reasons, we are withdrawing this ANPRM. We may consider further rulemaking action on this issue in the future.
On February 2, 1995, the FAA published an NPRM to amend the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes to require fuel system vent protection during post-crash ground fires (60 FR 6632). The proposal was the result of information obtained from public hearings on aircraft fire safety and was intended to provide protection against a fuel tank explosion following a post-crash ground fire. The comment period closed on June 2, 1995.
Since the FAA published the NPRM, technological advancements have occurred in this area also. In addition, the issues raised in the NPRM will be addressed by future regulatory action developed within the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee as part of the FAA's program to harmonize its regulations with those of the European Joint Aviation Authorities. The FAA believes future rulemaking action that may be broader in scope and a harmonized proposal will better serve the public interest.
The FAA withdraws the following documents:
• Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled, Installation of Crashworthy Fuselage Fuel Tanks and Fuel Lines, RIN 2120-AC87, May 2, 1989, 54 FR 18824; and
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled, Fuel System Vent Fire Protection, RIN 2120-AA49, February 2, 1995, 60 FR 6632.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Boeing Model 767 series airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of the aileron control override quadrant with a modified unit. This action is necessary to prevent corrosion of the input override mechanism bearings of the lateral central control actuator, which, in the event of a subsequent jam in the pilot's aileron control system, could result in failure of the aileron override system and consequent reduced lateral controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by October 7, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2002-NM-34-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington
Douglas Tsuji, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-1506; fax (425) 227-1181.
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this action may be changed in light of the comments received.
Submit comments using the following format:
• Organize comments issue-by-issue. For example, discuss a request to change the compliance time and a request to change the service bulletin reference as two separate issues.
• For each issue, state what specific change to the proposed AD is being requested.
• Include justification (
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 2002-NM-34-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 2002-NM-34-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The FAA has received a report of the seizing of the input override mechanism bearings of the lateral central control actuator on affected airplanes. The seizing was discovered during an inspection and has been attributed to corrosion on the steel bearings in the override mechanism. A failed override system is a latent failure and does not affect normal operation. However, if the pilot's control system were to subsequently jam, the seizing of the override bearings could have prevented the aileron control override system from operating properly. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced lateral control of the airplane.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0175, dated October 25, 2001, which describes procedures for replacing the aileron control override quadrant with a modified unit. The modification involves replacing the existing steel bearings with corrosion-resistant steel bearings. Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously, except as discussed below.
Service Bulletin 767-27A0175 recommends that operators perform the actions specified by Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0142 before the actions of this proposed AD. The FAA agrees that both service bulletins require access to the same area of the airplane, so accomplishment of both actions at the same time would be convenient for operators. However, the FAA finds that accomplishment of the actions in Service Bulletin 767-27-0142 is not necessary in connection with this AD to ensure the safety of affected airplanes.
There are approximately 811 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 318 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 3 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 $146 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $103,668, or $326 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new airworthiness directive:
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (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 corrosion of the input override mechanism bearings of the lateral central control actuator, which, in the event of a subsequent jam in the pilot's aileron control system, could result in failure of the aileron override system and consequent reduced lateral controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, replace the aileron control override quadrant with a modified unit, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 767-27A0175, dated October 25, 2001.
This AD does not require accomplishment of the actions specified by Boeing Service Bulletin 767-27-0142.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an aileron control override quadrant that has not been modified in accordance with the requirements of this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Seattle ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Seattle ACO.
(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.
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 McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-30F (KC10A and KDC-10), MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F airplanes. This proposal would require inspections of the linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) of the autopilot for discrepancies, and follow-on actions, if necessary. This action is necessary to prevent failure of the LVDTs, which could result in an automatic pitch trim malfunction or an autopilot disconnect, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by October 7, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-358-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
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 (
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-358-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-358-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The FAA has been informed by the manufacturer that certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10-10, DC-10-10F, DC-10-15, DC-10-30, DC-10-30F, DC-10-30F (KC10A and KDC-10), MD-10-10F, and MD-10-30F airplanes having linear variable differential transducers (LVDT) were delivered with an undersize nylok element on the threaded extension end. If such undersizing is not corrected, the LVDT plunger jamnut could become loose causing an automatic pitch trim malfunction, an elevator stand-off resulting in automatic pitch trim operation in one direction only, or an autopilot disconnect.
Also, we received one report of a pitch trim incident in flight that resulted in an uncommanded nose-down pitch of the airplane. Investigation revealed that the cause of that incident was loose shear rivets in the drive assembly of the automatic pitch trim LVDT. The loose shear rivets allowed the automatic pitch trim LVDT to shift enough to command the horizontal stabilizer to put the airplane in a nose-down direction. Further investigation revealed additional airplanes with loose rivets, and one airplane with an additional problem with the attachment to the automatic pitch trim LVDT. Binding between the plunger and body of the LVDT due to loose rivets can cause failure of the LVDT shear rivets. Such conditions, if not corrected, could result in an automatic pitch trim malfunction and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-22A126, dated October 31, 2001, which describes procedures for a visual inspection of the shear rivets of the LVDTs of the drive assembly of the automatic pitch trim for discrepancies (sheared and/or loose rivets), and these six follow-on conditions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
We also have reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-22A127, dated December 17, 2001, which describes procedures for a visual inspection of the LVDTs for affected serial numbers (with an undersize nylok element) and these two options for follow-on actions:
•
•
Accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins is intended to adequately address the identified unsafe condition.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletins described previously, except as discussed below.
The service bulletins described previously refer to a “visual” inspection. For the purposes of this AD, we have determined that the procedures in the service bulletins constitute a “detailed inspection.” Note 2 of this proposed AD defines such an inspection.
We have specified model designations in the applicability of this proposed AD as published in the most recent type certificate data sheet for the affected models. These model designations differ in the referenced service bulletins.
There are approximately 394 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 252 airplanes of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD.
It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the inspection specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-22A126, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this proposed inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $15,120, or $60 per airplane.
It would take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the inspection specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-22A127, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of this proposed inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $15,120, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this proposed AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
Should an operator be required to perform the follow-on actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-
•
•
•
•
Should an operator be required to perform the follow-on actions specified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-22A127, the cost estimates are as follows:
•
•
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 (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 failure of the linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) of the autopilot, which could result in an automatic pitch trim malfunction or an autopilot disconnect, and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Do the detailed inspections of the LVDTs of the autopilot for discrepancies as required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(1) Inspect the LVDTs for affected serial numbers (with undersize nylok elements) per Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-22A127, dated December 17, 2001. If any affected serial number is found, before further flight, do either Option 1 (including replacing the LVDT with a new LVDT and doing an automatic pitch trim adjustment/test), or Option 2 (including installing a heat-shrinkable sleeve over the LVDT jamnut and doing repetitive inspections for any loose jamnut every 500 flight hours until the LVDT is replaced with a new LVDT), of Condition 1 of the service bulletin, per the service bulletin. If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, replace the LVDT with a new LVDT. If no discrepancy is found, install a shield assembly per Condition 2 of the service bulletin.
(2) Inspect the shear rivets of the LVDTs of the drive assembly of the automatic pitch trim for discrepancies (shearing and/or looseness), per Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-22A126, dated October 31, 2001. If any discrepancy is found, before further flight, do Conditions 2 through 6 (including repairing the driver assembly and inspecting the LVDT within 9 months after doing the repair; doing an automatic pitch trim adjustment/test; aligning the LVDT; replacing the existing LVDT with a new LVDT; and replacing the hangar assembly with a new assembly), as applicable, of the service bulletin, per the service bulletin. If no discrepancy is found, no further action is required by this paragraph.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no one may install an LVDT with a serial number listed in the “Affected Serial Numbers” table in Figure 1 of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC10-22A127, dated December 17, 2001, 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, Manager, Los Angeles 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, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
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 Dassault Model Falcon 2000 series airplanes. This proposal would require performing an inspection to determine the serial number on the identification plate on each of the three hydraulic shut-off valve (HSOV) actuators on the left-hand and right-hand hydraulic reservoirs, and replacing an HSOV actuator with a new HSOV actuator, if necessary. This action is necessary to ensure that proper HSOV actuators are installed on the hydraulic fluid reservoirs. In the event of an engine fire, a faulty HSOV, if not corrected, could allow the flow of flammable fluid to the engine nacelle, which could result in an engine nacelle fire that could not be readily extinguished. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Comments must be received by September 23, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-364-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey 07606. 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 (
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-364-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-364-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 Dassault Model Falcon 2000 series airplanes. The DGAC advises that it has received reports of a batch of faulty hydraulic shut-off valve (HSOV) actuators that may be installed on the hydraulic reservoirs of certain Model Falcon 2000 series airplanes. The left-hand hydraulic reservoir has two HSOV actuators, and the right-hand hydraulic reservoir has one HSOV actuator. An HSOV actuator is intended to close the HSOV in order to stop the flow of flammable fluid to the engine nacelle in the event of a fire. The faulty HSOV actuators have defective switches and may not close the HSOVs when required. The cause of these faulty HSOV actuators has been attributed to a manufacturing process error during the production of the HSOV actuators. This condition, if not corrected, could allow the flow of flammable fluid to the engine nacelle, which could result in an engine nacelle fire that could not be readily extinguished.
Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F2000-A223, dated October 17, 2001, which describes procedures for an inspection to determine the serial number on the identification plate on each of the three HSOV actuators on the left-hand and right-hand hydraulic reservoirs. The service bulletin also describes procedures for replacing an HSOV actuator with a new HSOV actuator (including torquing the screw), if necessary. 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 2001-497-011(B), dated October 17, 2001, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in France. The French airworthiness directive contains a typographical error in that it references Dassault Service Bulletin “F2000-223” instead of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-A223.
This airplane model is manufactured in France 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
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 Dassault service bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates that 87 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 actions, 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 $10,440, 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 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 (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 an engine nacelle fire that cannot be readily extinguished, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect to determine the serial number on the identification plate on each of the three hydraulic shut-off valve (HSOV) actuators on the left-hand and right-hand hydraulic reservoirs, per the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(b) If any serial number specified in paragraph 2.B.(3) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-A223, dated October 17, 2001, is found during the inspection required by paragraph (a) of this AD, before further flight, replace the HSOV actuator with a new HSOV actuator (including torquing the screw), per the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F2000-A223, dated October 17, 2001.
(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 2001-497-011(B), dated October 17, 2001.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
Comments must be received by October 7, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-114, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-NM-277-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Comments may be submitted via fax to (425) 227-1232. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address:
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Data and Service Management, Dept. C1-L5A (D800-0024). This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California.
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 (
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-277-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-277-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056.
The FAA has received a report of electrical arcing that resulted in a fire on a McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-32 airplane. Investigation revealed that a connector at a disconnect panel at station Y=237.000 in the left forward cargo compartment was contaminated with what appeared to be blue water. Further investigation revealed that a dripshield should have been installed over the subject disconnect panel on airplanes equipped with forward lavatories. This condition, if not corrected, could cause electrical arcing that could result in a fire on the airplane.
The subject area on certain McDonnell Douglas Model DC-9-10, DC-9-20, other DC-9-30, DC-9-40, and DC-9-50 series airplanes is almost identical to that on the affected Model DC-9-32 airplane. Therefore, those airplanes may be subject to the same unsafe condition.
The FAA has reviewed and approved Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, Revision 01, dated November 21, 2001, which describes procedures for a one-time visual inspection at a disconnect panel at station Y=237.000 in the left forward cargo compartment to find evidence of contamination (
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this same type design, the proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions specified in the service bulletin described previously.
There are approximately 80 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 51 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
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 (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 find and fix contamination of certain electrical connectors and prevent future contamination of these connectors, which could cause electrical arcing and result in a fire on the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time general visual inspection of the disconnect panel at station Y=237.000 in the left forward cargo compartment to find evidence of contamination (
(1) If no evidence of contamination of electrical connectors is found, and a dripshield is installed, no further action is required by this AD.
(2) If any evidence of contamination of any electrical connector is found: Before further flight, remove each affected connector, and install a new or serviceable connector according to the service bulletin.
(3) If no dripshield is installed over the disconnect panel: Before further flight, install a dripshield according to the service bulletin.
(b) Inspections and corrective actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin DC9-24A190, dated July 31, 2001, are considered acceptable for compliance with the corresponding action specified in this AD.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles 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, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
This notice proposes to establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area for Ainsworth Municipal Airport, NE; establish Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class E surface area at Ainsworth, NE; and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Ainsworth, NE. The FAA has developed Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Runway (RWY) 17 ORIGINAL Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP), RNAV (GPS) RWY 35 ORIGINAL SIAP, VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR) RWY 17 Amendment 3 SIAP and VOR RWY 35 Amendment 4 SIAP to serve Ainsworth Municipal Airport, NE. Class
Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2002.
Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch Manager, ACE-520, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Docket Number 02-ACE-8, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Regional Counsel for the Central Region at the same address between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours in the Air Traffic Division at the same address listed above.
Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Airspace Docket No. 02-ACE-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter. All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the Rules Docket, FAA, Central Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report that summarizes each substantive-public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rule making will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Public Affairs, Attention: Public Inquiry Center, APA-230, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-3484. Communications must identify the notice number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, which describes the application procedure.
The FAA is considering an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E airspace designated as a surface area for Ainsworth Municipal Airport, NE; establish Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class E surface area at Ainsworth, NE; and modify Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface of the earth at Ainsworth, NE.
This Class E airspace surface area, Class E airspace surface area extensions and additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet AGL are needed to ensure that aircraft executing straight-in SIAPs to RWY 17 and RWY 35 remain within controlled airspace. The areas would be depicted on appropriate aeronautical charts. Class E airspace surface areas, Class E airspace surface area extensions and Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth are published in paragraphs 6002, 6004 and 6005 respectively of FAA Order 7400.9J, dated August 31, 2001, and effective September 16, 2001, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9J Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 31, 2001, and effective September 16, 2001, is amended as follows:
Within a 4.3-mile radius of Ainsworth Municipal Airport.
That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the Ainsworth VOR/DME 197° radial extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Ainsworth Municipal Airport to 7 miles south of the airport; and within 2.4 miles each side of the Ainsworth VOR/DME 348° radial extending from the 4.3-mile radius of Ainsworth Municipal Airport to 7 miles north of the airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Ainsworth Municipal Airport and within 3.9 miles each side of the 179° bearing from the airport extending from the 7.4-mile radius to 9.6 miles south of the airport.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The EPA is proposing to approve the State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on January 15, 2002 by the State of New Jersey to redesignate the New Jersey portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island Carbon Monoxide (CO) nonattainment area from nonattainment to attainment of the National Ambient Quality Standard (NAAQS) for CO. EPA is proposing to approve the New Jersey CO maintenance plan because it provides for continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
EPA is also proposing to approve New Jersey's CO attainment demonstration that was submitted on August 7, 1998. This will provide for full approval of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for CO. Additionally, EPA is proposing to approve the 1997 transportation conformity budget submitted on December 10, 1999 as an addendum to the New Jersey CO attainment demonstration submitted on August 7, 1998. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the 2007 and 2014 transportation conformity budgets found in New Jersey's CO maintenance plan.
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received on or before September 23, 2002.
All comments should be addressed to: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
Copies of the State submittals are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air Quality Management, Bureau of Air Pollution Control, 401 East State Street, CN027, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
Henry Feingersh, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10278, (212) 637-4249.
For additional information see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to determine that the San Diego County area has attained the 1-hour ozone air quality standard by the deadline required by the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Comments on this proposal must be received by September 23, 2002.
Please address your comments to Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the State's submittal are available for public inspection during normal business hours at EPA's Region 9 office and at the following locations:
Dave Jesson, US EPA Region 9, at (415) 972-3957, or
In the Rules and Regulations section of this
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of intent to delete Gould Site from the National Priorities List.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 10, announces its intent to delete the Gould Site (Site) from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes 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 (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have determined that the remedial action for the site has been successfully executed.
Comments concerning the proposed deletion of this Site from the NPL may be submitted on or before September 23, 2002.
Comments may be mailed to: Beverly Gaines, EPA Point of Contact, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop, ECL-110, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Comprehensive information and the deletion docket for this Site are available through the Region 10 public docket which is available for reviewing at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Superfund Records Center, Seattle, Washington 98101.
Information on the site and a copy of the deletion docket are also available for viewing at the Information Repository which is located at: Multnomah County Library, 801 SW 10th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204.
Beverly Gaines, EPA Point of Contact, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop, ECL-110, Seattle, Washington 98101, phone: (206) 553-1066, fax: (206) 553-0124, e-mail:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its intent to delete the Gould Site, which is located in the City of Portland, Oregon, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes 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 (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the environment and maintains the NPL as the list of these sites. EPA and the State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)have determined that the remedial action for the site has been successfully executed.
EPA will accept comments on the proposal to delete this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in the
Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NPL. Section III discusses the procedures EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses the Gould Site and explains how the site meets the deletion criteria.
Section 300.425(e) of the NCP provides that sites may be deleted from, or recategorized on the NPL, where no further response is appropriate. In making a determination to delete a site from the NPL, EPA shall consider, in consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required; or
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been implemented, and no further action by responsible parties is appropriate, or
(iii) The Remedial Investigation has shown that the site poses no significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore, remedial measures are not appropriate.
In the case of this site, the selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment; however, the remedy will leave waste on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. A review of the selected remedy will occur at least every five years from initiation of the remedial action. The next five-year review will be done before September 28, 2002.
The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of this site: (1) All appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented and no further action by EPA is appropriate; (2) the State of Oregon has concurred with the proposed deletion decision; (3) a notice has been published in the local newspapers and has been distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials and other interested parties announcing the commencement of a 30-day public comment period on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete; and (4) all relevant documents have been made available in the local site information repositories.
Deletion of the site from the NPL does not in itself, create, alter or revoke any individual's rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist Agency management. As mentioned in section II of this notice, Sec. 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the
For deletion of this site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a final decision to delete. If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public comments received.
A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final notice in the
The following site summary provides the Agency's rationale for the proposal to delete this Site from the NPL.
The Gould Site is located in the City of Portland, Oregon between NW Saint Helen's Road and NW Front Avenue in a heavily industrialized area northwest of downtown Portland known as the Doane lake area. The Site includes a 9.2 acre property currently owned by Gould Inc. that was the location of the former secondary lead smelter and battery recycle facility. Areas outside the property boundary is where battery casings and other residues from operations on the Gould property were placed.
A secondary lead smelting operation began at the Gould Site in 1949 under the ownership of Morris P. Kirk and Sons, a subsidiary of NL Industries, Inc. (NL). Facility operations included lead-acid battery recycling, lead smelting and refining, and lead oxide production. Gould purchased the property in 1979 and closed the facility in 1981. During facility operations, discarded battery casing materials and other lead smelter wastes were used as fill on the Gould Site and an adjacent property. Acid from batteries was drained to Doane Lake during several years of operation.
The Gould Site is adjacent to the former location of the Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company (Rhone-Poulenc) facility. Rhone-Poulenc is conducting an investigation under DEQ oversight and State authority of on-site and off-site contamination associated with their former pesticide and herbicide manufacturing facility.
The Gould Site is approximately one thousand feet southwest of the Willamette River. The Lower Willamette River, known as the Portland Harbor area, was recently added to the NPL because of sediment contamination. A remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Lower Willamette River is being conducted by a group of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) under a Consent Order signed by EPA and the PRPs in September 2001.
In 1981 and 1982, a joint investigation of contamination at the Gould Site was conducted by EPA and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality). EPA included the site on the NPL in 1983 because of documented lead contamination. In 1985 NL and Gould signed a Consent Order with EPA under which the two companies conducted an RI/FS. The RI/FS was completed in February 1988. The RI/FS showed there were high levels of lead contamination in battery casings and other smelter waste, soil, debris and in East Doane Lake sediments at the Site.
In March 1988, EPA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the Soils Operable Unit. The selected remedy included excavating and treating battery casings, recovering lead for recycle, excavation of contaminated soil and East Doane Lake sediments followed by stabilization of material that exceeds Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) characteristic hazardous waste levels, monitoring air, groundwater, and surface water quality. The 1988 ROD also included additional study of groundwater to determine whether action was needed because there was insufficient hydrogeologic information available to make a decision on the groundwater.
The selected remedy was expected to control the migration of contaminants from the Site by minimizing releases to the air and groundwater. Surface soil cleanup levels for lead of 1000 mg/kg were selected to be protective of human industrial exposures, including direct contact, inhalation, and ingestion. The intent was to recycle materials that could potentially be recycled (lead and casing materials).
Excavation and treatment of contaminated surface soils, battery casing piles, buried battery casings, matte (smelter waste), and other debris began in the summer of 1993. Excavated battery casings were processed through a treatment plant to separate materials (lead fines, metallic lead, clean plastic, and clean ebonite) for recycle. Contaminated soil and matte were stabilized to bind contaminants for backfilling on Site.
An estimated 24,000 tons of contaminated battery casings were treated through the treatment/separation process, with 244 tons of plastic and 88 tons of coarse lead recycled. An estimated 20,000 blocks (each measuring one cubic yard) of stabilized material was produced. Several hundred tons of contaminated debris were shipped off site for disposal. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of contaminated material were stockpiled on Site.
The treatment/recycle process was suspended in 1994 because of operational problems, inconsistent results, and significantly increased costs. EPA subsequently determined that the selected remedy was no longer appropriate based on operating experience and conditions at the Site.
In June 1997, EPA issued a ROD Amendment for the Soils Operable Unit that changed the cleanup remedy previously selected at the Site. The modified selected remedy included the following:
The 1997 ROD Amendment also required mitigation/restoration to compensate for the loss of the estimated 3.1 acres of EDLR open water habitat. The ROD Amendment retained the surface soil cleanup level for lead at 1,000 mg/kg (the cleanup level selected in the 1988 ROD). Lead contamination was the principal threat addressed in the ROD and the primary contaminant of concern addressed in the 1997 ROD Amendment. The ROD Amendment modified the contaminated subsurface
In the 1997 ROD Amendment, EPA determined that results of previous groundwater monitoring had not confirmed lead contamination in area groundwater. Data collected in 1995 and 1996 indicated that lead contamination was not widespread or significant in groundwater near the site. The ROD Amendment further concluded that although it did not appear there was a need for treatment of groundwater for lead, monitoring would be continued to further evaluate site conditions, and provide a basis for future cleanup or no action decisions for groundwater.
DEQ issued a Removal Action Decision Memorandum under State law in May 1998 that evaluated removal alternatives for organic contamination in portions of the East Doane lake remnant that could be performed in conjunction with the sediment removal action described in EPA's ROD Amendment for the Gould Site. DEQ's evaluation was based on additional sampling in the East Doane Lake remnant which indicated that sediments were also contaminated with organic chemicals that appeared to be related to past waste management practices at the Rhone-Poulenc Ag Company (Rhone-Poulenc) facility that was located adjacent to the Gould property. DEQ determined that removal of additional sediments in portions of East Doane Lake was warranted to address organic contamination and that the removal should occur in conjunction with sediment removal under the Gould Site remedial action. Rhone-Poulenc did not agree to perform the removal action and DEQ funded the removal of additional contaminated sediments.
Nine Gould Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) signed a Consent Decree with EPA that was lodged in U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon in March, 1998. The PRPs began work in the summer of 1998 with the excavation, dewatering, and stockpiling of contaminated sediments from EDLR. Construction of the on-site containment facility, excavation and treatment of other contaminated materials, placement of the waste in the containment facility, and other cleanup actions required by the ROD Amendment have been completed as described below:
Other cleanup activities performed as part of the remedial action included demolition of on-site structures, asbestos abatement and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) light ballast removal and disposal, and excavation of surface soils contaminated above the 1,000 ppm lead cleanup level established by the ROD Amendment. Extensive air monitoring of lead and particulate levels was conducted to ensure that fugitive dust from construction activities were adequately controlled. Perimeter security fencing was installed to restrict access to the OCF.
EPA has approved a wetlands mitigation plan which provides funding and requires acquisition of an off-site property as mitigation for the loss of East Doane lake wetland and open-water habitat. EPA will approve the specific property in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to acquisition.
EPA released a proposed plan that described the agency's preferred alternative of no further action for the Gould Site Groundwater Operable Unit on August 10, 2000. No comments were received during the 30-day public comment period.
EPA issued a “No Action” ROD for the Groundwater Operable Unit on September 28, 2000. The ROD concluded that cleanup of the Gould Site Soils Operable Unit has addressed lead-contaminated waste, soil, debris, and other potential sources of groundwater contamination from the Gould site operations. Groundwater investigations and monitoring have not shown a need for additional cleanup of Gould site contaminants in groundwater. Long-term groundwater monitoring will continue as required by the ROD Amendment for the Soils Operable Unit.
The remedial action cleanup activities at the Gould Site are consistent with the objectives of the NCP and will provide protection to human health and the environment. The major sources of contamination, including battery casings, smelter waste, and lead-contaminated waste, soil, and debris have been addressed.
Air monitoring for dust and lead was performed during remedial construction and non-construction activities. The action levels for the Site ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 ug/cubic meter with specific
Groundwater samples were collected during six sampling events during construction activities from on-site and off-site wells. Sample results indicated that there were no exceedences of the 15 micrograms/liter action level for lead established under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Surface soil (0 to 1ft depth) sampling was performed at the Site to identify soils exceeding 1,000 mg/kg total lead and confirm removal. Surface soils that required removal outside the footprint of the OCF were located in the lake area of the Rhone-Poulenc property and the eastern and southern portions of the Gould property. Surface soil inside the footprint of the OCF was also removed as part of the site preparation for the OCF. Contaminated surface soils from these areas were excavated and disposed of in the OCF. Confirmatory sampling was performed and sample analysis was conducted for areas outside the OCF footprint in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan results were reviewed and approved by EPA representatives prior to backfilling with imported non-contaminated soil.
East Doane lake was divided into sampling quadrants and dredging depths were predetermined based on sample results. Post-dredging sampling was also conducted to evaluate whether dredging achieved the criteria of EP Toxicity for lead. Total lead levels were also collected for comparison purposes. Re-dredging of sediment in quadrants that did not meet the criteria was conducted until the sample results within the quadrant indicated the criteria was met and/or EPA approved backfilling the sample quadrant based on sample results in the quadrant and consideration of the practical limits of dredging. The East Doane lake remnant was then backfilled in accordance with the ROD and contract documents.
Two stockpiles of waste material were designated as principle threat waste, the lead fines stockpile and the screened excavation stockpile. This waste was treated by stabilization to achieve a RCRA waste characteristic level of less than 5 mg/l of lead. Quality control confirmatory samples were collected to verify that the results met the performance standard.
Operation and maintenance activities began in January 2000 in accordance with the Final Remedial Design Report and Draft Operation and Maintenance Plan. The Final Operation and Maintenance Plan was completed November 6, 2001. It addresses activities, responsibilities and schedules for the following site components: OCF cover condition and stability, erosion and sedimentation controls, access roads, security fencing, storm water systems, leachate collection and removal, and groundwater monitoring. The plan also addresses monitoring and inspection frequency and responsibilities. Site inspections, maintenance and monitoring have been performed and will continue to be performed in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan. EPA approved the Final Operation and Maintenance Plan on May 15, 2002.
Future use of the property is limited to industrial or other uses compatible with the cleanup under the terms of the Environmental Protection Restrictive Covenant and Easements that were granted by property owners to meet the requirements of the Consent Decree. EPA will evaluate the institutional controls at least every five years as part the five-year reviews that will be conducted at the Site.
Hazardous substances will remain at the Site above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure after the completion of the remedial action. Pursuant to CERCLA Section 121(c) and provided in the current guidance on Five-Year Reviews, EPA must conduct a statutory five-year review to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the environment. EPA conducted the first five-year review of the Gould Site on September 28, 1997, and the next five-year review is scheduled to be completed by September 28, 2002.
EPA provided routine progress fact sheets to keep the public advised of site cleanup activities. There was not a great deal of interest in the excavation of waste materials and construction of the On-site Containment Facility (OCF) from the general public, but workers at an adjacent Metro waste transfer facility did raise concerns about the potential for off-site migration of lead-contaminated dust. Arrangements were made to provide air monitoring results directly to representatives from the transfer facility to keep workers advised and provide assurances that lead levels were being adequately controlled.
One of the three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL if “responsible parties have implemented all appropriate response actions required.” EPA, with the concurrence of the State of Oregon, believe that this criterion for deletion has been met. There is no significant threat to human health or the environment and, therefore; no further remedial action is necessary. Subsequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this site from the NPL. Documents supporting this action are available in the deletion docket at the information repositories.
In a letter dated August 8, 2002, from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), DEQ concurs with the proposed deletion of the Gould Superfund Site from the NPL.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of intent to issue regulations.
On June 12, 2002, President George W. Bush signed Public Law 107-188, Public Health Safety and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. The Act specifies that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services establish and maintain a list of biological agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety. The Secretary directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to convene an inter-agency work group to review the current list of biological agents and toxins found in 42 CFR part 72, Appendix A, and revise the list as necessary.
Prior to issuing the Interim Final Rule, as required by Public Law 107-
Submit comments on or before September 17, 2002.
Comments on the revisions to the list of select agents and toxins that are under consideration should be marked “Comments on Select Agents” and mailed to: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Select Agent Transfer Program, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop E-79, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Due to staff and equipment limitations, CDC cannot accept comments by facsimile or electronic mail.
For information concerning the revisions to the list of select agents and toxins that are under consideration should contact: Ms. Jennifer Brooks, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Office of the Director, 1600 Clifton Road NE., Mailstop C-12, Atlanta, Georgia 30333. Telephone: (404) 639-2763.
President George W. Bush signed the Public Health Safety and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-188) on June 12, 2002. The Act specifies that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services establish and maintain a list of biological agents and toxins that have the potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety. The current list of select agents and toxins was published in the
The Secretary directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to convene an inter-agency work group to review the current list of biological agents and toxins and revise the list as necessary. Members of the work group included representatives from the Department of Health and Human Services/Office of the Secretary (DHHS/OS), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of the Army (DoD/Army), the Department of the Navy (DoD/Navy), the Department of the Air Force (DoD/AF), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Department of Labor/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (CDC/NIOSH), the Department of Transportation (DoT), the Department of Commerce (DoC), Department of Energy (DoE), the Department of Justice (DoJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DoD/DIA), and the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).
The current list of select agents and toxins was previously published in the
The following changes are being considered to the list of
1. Rename “Equine Morbillivirus” to “Nipah and Hendra Complex viruses”.
2. Change “Tick-borne encephalitis complex viruses” to “Tick-borne encephalitis complex (flavi) viruses (Central European Tick-borne encephalitis, Far Eastern Tick-borne encephalitis (Russian Spring and Summer encephalitis, Kyasanur Forest disease, Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever))”.
3.
4.
5.
The following changes are being considered to the list of
1. Remove “(Pseudomonas)” from the name of “Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) mallei” and “Burkholderia (Pseudomonas) pseudomallei”.
2. Change “Clostridium botulinum” to “Botulinum neurotoxin producing strains of Clostridium”.
3.
4.
The following change is being considered to the list of
1. Change Coccidioides immitis to Coccidioides immitis, C. posadasii.
The following changes are being considered to the list of
1.
2. Change “Botulinum toxins” to “Botulinum neurotoxins”.
3. Change “Shigatoxin” to “Shigatoxin and Shiga-like toxins”.
The following change is being considered for
1. Change “Exemptions: Toxins for medical use, inactivated for use as vaccines, or toxin preparations for biomedical research use at an LD<INF> 50 for vertebrates of more than 100 nanograms per kilogram body weight are exempt. National standard toxins required for biologic potency testing as described in 9 CFR part 113 are exempt.” to “Exemptions: Toxin preparations containing ≤ 1 mg of Botulinum neurotoxins; ≤ 10 mg of Staphylococcal enterotoxins; or ≤ 100 mg of Abrin, Clostridium perfringens epsilon toxin, Conotoxins, Diacetoxyscirpenol, Ricin, Saxitoxin, Shigatoxin and Shiga-like toxins, Tetrodotoxin, or T-2 toxin, are exempt. Toxin preparation stored in more than one location within a facility must be aggregated in determining if the exemption applies. The medical use of toxins for patient treatment are exempt.”
The following changes are being considered to
1. Change title “Recombinant Organisms/Molecules” to “Genetic Elements, Recombinant Nucleic Acids, and Recombinant Organisms”.
2. Change “1. Genetically modified microorganisms or genetic elements from organisms on Appendix A, shown to produce or encode for a factor associated with a disease. 2. Genetically modified microorganisms or genetic elements that contain nucleic acid sequences coding for any of the toxins listed in this Appendix, or their toxic subunits.” to:
“1. Full length nucleic acids (synthetic or naturally derived) of any of the viruses listed in Appendix A.
2. Nucleic acids (synthetic or naturally derived) of 100 nucleotides or more in length of Variola major virus (smallpox virus).
3. Nucleic acids (synthetic or naturally derived) of bacteria, fungi, or viruses listed in Appendix A that encode for either a functional toxin or virulence factor sufficient to cause disease if the nucleic acid is: (1) Expressed in vivo or in vitro; (2) in an expression vector or host chromosome; or (3) in a carrier plasmid.
4. Nucleic acids (synthetic or naturally derived) that encode for functional form of any of the toxins listed in Appendix A if: (1) Expressed in vivo or in vitro; (2) in an expression vector or host chromosome; or (3) in a carrier plasmid.
5. Microorganisms in Appendix A that have been genetically modified.”
Finally, CDC is considering the following change to
1. Remove the following text since exemptions will be addressed in the Interim Final Rule:
“1. Products subject to regulation under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136
2. Additional exemptions for otherwise covered strains will be considered when CDC reviews and updates the list of select agents and toxins in this Appendix. Individuals seeking an exemption should submit a request to CDC that specifies the agent or strain to be exempted and explains why such an exemption should be granted. Future exemptions will be published in the
The following is the list of select agents and toxins that is being considered for adoption:
1. Full length nucleic acids (synthetic or naturally derived) of any of the viruses listed in Appendix A.
2. Nucleic acids (synthetic or naturally derived) of 100 nucleotides or more in length of Variola major virus (smallpox virus).
3. Nucleic acids (synthetic or naturally derived) of bacteria, fungi, or viruses listed in Appendix A that encode for either a functional toxin or virulence factor sufficient to cause disease if the nucleic acid is: (1) Expressed in vivo or in vitro; (2) in an expression vector or host chromosome; or (3) in a carrier plasmid.
4. Nucleic acids (synthetic or naturally derived) that encode for functional form of any of the toxins listed in Appendix A if: (1) Expressed in vivo or in vitro; (2) in an expression vector or host chromosome; or (3) in a carrier plasmid.
5. Microorganisms in Appendix A that have been genetically modified.
The deliberate transfer of a drug resistance trait to microorganisms listed in this Appendix that are not known to acquire the trait naturally is currently prohibited if such acquisition could compromise the use of the drug to control these disease agents in humans or veterinary medicine.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, and public hearing announcement.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) gives notice of a public hearing on the proposed critical habitat designations for 46 plants from the island of Molokai, Hawaii. In addition, the comment period which originally closed on June 4, 2002, will be reopened. The new comment period and hearing will allow all interested parties to submit oral or written comments on the proposal. We are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the proposed rule. Comments already submitted on the proposed rule need not be resubmitted as they will be fully considered in the final determination.
The comment period for this proposal now closes on September 30, 2002. Any comments received by the closing date will be considered in the final decision on this proposal. The public hearing will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Monday, September 9, 2002, on the island of Molokai, Hawaii. Prior to the public hearing, the Service will be available from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. to provide information and to answer questions. The Service will also be available for questions after the hearing.
The public hearing will be held at the Mitchell Pauole Center Hall, 90 Ainoa Street, Kaunakakai, Hawaii. Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Islands Office, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122, PO Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Paul Henson, at the above address (telephone 808/541-3441, facsimile 808/541-3470).
On April 5, 2002, we published a revised proposed critical habitat rule for 46 of the 51 plant species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
A total of 51 species historically found on Molokai were listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act between 1991 and 1999. Some of these species may also occur on other Hawaiian islands. Previously, we proposed that designation of critical habitat was prudent for 47 (
We also propose designation of critical habitat for 46 (
Section 4(b)(5)(E) of the Act, requires that a public hearing be held if it is requested within 45 days of the publication of a proposed rule. In response to a request from a government agency of the State of Hawaii, we will hold a public hearing on the date and at the address described in the
Anyone wishing to make an oral statement for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their statement and present it to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration. There are no limits to the length of written comments presented at the hearing or mailed to us. Legal notices announcing the date, time, and location of the public hearing will be published in newspapers concurrently with the
Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing should
Information regarding this proposal is available in alternate formats upon request.
We will accept public comments on the draft economic analysis until September 11, 2002.
Comments from the public regarding this proposed rule are sought, especially regarding:
(1) The reasons why critical habitat for any of these species is prudent or not prudent as provided by section 4 of the Act and 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1);
(2) The reasons why any particular area should or should not be designated as critical habitat for any of these species, as critical habitat is defined by section 3 of the Act;
(3) Specific information on the amount, distribution, and quality of habitat for the 46 species, and what habitat is essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(4) Land use practices and current or planned activities in the subject areas, and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(5) Any economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designations of critical habitat, including any impacts on small entities, energy development, low income households, and local governments;
(6) Economic and other potential values associated with designating critical habitat for the above plant species such as those derived from non-consumptive uses (
(7) Information for use, under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in determining if the benefits of excluding an area from critical habitat outweigh the benefits of specifying the area as critical habitat.
Reopening of the comment period will enable us to respond to the request for a public hearing on the proposed action. The comment period on this proposal now closes on September 30, 2002. Written comments should be submitted to the Service office listed in the
The primary author of this notice is Michelle Mansker (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of supplemental scoping meetings; request for comments.
The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils (Councils) are currently developing Amendment 2 to the Monkfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), pursuant to the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, as amended. Among management measures, the FMP implemented a limited access system which restricts participation in the monkish fishery within Federal waters based on historical participation. The Councils are considering revising the monkfish limited access permit system in Amendment 2 to allow vessels that landed monkfish after the original control date in the southern end of the range of the fishery to qualify for permits.
In January 2002, at one of their regularly scheduled meetings, the Councils provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the monkfish limited access permit system in Amendment 2. Once again, the Councils intend to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on this particular issue. The intended effect of this action is to alert interested public of the commencement of this supplemental scoping process and to provide for public participation.
The Councils will discuss and take scoping comments on options to amend the monkfish limited access program in Amendment 2 at public meetings in September 2002. See
Written comments should be directed to Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Room 2115 Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-6790. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile (fax) to (302) 674-5399. Comments should be marked “Comments on Monkfish Amendment 2.” The Council will not accept unsigned faxes or comments by e-mail.
Daniel T. Furlong, Executive Director, telephone (302) 674-2331, ext. 19.
A notice of intent to prepare a Monkfish Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and notice of public scoping process was published in the
The public will have an opportunity to provide oral comments on the options that would potentially amend the monkfish limited access program at the September meeting of the New England Fishery Management Council, and three additional public meetings to be held in September, as described below. The dates, times, and locations of the hearings are scheduled as follows:
1. Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 7-9 p.m.—Roanoke Island Festival Park, One Festival Park, Manteo, NC 27954; telephone: 252-475-1500.
2. Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 6-8 p.m.—Providence Biltmore Hotel, Providence, RI 02903; telephone: 401-421-0700.
3. Thursday, September 12, 2002, 7-10 p.m.—Chincoteague Center, 6155
These public meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Joanna Davis at the Mid-Atlantic Council at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Supplemental proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes additional changes related to an earlier proposed rule to implement Amendment 69 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area (FMP). This proposed amendment would allow an American Fisheries Act (AFA) inshore cooperative to contract with a non-member vessel to harvest a portion of the cooperative's pollock allocation. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed Amendment 69 to provide greater flexibility to inshore catcher vessel cooperatives to arrange for the harvest of their pollock allocation, and to address potential emergency situations, such as vessel breakdowns, that would prevent a cooperative from harvesting its entire allocation. This action is designed to be consistent with the environmental and socioeconomic objectives of the AFA, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the FMP, and other applicable laws.
Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before October 7, 2002.
Comments must be sent to Sue Salveson, Assistant Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802, Attn: Lori Gravel, or delivered to Federal Building, Fourth Floor, 709 West 9th Street, Juneau, AK, and marked Attn: Lori Gravel. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Review/ Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RIR/IRFA) prepared for Amendment 69 may be obtained from NMFS at the above address. Send comments on collection-of-information requirements to the NMFS, Alaska Region and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20503 (Attn: NOAA Desk Officer). Additional information on the AFA, and the regulations to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, may be found in the proposed rule to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, and in the final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8, which is available from NMFS at the addresses noted above.
Kent Lind, 907-586-7650, or
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (BSAI) under the FMP. The Council prepared, and NMFS approved, the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1801
The Council has submitted Amendment 69 for Secretary of Commerce review and a Notice of Availability of the FMP amendment was published in the
The AFA established a limited access program for the inshore sector of the BSAI pollock fishery that is based on the formation of fishery cooperatives around each inshore pollock processor. Under the AFA, if at least 80 percent of the catcher vessels that delivered the majority of their BSAI pollock catch to a specific inshore processor during the previous year form a fishery cooperative, and agree to deliver at least 90 percent of its BSAI pollock catch to that same processor, then NMFS must grant the cooperative an exclusive allocation of BSAI pollock based on the member vessels' catch histories from 1995-1997. NMFS issues a single pollock allocation to each cooperative and the cooperative may make sub-allocations of pollock to each individual vessel owner in the cooperative.
All the inshore cooperative agreements implemented to date have provided each member of the cooperative an allocation of pollock that is proportionate to the member vessel's catch history in a manner determined by the cooperative (generally, the best 2 of 3 years from 1995-1997). In effect, the inshore cooperative program functions as a privately run individual fishing quota in which NMFS assigns overall cooperative allocations and each member vessel is granted by the cooperative the exclusive right to harvest its portion of the cooperative's annual pollock allocation. Each cooperative allows its members to harvest their individual allocations or to “lease” their individual allocations to other members of the cooperative.
NMFS first implemented this inshore cooperative allocation program in 2000 through emergency interim rule (65 FR 4520, January 28, 2000). The program was renewed for 2001 with modifications recommended by the Council that allowed inactive vessels to remain eligible to join fishery cooperatives even if they did not fish for pollock during the previous year (66 FR 7327, January 22, 2001) and again in 2002 (67 FR 956, January 8, 2002).
During the time period when the provisions of the AFA were implemented through interim regulations, the Council and NMFS also undertook the development of a comprehensive FMP amendment package to implement the provisions of the AFA on a permanent basis. These amendments to implement the AFA included: Amendment 61 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Additional information on the AFA, and the regulations to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8, may be found in the proposed rule to implement Amendments 61/61/13/8 (66 FR 65028; December 17, 2001), and in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Amendments 61/61/13/8, which is available from NMFS (see
Several existing regulations and administrative limitations prevent inshore cooperatives from contracting with non-member vessels to harvest a portion of the cooperative's BSAI pollock allocation. First, NMFS recordkeeping and reporting requirements specify that all landings from the BSAI directed pollock fishery that are made by the member vessels of a cooperative must accrue against that cooperative's annual allocation. The NMFS database in its present form automatically assigns a single cooperative code to each AFA catcher vessel (the code representing the cooperative of which the vessel is a member) and therefore precludes a vessel from reporting landings using any different cooperative code during a fishing year. Second, regulations at 50 CFR 679.7(k)(5)(i) prohibit a catcher vessel listed on an AFA inshore cooperative permit to harvest pollock in excess of the cooperative's allocation. This prohibition prevents the member vessels in one cooperative from contracting to harvest a portion of the allocation of another cooperative.
These restrictions, which have the effect of preventing inshore cooperatives from contracting with non-member vessels, are required by subparagraph 210(b)(1)(B) of the AFA, which states:
Effective January 1, 2000. . . upon the filing of a contract implementing a fishery cooperative under subsection (a) which. . . specifies, except as provided in paragraph (6), that such catcher vessels will deliver pollock in the directed pollock fishery only to such shoreside processor during the year in which the fishery cooperative will be in effect and that such shoreside processor has agreed to process such pollock, the Secretary shall allow only such catcher vessels (and catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) to harvest the aggregate percentage of the directed fishing allowance under section 206(b)(1) in the year in which the fishery cooperative will be in effect that is equivalent to the aggregate total amount of pollock harvested by such catcher vessels (and by such catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) in the directed pollock fishery for processing by the inshore component during 1995, 1996, and 1997 relative to the aggregate total amount of pollock harvested in the directed pollock fishery for processing by the inshore component during such years and shall prevent such catcher vessels (and catcher vessels whose owners voluntarily participate pursuant to paragraph (2)) from harvesting in aggregate in excess of such percentage of such directed fishing allowance.
And also by the last sentence of paragraph 210(b)(5) of the AFA which states:
. . .A catcher vessel eligible under section 208(a) the catch history of which has been attributed to a fishery cooperative under paragraph (1) during any calendar year may not harvest any pollock apportioned under section 206(b)(1) in such calendar year other than the pollock reserved under paragraph (1) for such fishery cooperative.
The Council developed Amendment 69 to modify these limitations in response to requests from the inshore pollock industry to provide greater harvest flexibility to members of inshore pollock cooperatives. Amendment 69 has three objectives: (1) Increase efficiency and provide catcher vessel owners with a more functional market for leasing of individual pollock allocations, (2) ensure that an inshore cooperative is able to harvest its entire allocation in the event of vessel breakdowns or other unanticipated emergencies, and (3) improve safety by providing greater flexibility for larger catcher vessels to harvest cooperative allocations during hazardous weather in winter months and when Steller sea lion conservation measures require that fishing be done further offshore.
With respect to the first objective, the AFA currently limits the lease market for pollock quota to only those vessels that are members of the same cooperative. In cooperatives where a substantial number of the vessels are owned or controlled by the associated processor, owners of independent catcher vessels may have limited opportunities to lease quota to other independent vessel owners in the same cooperative. The problem could become even more acute at certain times of the year when only plant-owned vessels are operating. In this hypothetical case, an independent catcher vessel owner could have only one potential customer willing to lease his quota and, therefore, may be in a weak bargaining position. This independent catcher vessel owner likely would benefit from a broader market for his pollock allotment. Efficiency could improve if the vessel that is being contracted to harvest the pollock has lower operating costs than the vessel initially granted use rights to the pollock by the cooperative, depending upon the cost and terms of the lease contract.
With respect to the second objective, under existing regulations, if one or more vessels in a cooperative break down or are otherwise out of commission, and the other vessels in the cooperative are already operating at full capacity, a catcher vessel owner could be unable to contract with a replacement vessel to harvest his portion of the cooperative's pollock allocation. An unexpected emergency such as a dockside fire or accidents that disable or destroy several member vessels of a cooperative at the same time could result in the cooperative being unable to harvest a large portion of its annual allocation. This proposed rule would give cooperatives the means to deal with such emergency situations and facilitate their ability to harvest their entire annual allocations.
With respect to the third objective, safety could be improved if the owners of smaller catcher vessels have greater flexibility to enter into contracts with larger (presumably safer) vessels to harvest the smaller vessel's allocation during the more hazardous weather conditions common during winter months and when Steller sea lion protection measures require that fishing be conducted further offshore. Under existing regulations, the owner of a smaller catcher vessel could be under greater pressure to fish in less than safe conditions if he is unable to contract with larger vessels within his cooperative to harvest some or all of his pollock allocation.
Subsection 213(c) of the AFA provides the Council with the following authority to recommend management
(c) CHANGES TO FISHERY COOPERATIVE LIMITATIONS AND POLLOCK CDQ ALLOCATION. The North Pacific Council may recommend and the Secretary may approve conservation and management measures in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act
(1) that supersede the provisions of this title, except for sections 206 and 208, for conservation purposes or to mitigate adverse effects in fisheries or on owners of fewer than three vessels in the directed pollock fishery caused by this title or fishery cooperatives in the directed pollock fishery, provided such measures take into account all factors affecting the fisheries and are imposed fairly and equitably to the extent practicable among and within the sectors in the directed pollock fishery;
(2) that supersede the allocation in section 206(a) for any of the years 2002, 2003, and 2004, upon the finding by such Council that the western Alaska community development quota program for pollock has been adversely affected by the amendments in this title; or
(3) that supersede the criteria required in paragraph (1) of section 210(b) to be used by the Secretary to set the percentage allowed to be harvested by catcher vessels pursuant to a fishery cooperative under such paragraph.
Any measure recommended by the Council that supersedes a specific provision of the AFA must be implemented by FMP amendment in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In developing Amendment 69, the Council determined that all three objectives for Amendment 69 meet the criteria established in paragraph 213(c)(1) of the AFA, which states that the Council may recommend measures that supersede the AFA “to mitigate adverse effects . . . on owners of fewer than three vessels in the directed pollock fishery...”
The proposed rule to implement Amendment 69 contains the following requirements for inshore cooperatives that wish to contract with non-member vessels to harvest a portion of a cooperative's annual BSAI pollock allocation.
At this time, NMFS has not determined that the amendment that this proposed rule would implement is consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. NMFS, in making that determination, will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see
The IRFA concluded that no small entities would be directly affected by this proposed rule. Therefore, it is unlikely that the action would result in a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of directly regulated small entities. The basis for this conclusion is set out below:
A total of 100 inshore catcher vessels, six inshore processors (owning eight
All six of the inshore processors are considered large entities because they employ more than 500 people in their worldwide operations. The processors are also affiliated with their associated cooperative's catcher vessel fleet and that would also cause them to be classified as large entities.
None of the communities involved in the BSAI pollock fishery are directly regulated by this proposed amendment. Therefore, they are not appropriately subjects of the IRFA under SBA guidelines.
In conclusion, the Council's preferred alternative would not likely result in a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of directly regulated small entities. This proposed action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with other Federal rules and takes into consideration the BSAI groundfish regulations under part 679 in order to be consistent with the objectives of the FMP.
This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement not subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) because the total universe of respondents is less than 10. Under AFA, the number of inshore cooperatives is limited to no more than 8 because only 8 inshore processors are eligible to process pollock under the AFA and only one cooperative can be associated with each processor. To date, only seven processors have cooperatives associated with them. The eighth processor has not been operating in the BSAI pollock fishery since 1999. Thus, the actual number of respondents is equal to 7 and a theoretical maximum of 8.
Alaska, Fisheries, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 679 is revised to read as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(l) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) * * *
(D) * * *
(
(
(k) * * *
(5) * * * (i)
(ii)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(1)
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with legislation implementing the results of the Uruguay Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, we are informing the public of international standard-setting activities of the Office International des Epizooties, the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention, and the North American Plant Protection Organization, and we are soliciting public comment on the standards to be considered.
You may submit comments by postal mail/commercial delivery or by e-mail. If you use postal mail/commercial delivery, please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 02-051-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 02-051-1. If you use e-mail, address your comment to
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
For general information on the topics covered in this notice, contact Mr. John Greifer, Director, Trade Support Team, International Services, APHIS, Room 1132, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250; (202) 720-7677. For specific information regarding standard-setting activities of the Office International des Epizooties, contact Dr. Michael David, Chief, Sanitary International Standards Team, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 33, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-8093. For specific information regarding the standard-setting activities of the International Plant Protection Convention or the North American Plant Protection Organization, contact Mr. Narcy Klag, Program Manager, Phytosanitary Issues Management, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 60, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8469.
The World Trade Organization (WTO) was established as the common international institutional framework for governing trade relations among its members in matters related to the Uruguay Round Agreements. The WTO is the successor organization to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. U.S. membership in the WTO was approved by Congress when it enacted the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), which was signed into law by the President on December 8, 1994. The WTO Agreements, which established the WTO, entered into force with respect to the United States on January 1, 1995. The Uruguay Round Agreements Act amended title IV of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2531
“International standard” is defined in 19 U.S.C. 2578b as any standard, guideline, or recommendation: (1) Adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) regarding food safety; (2) developed under the auspices of the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) regarding animal health and zoonoses; (3) developed under the auspices of the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) in cooperation with the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) regarding plant health; or (4) established by or developed under any other international organization agreed to by the member countries of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) or the member countries of the WTO.
The President, pursuant to Proclamation No. 6780 of March 23, 1995 (60 FR 15845), designated the Secretary of Agriculture as the official responsible for informing the public of the SPS standard-setting activities of Codex, OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO. The United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) informs the public of Codex standard-setting activities and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) informs the public of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO standard-setting activities.
FSIS publishes an annual notice in the
APHIS publishes notice of OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO activities related to international standards and for representing the United States with respect to these standards.
Following are descriptions of the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO organizations and the standard-setting agenda for each of these institutions. We have described the agenda that each of these organizations will address at their annual general sessions, including standards that may be presented for adoption or consideration, as well as other initiatives that may be underway at the OIE, IPPC, and NAPPO.
The agendas for these meetings are subject to change, and the draft standards identified in this notice may not be sufficiently developed and ready for adoption as indicated. Also, while it is the intent of the United States to support adoption of international standards and to participate actively and fully in their development, it should be recognized that the U.S. position on a specific draft standard will depend on the acceptability of the final draft. Given the dynamic and interactive nature of the standard-setting process, we encourage any persons who are interested in the most current details about a specific draft standard or the U.S. position on a particular standard-setting issue, or in providing comments on a specific standard that may be under development, to contact APHIS. Contact information is provided at the beginning of this notice under
The OIE was established in Paris, France, in 1924 with the signing of an international agreement by 28 countries. It is currently composed of 162 member nations, each of which is represented by a delegate who, in most cases, is the chief veterinary officer of that country. The WTO has recognized the OIE as the international forum for setting animal health standards, reporting global animal situations and disease status, and presenting guidelines and recommendations on sanitary measures relating to animal health.
The OIE facilitates intergovernmental cooperation to prevent the spread of contagious diseases in animals by sharing scientific research among its members. The major functions of the OIE are to collect and disseminate information on the distribution and occurrence of animal diseases and to ensure that scientifically justified standards govern international trade in animals and animal products. The OIE aims to achieve this through the development and revision of international standards for diagnostic tests, vaccines, and the safe international trade of animals and animal products.
The OIE provides annual reports on the global distribution of animal diseases, recognizes the free status of member countries for certain diseases, categorizes animal diseases with respect to their international significance, publishes bulletins on global disease status, and provides animal disease control guidelines to member countries.
The various OIE commissions and working groups undertake the initial analysis and preparation of draft standards, which are then circulated to member countries for consultation (review and comment). Draft standards are revised accordingly and then presented to the OIE General Session, which meets annually every May, for review and adoption. Adoption, as a general rule, is based on consensus of the OIE membership.
The next OIE General Session is scheduled for May 18-24, 2003, in Paris, France. The Associate Administrator for APHIS' Veterinary Services is the official U.S. delegate to the OIE. The Associate Administrator intends to participate in the proceedings and will discuss or comment on APHIS' position on any standard up for adoption. Information about current and past OIE draft Code chapters may be found at
Existing Code chapters that may be revised and new chapters that may be drafted in preparation for the next General Session in 2003 include the following:
This is a disease of poultry. This existing chapter will be revised to incorporate contemporary scientific knowledge about IBD (
This is intended to provide guidance on conducting a risk assessment that identifies all potential factors for BSE occurrence and their historic perspective in a nation's cattle herd. These factors include: the feeding of meat-and-bone meal or greaves of ruminant origin; the importation of meat-and-bone meal or greaves potentially contaminated with a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) or feedstuffs containing either; importation of animals or embryos/oocytes potentially infected with a TSE; epidemiological situation concerning all animal TSEs in the country or zone; extent of knowledge of the population structure of cattle, sheep, and goats in the country or zone; and the origin of any unprocessed animal by-products, the parameters of the rendering processes and the methods of animal feed production.
This is a disease of sheep and goats. This would represent a new OIE Code chapter. The Chapter will provide recommendations for the trade of sheep and goats and their products as it pertains to Maedi-visna.
This represents a new undertaking for OIE in the area of animal health and is intended to provide guidance on traceability, or the tracking of animals and animal products throughout their production system.
This represents a new undertaking for OIE and is intended to provide guidance on making equivalency determinations in the area of animal health.
As a matter of process, these chapters are drafted (or revised) by ad hoc groups composed of technical experts nominated by the OIE Code Commission by virtue of their subject-area expertise (not their national affiliation). Once the ad hoc expert group completes its task of drafting a new chapter or revising an existing one, the chapter is then distributed to member countries for review and comment. Historically, the OIE has distributed the proposed or revised Code chapters to its member countries by late October of each year. However, this year the OIE will try to provide proposed chapters by early September to allow Member States more time for comment. The draft standard is revised by the OIE Code Commission on
The United States (
Generally, if a country has concerns with a particular draft standard, and supports those concerns with sound technical information, the OIE Code Commission will revise that standard accordingly and present the revised draft for adoption at the General Session in May. In the event that a country's concerns regarding a draft standard are not taken into account, that country may refuse to support the standard when it comes up for adoption at the General Session. However, each member country is obligated to review, comment, and make decisions regarding the adoption of standards strictly on their scientific merits.
In the next few years, the OIE Code Commission is expected to address the following issues or establish ad hoc groups of experts to update and/or develop the standards for the following issues:
This represents an effort to develop principles that can be applied to different animal welfare standards, such as housing, transportation, and slaughter. The United States will consider its position on this new standard after it reviews a prepared draft.
This represents an effort to reduce the public health risks in food from microbiological, chemical, and other risk factors at the farm level and prior to slaughter and would be accomplished by working more closely (strengthening relationships) with the relevant international organizations such as Codex, FAO, and WHO. The United States will consider its position on this new standard after it reviews a prepared draft.
These represent revisions to existing chapters. The United States will consider its position on these new standards after it reviews a prepared draft.
This represents a revision to or updating of an existing OIE Code chapter. This chapter, which addresses most diseases of honeybees, including mites, will be revised to incorporate changes in scientific knowledge about various honeybee diseases. This chapter will continue to provide guidance for certifying honeybee packages and queen bees for export purposes. The United States will consider its position on this new standard after it reviews a prepared draft.
This would be a new OIE Code chapter intended to provide guidance for export certification of sheep and goats and their products. The United States will consider its position on this new standard after it reviews a prepared draft.
Every year at the General Session, two technical items are presented. For the May 2003 General Session, the following technical items will be presented:
1. The socioeconomic impact of animal diseases.
2. Regionalization as an instrument for preventing the propagation of diseases, including those of camelids.
The information in this notice includes all the information currently available to us on OIE standards currently under development or consideration. Information on OIE standards is available on the Internet at
The IPPC is a multilateral convention adopted in 1952 for the purpose of securing common and effective action to prevent the spread and introduction of pests of plants and plant products and to promote appropriate measures for their control. Under the IPPC, the understanding of plant protection has been, and continues to be, broad, encompassing the protection of both cultivated and noncultivated plants from direct or indirect injury by plant pests. Activities addressed by the IPPC include the development and establishment of international plant health standards, the harmonization of phytosanitary activities through emerging standards, the facilitation of the exchange of official and scientific information among countries, and the furnishing of technical assistance to developing countries that are signatories to the IPPC.
The IPPC is placed under the authority of the FAO, and the members of the Secretariat of the IPPC are appointed by the FAO. The IPPC is implemented by national plant protection organizations in cooperation with regional plant protection organizations, the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM), and the Secretariat of the IPPC. The United States plays a major role in all standard-setting activities under the IPPC and has representation on FAO's highest governing body, the FAO Conference.
The United States became a contracting party to the IPPC in 1972 and has been actively involved in furthering the work of the IPPC ever since. The IPPC was amended in 1979, and the amended version entered into force in 1991 after two-thirds of the contracting countries accepted the amendment. More recently, in 1997, contracting parties completed negotiations on further amendments that were approved by the FAO Conference and submitted to the parties for acceptance. This 1997 amendment updated phytosanitary concepts and formalized the standard-setting structure within the IPPC. The 1997 amended version of the IPPC will enter into force once two-thirds of the current contracting parties notify the Director General of FAO of their acceptance of the amendment. At this date, 39 of the required 72 member countries have deposited their official letters of acceptance. The U.S. Senate gave its advice and consent to acceptance of the newly revised IPPC on October 18,
The IPPC has been, and continues to be, administered at the national level by plant quarantine officials whose primary objective is to safeguard plant resources from injurious pests. In the United States, the national plant protection organization is APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) program. The steps for developing a standard under the revised IPPC are described below.
Proposals for a new international standard for phytosanitary measures (ISPM) or for the review or revision of an existing ISPM are submitted to the Secretariat of the IPPC in the form of a discussion paper accompanied by a topic or draft standard. Drafts can be submitted by individual countries, but are more commonly submitted by regional plant protection organizations (RPPO's). Alternately, the Secretariat can propose a new standard or amendments to existing standards.
A summary of proposals is submitted by the Secretariat to the ICPM. The ICPM identifies the topics and priorities for standard setting from among the proposals submitted to the Secretariat and others that may be raised by the ICPM.
Specifications for the standards identified as priorities by the ICPM are drafted by the Secretariat. The draft specifications are submitted to the Standards Committee for approval/amendment and are subsequently made available to members and RPPO's for comment (60 days). Comments are submitted in writing to the Secretariat. Taking into account the comments, the Standards Committee finalizes the specifications.
The standard is drafted or revised in accordance with the specifications by a working group designated by the Standards Committee. The resulting draft standard is submitted to the Standards Committee for review.
Draft standards approved by the Standards Committee are distributed to members by the Secretariat and RPPO's for consultation (120 days). Comments are submitted in writing to the Secretariat. Where appropriate, the Standards Committee may establish open-ended discussion groups as forums for further comment. The Secretariat summarizes the comments and submits them to the Standards Committee.
Taking into account the comments, the Secretariat, in cooperation with the Standards Committee, revises the draft standard. The Standards Committee submits the final version to the ICPM for adoption.
The ISPM is established through formal adoption by the ICPM according to Rule X of the Rules of Procedure of the ICPM.
Review of the ISPM is completed by the specified date or such other date as may be agreed upon by the ICPM.
Each member country is represented on the ICPM by a single delegate. Although experts and advisers may accompany the delegate to meetings of the ICPM, only the delegate (or an authorized alternate) may represent each member country in considering a standard up for approval. Parties involved in a vote by the ICPM are to make every effort to reach agreement on all matters by consensus. Only after all efforts to reach a consensus have been exhausted may a decision on a standard be passed by a vote of two-thirds of delegates present and voting.
Technical experts from the United States have participated directly in working groups and indirectly as reviewers of all IPPC draft standards. In addition, documents and positions developed by APHIS and NAPPO have served as the basis for many of the standards adopted to date. This notice describes each of the IPPC standards currently under consideration or up for adoption. The full text of each standard will be available on the APHIS Internet Web site at
The next ICPM meeting is scheduled for April 7-11, 2003, at FAO Headquarters in Rome, Italy. The Deputy Administrator for APHIS' PPQ programs is the U.S. delegate to the ICPM. The Deputy Administrator intends to participate in the proceedings and will discuss or comment on APHIS' position on any standard up for adoption. The provisional agenda for the meeting is as follows:
1. Opening of the session.
2. Adoption of the agenda.
3. Report by the chairperson.
4. Report by the Secretariat.
5. Adoption of international standards (
6. Items arising from the Third Session of the ICPM (
7. Work program for harmonization.
8. Status of the 1997 revised IPPC.
9. Other business.
10. Date and venue of the next meeting.
11. Adoption of the report.
It is expected that the following standards will be sufficiently developed to be considered by the ICPM for adoption at its April 2003 meeting. The United States, represented by APHIS' Deputy Administrator for PPQ, will participate in the consideration of these standards. The U.S. position on each of these issues will be developed prior to the ICPM session and will be based on APHIS' analysis, information from other U.S. Government agencies, and relevant scientific information from interested stakeholders. The standards that are most likely to be considered for adoption include:
This work will supplement and strengthen the existing standard on “Pest Risk Analysis for Quarantine Pests” by providing detailed guidelines for evaluating the environmental impacts of quarantine pests, including quarantine pests that are invasive. This standard was reviewed and edited by the Standards Panel and was entered into the country consultation phase during the early part of 2002. The Standards Panel will review comments from consultation and prepare the final draft. The expectation is that the standard will be completed and ready for ICPM approval in 2003. The United States intends to support adoption of this draft standard, assuming it is ready for such consideration.
The ICPM (at its third meeting) agreed on the need to develop guidelines to clarify the meaning and scope of “economic importance”—a term found in the pest risk analysis (PRA) standard,
This standard provides technical guidance for the evaluation, adoption, and use of irradiation as a phytosanitary treatment. It is designed to encourage consistency by providing essential information concerning the technical and operational aspects of using irradiation as a treatment for plant pests. This standard is important as it provides an alternative to the use of methyl bromide as a treatment for quarantine pests. This standard was reviewed and edited by the Standards Panel and was entered into the country consultation phase during the early part of 2002. The Standards Panel will review comments from consultation and prepare the final draft. The goal is to have a guideline prepared for ICPM approval in 2003. The United States intends to support adoption of this draft standard assuming it is ready for such consideration.
A number of expert working group meetings or other technical consultations will take place during 2002 and early 2003 on the topics listed below. These standard-setting initiatives are not expected to be completed prior to March 2003 and, therefore, will not be ready for adoption at the 2003 ICPM session. Nonetheless, APHIS intends to participate actively and fully in each of these working groups. The U.S. position on each of the topics to be addressed by these various working groups will be developed prior to these working group meetings and will be based on APHIS' technical analysis, information from other U.S. Government agencies, and relevant scientific information from interested stakeholders.
At its third annual meeting in 2001, the ICPM agreed on the need to develop a phytosanitary standard for assessing potential pest risks associated with LMOs. The goal of this standard is to provide clear and comprehensive guidance on the conduct of PRA procedures as regards the phytosanitary risks that may be presented by LMOs. Accordingly, this standard will take into account: Existing PRA procedures and standards (IPPC and others that may be relevant); relevant hazards and methods for the evaluation of the potential phytosanitary risks presented by LMOs; and, the goal of ensuring a PRA procedure for LMOs that is consistent with relevant aspects of the Cartagena Protocol. The target date for completion of the LMO standard is 2004.
ICPM consensus exists on the need to develop a standard for evaluating the efficacy of phytosanitary measures. The goal is to ensure the development of guidelines for evaluating phytosanitary measures on a consistent, rigorous, and sound basis and providing IPPC recognition of those which meet established criteria. This standard will be critical for supporting future commodity specific standards (
It is recognized that different phytosanitary measures can provide equivalent plant health protection for the purpose of international trade. This standard will provide guidelines for assessing and comparing different phytosanitary measures in order to make equivalency determinations. This standard will be directly linked to the draft standards work, currently underway, related to “efficacy of measures.” ICPM members agreed on the need to establish criteria and guidance for evaluating the efficacy of measures (
This specific surveillance standard will describe the components of survey and monitoring systems for the purpose of detecting citrus canker and generating the necessary data for use in pest risk analyses and the establishment of pest-free areas. During the course of work on this particular standard, there have emerged substantial differences of opinion among experts regarding several aspects of the standard, particularly the appropriate statistical levels for survey. Work will continue on this draft standard in 2002 with the goal of having it ready for ICPM approval in 2004.
Certain pests that are not quarantine pests may be subject to phytosanitary regulations and procedures because their presence above a specific level results in economically unacceptable impacts associated with the intended use of the plants. Under the IPPC, such pests are referred to as “regulated non-quarantine pests.” The classification of a pest as a regulated non-quarantine pest and any restrictions placed on the importation of the plant species with which it is associated must be justified by pest risk analysis. This standard will provide guidance for conducting an appropriate PRA necessary to demonstrate that importation of a particular plant for propagation may result in an unacceptable impact and to guide subsequent risk management decisions. The goal is to have this standard ready for ICPM approval in 2004.
A first draft was considered by an IPPC working group in 1997. Since then the draft has undergone several revisions. In November 2001, the IPPC Interim Standards Committee recommended that a small working group be organized to consider the latest draft. The primary issue is the level of detail that the standard will contain as regards structural and operational aspects of import regulatory systems. The group met in February 2002 and developed a revised edition. This draft will be reviewed by the Standards Panel in November 2002.
The first draft of the standard on inspection methodology was prepared in 1995. Since then the draft standard has undergone several revisions and has been distributed to members for their formal review (1999). An expert group
The IPPC requires contracting parties to establish and update lists of regulated pests for phytosanitary certification purposes. A working group is drafting standardized guidelines for meeting these obligations. These draft guidelines will describe lists of regulated pests, the purpose of the guidelines, and their relationship to phytosanitary certification procedures. There were some serious reservations by several countries after country consultations, however, these concerns have now been resolved with those countries. Work will continue on this draft standard in 2002 with the goal of having it ready for ICPM approval in 2004.
For more detailed information on the above topics, which will be addressed by various working groups established by the ICPM, contact Mr. Narcy Klag (
Also, APHIS posts draft standards on the Internet (
NAPPO, a regional plant protection organization created in 1976 under the IPPC, coordinates the efforts among Canada, the United States, and Mexico to protect their plant resources from the entry, establishment, and spread of harmful plant pests, while facilitating intra- and inter-regional trade.
NAPPO conducts its business through panels and annual meetings held among the three member countries. The NAPPO Executive Committee charges individual panels with the responsibility for drawing up proposals for NAPPO positions, policies, and standards. These panels are made up of representatives from each member country who have scientific expertise related to the policy or standard being considered.
Proposals drawn up by the individual panels are circulated for review to government and industry officials in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, who may suggest revisions. In the United States, draft standards are circulated to industry, States, and various Government agencies for consideration and comment. The draft standards are posted on the Internet at
The annual NAPPO meeting is scheduled for October 21-25, 2002, in Oaxaca, Mexico. The NAPPO Executive Committee meeting will take place on October 20, and a special session will be held on October 21 to solicit the input of industry groups so that suggestions can be incorporated into the NAPPO work plan. The Deputy Administrator for APHIS' PPQ programs is a member of the NAPPO Executive Committee. The Deputy Administrator intends to participate in the proceedings and will discuss or comment on APHIS' position on any standard up for adoption or any proposals to develop new standards.
The work plan for 2002 was established after the October 2001 Annual Meeting in San Diego, CA. The Deputy Administrator for PPQ participated in establishing this NAPPO work plan (
Below is a summary of current panel assignments as they relate to the ongoing development of NAPPO standards. USDA/APHIS intends to participate actively and fully in the work of each of these panels. The U.S. position on each topic will be guided and informed by the best scientific information available on each of these topics. For each of the following panels, the United States will consider its position on any draft standard after it reviews a prepared draft. Information regarding the following NAPPO panel topics, assignments, and activities, and updates on meeting times and locations, may be obtained from the NAPPO home page at
This panel will work towards facilitating the proper implementation of the standard “Accreditation of Individuals to Sign Federal Phytosanitary Certificates.” A review of the U.S. system was conducted in June 2001 and a review of the Canadian system was conducted in early 2002. A review of Mexico's system will follow. A written report will be provided to the Executive Committee.
This panel will work on developing a standard for biological control facilities.
This panel will continue to develop a NAPPO standard for the review of products of biotechnology that focuses on the assessment of the potential to present a plant pest risk. Modules for unconfined field release and importation of transgenic material for uses other than planting will be drafted.
The panel will continue to work on the standard for the entry of citrus propagative material into NAPPO member countries.
The panel will work on trying to harmonize, between NAPPO countries, the implementation of the international standard for wood packaging material.
The panel will finalize the standard “Verification and Maintenance of Fruit Fly-Free Areas.” Approval of this standard by the NAPPO Executive Committee is expected this year.
The panel will finalize the standard “NAPPO Guidelines for the Safe Movement of Plum Pox Host Material.”
This panel will finalize the NAPPO grapevine standard and prepare it for approval by the NAPPO Executive Committee.
This panel will coordinate NAPPO input on the development of the IPPC standard entitled “Pest Risk Analysis for Regulated Non-Quarantine Pests.”
This panel will finalize the NAPPO standard on pest reporting. The standard should be approved by the Executive Committee this year.
This panel will review and revise the NAPPO Potato Standard pest list and
This ad-hoc panel will prepare the minituber production guidelines for North America for country consultations.
This panel is responsible for the following: Providing updates on standards for the NAPPO newsletter; coordinating the review of new and amended NAPPO standards and ensuring that comments received during the country consultation phase are incorporated as appropriate; organizing conference calls and preparing NAPPO discussion documents for possible use at the IPPC; and promoting implementation of recently adopted IPPC standards. The panel will finalize a NAPPO standard for implementing the recently adopted IPPC standard “Notification of Interceptions and Non-Compliance” and will finalize a standard for developing bilateral workplans.
The PPQ Deputy Administrator, as the official U.S. delegate to NAPPO, intends to participate in the adoption of those regional plant health standards, including the work described above, once they are completed and ready for such consideration.
The information in this notice includes all the information available to us on NAPPO standards currently under development or consideration. For updates on meeting times and for information on the working panels that may become available following publication of this notice, check the NAPPO Web page on the Internet at
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact statement on a proposal to develop a travel management plan to regulate motorized and non-motorized travel on roads and trails on lands administered by the Rocky Mountain Ranger District, also known as the Rocky Mountain Division of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Approximately 392,000 acres of National Forest System lands are contained within the analysis area. Designated wilderness areas that are part of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District will
Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received on or before 45 days after publication of this notice in the
Send written comments to Rick Prausa, Forest Supervisor, Lewis and Clark National Forest, 1101 15th Street, North, Box 869, Great Falls, MT 59401. People sending comments electronically can do so by putting “Rocky Mountain Front Travel Plan” on the subject line of their e-mail to r1 lewisclark
Dick Schwecke, EIS Team Leader (406) 791-7700.
This project addresses travel management planning on one of the seven mountain ranges managed partly or entirely by the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The Rocky Mountain Ranger District project includes approximately 392,000 acres, which is about 21% of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Approximately 385,900 acres of designated wilderness areas that are part of the Rocky Mountain Ranger District will not be included in this effort. The purpose of this project is to evaluate the impacts of motorized and non-motorized travel on existing roads and trails within the planning area. The Forest Service intends to identify action alternatives that provide for public access, use, and enjoyment of the Lewis and Clark National Forest, while also minimizing resource damage, reducing adverse effects to terrestrial and aquatic species, and mitigating or reducing conflicts between types of uses. The project is intended to focus on identifying the types of use and season of use that would be appropriate on roads, trails, and specific areas within the mountain range to be analyzed.
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed actions, comments on the draft environmental impact statements should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statements. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft environmental impact statements or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statements. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
Comments on the draft EIS should be directed to the responsible official: Rick Prausa, Forest Supervisor, Lewis and Clark National Forest, 1101 15th Street North, Great Falls, MT 59401.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-393) the Lolo and Kootenai National Forests' Sanders County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on August 27 at 6 p.m. in Thompson Falls, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
August 27, 2002.
The meeting will be held at the Thompson Falls Courthouse, 1111 Main Street, Thompson Falls, MT 59873.
Lisa Krueger, Designated Forest Official (DFO), District Ranger Plains/Thompson Falls District, Lolo National Forest at (406) 826-4321, or Brian Avery, District Ranger, Cabinet Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 827-3533.
If the meeting location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Clark Fork Valley Press, the Sanders County Ledger, Daily Interlake and the Missoulian.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; adoption of final interim directive.
The Forest Service is adopting an Interim Directive to guide employees in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for certain actions which can be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement. The Interim Directive clarifies the consideration of extraordinary circumstances as they apply to categorical exclusions. The intent of this Interim Directive is to facilitate employees' consistent interpretation and application of CEQ regulations and related agency policy.
This Interim Directive No. 1909.15-2002-2 is effective August 23, 2002.
This Interim Directive is available electronically from the Forest Service via the World Wide Web/Internet at
Dave Sire, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, 202-205-2935, or Julia Riber, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff, 406-329-3678.
On September 20, 2001, the Forest Service published a proposed Interim Directive to Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Chapter 30, which would partially revise the agency's direction on the use of categorical exclusions (66 FR 48412). The intent of this proposed Interim Directive was to assist employees in interpreting and complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for certain actions which can be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or an environmental impact statement (EIS). The proposed Interim Directive would have added three new categories for special use authorizations involving administrative changes when no changes are proposed in the authorized activities or facilities. The proposal also included a modification of handbook text to clarify agency policy concerning extraordinary circumstances.
Nearly 26,000 responses in the form of letters, postcards, and e-mail messages were received during the 60-day comment period. These comments came from private citizens, elected officials, and from groups and individuals representing businesses, private organizations, and Federal agencies. Responses consisted of over 800 original letters and over 25,000 form letters.
Public comment on the Interim Directive addressed a wide range of topics, many of which were directed at general Forest Service management direction, particularly the management of roadless areas. Most comments revealed a significant split in opinion on
Because of the volume and nature of comments received on the proposed Interim Directive, the agency has decided to separate the special uses categorical exclusions portion of the proposal from the clarification of extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, this notice addresses only those comments received on the direction concerning extraordinary circumstances. A separate notice will be published later to address comments on categorical exclusions for the issuance of certain special use authorizations.
Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, includes direction for consideration of extraordinary circumstances when Responsible Officials are contemplating categorical exclusion of a proposed action from further analysis and documentation in an EA or EIS.
Prior to this present action, direction on extraordinary circumstances was last revised in 1992. At section 30.5, extraordinary circumstances were defined as conditions associated with a normally excluded action that are identified during scoping as potentially having effects which may significantly affect the environment. At section 30.3, paragraph 2, extraordinary circumstances were described as including, but not limited to the presence of, the following: steep slopes or highly erosive soils; threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat; flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds; Congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas; inventoried roadless areas; research natural areas; and Native American religious or cultural sites, archeological sites, or historic properties or areas. Paragraph 3 of section 30.3 stated that scoping is required on all proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded. Moreover, this paragraph provided that if scoping indicated that extraordinary circumstances are present and it was uncertain that the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment, then personnel must prepare an EA. If scoping indicated that the proposed action may have a significant environmental effect, an EIS would be prepared.
Public and employee confusion has risen with regard to the 1992 direction on the application of a categorical exclusion to a proposed action when a listed resource condition is present. The proposed revisions to Handbook sections 30.3 and 30.5 were intended to clarify the agency's intent that the presence of a listed resource condition in section 30.3, paragraph 2 does not automatically preclude use of a categorical exclusion. The proposed revisions to sections 30.3 and 30.5 included the following:
•
•
•
•
•
In response to comment on the proposed Interim Directive, published September 20, 2001, the agency has further refined the Interim Directive as described in the following summary of comments.
Additionally, the Forest Service is required to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies for every action it undertakes on National Forest System lands. Therefore, all actions, even those that are excluded from documentation in an EA or an EIS, must comply with laws and regulations governing the protection of resources,
This final Interim Directive has been reviewed under USDA procedures and Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. It has been determined that this is not a significant action. This action to clarify agency direction will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy nor adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, nor State or local governments. This action will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency nor raise new legal or policy issues. Finally, this action will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients of such programs. Accordingly, this action is not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, the final Interim Directive has been considered in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The agency has considered this final Interim Directive under the requirements of Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and has concluded that the final Interim Directive conforms with the federalism principles set out in this Executive order; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States or the relationship between the
Moreover, this final Interim Directive does not have tribal implications as defined by Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and therefore advance consultation with tribes was not required.
This final Interim Directive has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and it has been determined that the final Interim Directive does not pose the risk of a taking of Constitutionally protected private property.
This final Interim Directive has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It, (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this proposed Interim Directive or which would impede its full implementation; (2) has no retroactive effects; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging its provisions.
Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), which the President signed into law on March 22, 1995, the agency has assessed the effects of this interim final directive on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. This interim final directive does not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.
This final Interim Directive has been reviewed under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. It has been determined that this final Interim Directive does not constitute a significant energy action as defined in the Executive order.
This final Interim Directive does not contain any additional record-keeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use, and therefore, imposes no additional paperwork burden on the public. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Having considered the comments received, the Forest Service is adopting an Interim Directive that clarifies direction regarding consideration of extraordinary circumstances for categories of actions that can be excluded from documentation in an EA or an EIS. This change is being implemented through the issuance of an Interim Directive to FSH 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, Chapter 30. Although an Interim Directive (ID) expires in 18 months from its issue date, the clarification of extraordinary circumstances is intended to be a permanent revision. The text of this Interim Directive, along with other Interim Directives, will be incorporated into a revision of the entire Chapter 30 soon.
The Forest Service organizes its directive system by alphanumeric codes and subject headings. Only those sections of the Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook, affected by this policy are included in this notice. The intended audience for this direction is Forest Service employees charged with project planning and environmental analysis. Selected headings and existing text are provided to assist the reader in placing the revised direction in context. Paper and electronic copies of this Interim Directive and the entire chapter 30 of FSH 1909.15 are available as set out in the
1. A proposed action may be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA) only if there are no extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action and if:
a. The proposed action is within one of the categories in the Department of Agriculture (USDA) NEPA policies and procedures in 7 CFR part 1b, or
b. The proposed action is within a category listed in section 31.1b or 31.2.
2. Resource conditions that should be considered in determining whether extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action warrant further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS are:
a. Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species;
b. Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds.
c. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas.
d. Inventoried roadless areas.
e. Research natural areas.
f. American Indian and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites.
g. Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas.
The mere presence of one or more of these resource conditions does not preclude use of a categorical exclusion. It is the degree of the potential effect of a proposed action on these resource conditions that determines whether extraordinary circumstances exist.
3. Scoping is required on all proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded. If the Responsible Official determines, based on scoping, that it is uncertain whether the proposed action may have a significant effect on the environment, prepare an EA (ch. 40). If the Responsible Official determines, based on scoping, that the proposed action may have a significant environmental effect, prepare an EIS (ch. 20).
(Direction in paragraph 4 is removed.)
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
Notice of a finding of no significant impact.
Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Otter Creek Watershed Supplemental Plan Number 5, Iowa County, Wisconsin.
Tom Krapf, Water Resources Staff Leader, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 6515 Watts Road, Suite 200, Madison, Wisconsin, 53719. Telephone (608) 276-8732.
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, Patricia S. Leavenworth, State Conservationist has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not needed for this project. The project purpose is flood prevention and recreation. The planned works of improvement include the repair of the dam and improvement of the coldwater discharge flow. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various Federal, State and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of copies of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting Thomas Krapf.
No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), USDA.
Notice of availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the FOTG of the NRCS in Indiana for review and comment.
It is the intention of NRCS in Indiana to issue five revised conservation practice standards in Section IV of the FOTG. The revised standards are: Mulching (484), Lined Waterway or Outlet (468), Conservation Cover (327), Tree/Shrub Establishment (612), and Pest Management (595).
These practices may be used in conservation systems that treat highly erodible land and/or wetlands.
Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with this date of publication.
Address all requests and comments to Jane E. Hardisty, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 6013 Lakeside Blvd., Indianapolis, Indiana 46278. Copies of this standard will be made available upon written request. You may submit your electronic requests and comments to
Jane E. Hardisty, 317-290-3200.
Section 343 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that after enactment of the law, revisions made to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Indiana will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Indiana regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of changes will be made.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed Additions to and Deletions from Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products previously furnished by such agencies.
September 22, 2002.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the possible impact of the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice for each product will be required to procure the products listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List. Comments on this
The following products are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products to the Government.
2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.
The following products have been proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from Procurement List.
This action adds to the Procurement List a product and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes from the Procurement List product previously furnished by such agencies.
September 22, 2002.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, Jefferson Plaza 2, Suite 10800, 1421 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3259.
Sheryl D. Kennerly, (703) 603-7740.
On May 17, June 28, and July 5, 2002, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice (67 FR 35096, 43482, and 44808) of proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product and services and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product and services listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4. I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and services to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and services to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and services proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product and services are added to the Procurement List:
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action may not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action will not have a severe economic impact on future contractors for the products.
3. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.
4. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 46-48c and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
Accordingly, the following products are hereby deleted from the Procurement List:
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
On May 1, 2002 (67 FR 21962), the Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) published a
August 23, 2002.
Robert Marx, Chief, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Stop 7400, Washington, DC 20233-7400; telephone (301) 457-2131; e-mail at:
On May 1, 2002 (67 FR 21962), the Census Bureau published a
The Census Bureau is providing the following corrections to the original Notice.
Page 21963, Column 1, Section A.1.: The Census Bureau is removing Haga
Page 21963, Column 1, Section A.1.: The Census Bureau is adding Hanford, CA, to the list of new urbanized areas. The Hanford, CA, Urbanized Area includes the area of the former Census 2000 Hanford, CA, Urban Cluster and the Lemoore, CA, Urban Cluster. The Census Bureau is making this correction to resolve a clerical error.
Page 21963, Column 3, Section A.3.: The Census Bureau is merging the previously identified San Rafael—Novato, CA, Urbanized Area with the San Francisco—Oakland, CA, Urbanized Area. The text will now read, “Concord, CA; Livermore, CA; San Francisco—Oakland, CA; and Vallejo, CA (San Francisco—Oakland, CA).” The Census Bureau is making this correction to resolve a clerical error.
Page 21963, Column 3, Section A.5.: The text for the Anchorage, AK, note incorrectly referenced the “Northwest Anchorage, AK urban cluster (UC).” The urban cluster name is Anchorage Northeast. The text is corrected to read “Anchorage, AK: does not include the separate Anchorage Northeast, AK urban cluster (UC), which was defined from part of the 1990 census UA.” The Census Bureau is making this correction to resolve a clerical error.
Page 21965, Column 3, Section B., List of Urbanized Areas: “Denver—Aurora, CO 1,984,887” is corrected to read “Denver—Aurora, CO 1,984,889.” This correction is made to resolve a clerical error.
Page 21966, Column 1, Section B., List of Urbanized Areas: “Fort Collins, CO 206,633” is corrected to read “Fort Collins, CO 206,757.” This correction is being made to resolve a clerical error.
Page 21966, Column 1, Section B., List of Urbanized Areas: Delete “Hagåtña, GU 132,241” from the list of urbanized areas. The Census Bureau is making this correction as a result of a correction to the “Urban Area Criteria for Census 2000” notice (67 FR 11663; March 15, 2002). The correction Notice changes the designation of Hagåtña, GU, from an urbanized area to an urban cluster. The criteria correction is being published in a separate Notice in this issue of the
Page 21966, Column 1, Section B., List of Urbanized Areas: Add “Hanford, CA 69,639” to the list of urbanized areas. This correction is made to resolve a clerical error.
Page 21966, Column 1, Section B., List of Urbanized Areas: “Holland, MI 91,795” is corrected to read “Holland, MI 91,921.” This correction is made to resolve a clerical error.
Page 21967, Column 1, Section B., List of Urbanized Areas: “San Francisco—Oakland, CA 2,995,769” is corrected to read “San Francisco—Oakland, CA 3,228,605.” This correction is made to resolve a clerical error and reflects the merging of the previously identified San Rafael—Novato, CA Urbanized Area with the San Francisco—Oakland, CA Urbanized Area.
Page 21967, Column 1, Section B., List of Urbanized Areas: Delete “San Rafael—Novato, CA 232,836” from the list of urbanized areas. This change is being made to resolve a clerical error and reflects the merger of this previously identified area with the San Francisco—Oakland, CA Urbanized Area.
The Census Bureau is providing the following additional information. The corrections below do not directly affect the text in the original Notice, but they provide important information.
The Census Bureau is merging the Coamo, PR, Urban Cluster and the Salinas—Coco, PR, Urban Cluster to form the Coamo, PR, Urban Cluster with a population of 46,065. This correction is made to resolve a clerical error.
The Census Bureau is adding Hagåtña, GU, to the list of urban clusters. This correction is being made as a result of a correction to the Urban Area Criteria for Census 2000 that changes the
The Census Bureau is making very minor changes to several urbanized areas and urban clusters by adding census blocks; most of these blocks consist only of water. These changes are being made to resolve clerical errors. The Denver—Aurora, CO; Fort Collins, CO; and Holland, MI, Urbanized Areas are the only urbanized areas that have changes in population; each is listed separately elsewhere in this Notice.
A list of the other affected urbanized areas and urban clusters is available from the Census Bureau at the Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification Web page at:
This Notice is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Because a Notice and opportunity for public comment are not required by 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for lists of urbanized areas, this Notice is not subject to the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Thus, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and none has been prepared (5 U.S.C. 603[a]).
This Notice does not represent a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Title 44, U.S.C., Chapter 35.
Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.
Notice.
On March 15, 2002 (67 FR 11663), the Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) published a
August 23, 2002.
Robert Marx, Chief, Geography Division, U.S. Census Bureau, 4700 Silver Hill Road, Stop 7400, Washington, DC 20233-7400; telephone (301) 457-2131; e-mail at:
On March 15, 2002 (67 FR 11663), the Census Bureau published a
The Census Bureau is providing the following correction to the original Notice.
Page 11667, Column 1, first paragraph under the “Urban Area Criteria for Census 2000” heading: “The following criteria apply to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States” is corrected to read, “The following criteria apply to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States. The criteria also can be applied to Guam, at the request of the Governor. Lacking such a request, all urban population in Guam, regardless of cluster size, will be designated as in “urban clusters.”
This correction is provided in accordance with an agreement between the Census Bureau and the government of Guam. All urban areas defined within Guam based on the results of Census 2000 are designated as urban clusters regardless of their total population.
This Notice has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
Even though we gave the public prior notice and an opportunity for public comment, we were not required to do so by Title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 553, or any other law. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and has not been prepared (5 U.S.C. 603[a]).
This program Notice does not represent a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Title 44, U.S.C., Chapter 35.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
August 7, 2002
On July 31, 2002, the Department of Commerce (the Department) issued the preliminary results for the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile for the period of review July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2001.
Tracy Levstik or Constance Handley, at (202) 482-2815 or (202) 482-0631, respectively; AD/CVD Enforcement Office V, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Notice of revocation of Export Trade Certificate of Review No. 99-00006.
The Secretary of Commerce issued an Export Trade Certificate of Review to T.P. International Expo Services, Inc. Because this certificate holder has failed to file an annual report as required by law, the Secretary is revoking the certificate. This notice summarizes the notification letter sent to T.P. International Expo Services, Inc.
Jeffrey Anspacher, Director, Office of Export Trading Company Affairs, International Trade Administration, 202/482-5131. This is not a toll-free number.
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (“the Act”) (Pub. L. 97-290, 15 U.S.C. 4011-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue export trade certificates of review. The regulations implementing Title III (“the Regulations”) are found at 15 CFR part 325 (1999). Pursuant to this authority, a certificate of review was issued on January 11, 2000 to T.P. International Expo Services, Inc.
A certificate holder is required by law to submit to the Department of Commerce annual reports that update financial and other information relating to business activities covered by its certificate (section 308 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 4018, § 325.14(a) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(a)). The annual report is due within 45 days after the anniversary date of the issuance of the Certificate of Review (§325.14(b) of the Regulations, 15 CFR 325.14(b)). Failure to submit a complete annual report may be the basis for revocation (§§ 325.10(a) and 325.14(c) of the regulations, 15 CFR 325.10(a)(3) and 325.14(c)).
On January 7, 2002, the Department of Commerce sent to T.P. International Expo Services, Inc. a letter containing annual report questions with a reminder that its annual report was due on February 25, 2002. Additional reminders were sent on April 11, 2002 and on May 21, 2002. The Department has received no written response from T.P. International Expo Services, Inc. to any of these letters.
On July 10, 2002, and in accordance with § 325.10(c)(2) of the Regulations, (15 CFR 325.10 (c)(2)), the Department of Commerce sent a letter by certified mail to notify T.P. International Expo Services, Inc. that the Department was formally initiating the process to revoke its certificate for failure to file an annual report. In addition, a summary of this letter allowing T.P. International Expo Services, Inc. thirty days to respond was published in the
The Department has determined to revoke the certificate issued to T.P. International Expo Services, Inc. for its failure to file an annual report. The Department has sent a letter, dated August 19, 2002, to notify T.P. International Expo Services, Inc. of its determination. The revocation is effective thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice. Any person aggrieved by this decision may appeal to an appropriate U.S. district court within 30 days from the date on which this notice is published in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Receipt of an application to modify an existing scientific research/enhancement permit (1044) and request for comment.
Notice is hereby given that NOAA Fisheries has received an application for a permit modification for permit number 1044 from the Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) in Santa Cruz, CA. The modified permit would affect ten Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) of salmonids identified in
Written comments on the permit application must be received at the appropriate address or fax number (see
Written comments on the modification request should be sent to the appropriate office as indicated below. Comments may also be sent via fax to the number indicated for the request. Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. The applications and related documents are available for review in the indicated office, by appointment: Daniel Logan, Protected Species Division, NOAA Fisheries, 777 Sonoma Avenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA 95404-6528 (ph: 707-575-6053, fax: 707-578-3435). Documents may also be reviewed by appointment in the Office of Protected Resources, F/PR3, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3226 (301-713-1401).
Daniel Logan at phone number 707-575-6053, or e-mail:
Issuance of permits and permit modifications, as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (ESA), is based on a finding that such permits/modifications: (1) are applied for in good faith; (2) would not operate to the disadvantage of the listed species which are the subject of the permits; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA. Authority to take listed species is subject to conditions set forth in the permits. Permits and modifications are issued in accordance with and are subject to the ESA and NOAA Fisheries regulations governing listed fish and wildlife permits (50 CFR parts 222-226).
Those individuals requesting a hearing on an application listed in this notice should set out the specific reasons why a hearing on that application would be appropriate (see
This notice is relevant to the following eight threatened and two endangered salmonid ESUs: threatened Southern Oregon/northern California Coasts coho salmon (
SWFSC requests a modification to permit 1044 for takes of adult and juvenile ESA-listed coho salmon, chinook salmon, and steelhead associated with population studies, carcass counts, redd surveys, genetic analyses, and habitat association studies. Presently, permit 1044 authorizes intentional takes of adult and juvenile threatened Southern Oregon/northern California Coasts coho salmon, and threatened Central California Coast coho salmon for projects in northern California. This requested modification would add intentional takes of threatened California Coastal chinook salmon, threatened Central Valley Spring-run chinook salmon, endangered Sacramento River Winter-run chinook salmon, threatened Northern California steelhead, threatened Central California Coast steelhead, threatened Central Valley steelhead, threatened South-central California Coast steelhead, and endangered Southern California steelhead to the SWFSC permit.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final organized decision process.
The Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act (DPCIA) requires the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), subject to certain conditions, to amend the “dolphin-safe” labeling standard so that tuna from the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP) purse seine fishery caught in sets in which no dolphins were killed or seriously injured may be labeled “dolphin-safe.” The Secretary is required by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to conduct specified scientific research and to make a finding, based on the results of that research, information obtained under the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP), and any other relevant information, as to whether the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is having a “significant adverse impact” on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP. “Significant adverse impact” is not defined in the statute. On February 15, 2002, NMFS proposed an organized decision process (ODP) for outlining the types of information that will be available to the Secretary and the context in which the Secretary will consider the information in arriving at a final finding. NMFS accepted public comment on the proposed ODP for 60 days. This notice responds to comments and contains the final ODP to be used by the Secretary in making the finding.
Nicole R. Le Boeuf, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-713-2322.
Since its enactment in 1972, the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
The Secretary's finding will determine the definition of “dolphin-safe” as applicable to tuna harvested by purse seine vessels with carrying capacities of greater than 400 short tons operating in the ETP. Refer to the
The DPCIA requires the Secretary to make an initial finding regarding the dolphin-safe label in 1999, and a final finding by December 31, 2002. On April 29, 1999, NMFS made an initial finding that there was insufficient evidence at that time to determine whether the chase and encirclement of dolphins by the tuna purse seine fishery was having a significant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP (NMFS 1999) (64 FR 24590). The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in
NMFS' IDCPA research activities will provide substantial additional information for the final finding relative to what was available for the initial finding in 1999. Some of this new information will include: dolphin abundance data from 1999 and 2000, updated mortality estimates based on observer data, an updated review of scientific literature on stress in marine mammals, results from a necropsy study of dolphins killed in the fishery, a review of historical demographic and biological data related to dolphins involved in the fishery, results from a required chase-recapture experiment, as well as information regarding variability
In order to provide the public an opportunity to review and give input regarding the Secretary's revised decision-making process, NMFS solicited public comment on the proposed ODP (67 FR 7134) on February 15, 2002. Prior to publishing the proposed ODP in the
As indicated in the proposed ODP, NMFS required all additional scientific information for the Secretary's consideration to be submitted by May 1, 2002. Along with comments on the proposed ODP, some commenters submitted information for the Secretary's consideration. This information will be considered along with the results of the required research, information obtained under the IDCP, and other relevant information for the final finding. However, only comments pertaining to the proposed ODP are described here. Editorial and/or technical comments are not described in this document. As indicated in the proposed ODP, comments were not accepted when submitted via electronic mail or the Internet. Key issues and concerns are summarized below along with responses:
It is widely known that the tuna fishery in the ETP, using intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins in tuna purse seine nets, causes dolphin mortality. The question for the Secretary is whether the fishery is having a “significant adverse impact” on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP. There is also general agreement that the number of mortalities and other adverse effects that can be sustained by the dolphin stocks before they become significant depends on the state of the ETP ecological structure for dolphins. In essence, if the ETP carrying capacity for dolphins has declined or the ecological structure of the ETP has substantially changed, dolphin stocks could sustain fewer mortalities and other effects than if the carrying capacity has remained constant or increased or if the ecological structure of the ETP has not changed. Moreover, because it is clear that direct mortality (and potentially some level of indirect effects) can be attributed to the fishery, the population growth rates of the dolphin stocks should be sufficient so as not to indicate a risk or an appreciable delay in recovery. The remainder of this document describes how these factors will be assessed by the Secretary in making the final finding regarding whether the tuna purse seine fishery is having a significant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP.
Because substantial changes in an ecosystem can affect a depleted population or stock's recovery, the Secretary will consider scientific evidence of whether a significant ecosystem change has occurred in the ETP. Particularly, the Secretary will determine whether any change is likely to have increased or decreased (1) the ecological structure or carrying capacity for the three depleted stocks or (2) the rate at which the stocks are able to reach their OSP level. OSP is the level at which the number of animals in a population are sufficient to achieve the maximum productivity of the population or species, keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the habitat and the health of the ecosystem of which they form a constituent element.
To assist the Secretary in reaching a final finding in 2002, NMFS is examining various effects of the tuna purse seine fishery on depleted ETP dolphin stocks, pursuant to the MMPA. The Secretary will consider information on direct mortality in making the final finding. The Role of Indirect Effects in the Decision Process While direct mortality by the tuna fishery is a known impact on dolphin stocks, there are several other possible means by which the fishery could be impacting them. These possible means are often not observed (sometimes termed “cryptic”
In addition to measuring direct mortality, estimating abundance and growth rates of the depleted dolphin stocks involved in the ETP tuna purse seine fishery is necessary to understand the impacts of the fishery on dolphin stocks. This is because potential subtle effects of chase and encirclement, such as on reproduction or survival, may be difficult to detect and may not be directly observed. For this reason, the MMPA, as amended by the IDCPA in 1997, specifically requires NMFS to conduct annual abundance surveys. Estimates of abundance and projected growth rates for the depleted dolphin stocks, given quantifiable levels of mortality caused by the fishery, will be assessed to determine if the dolphin stocks are growing (i.e. recovering to OSP levels) at an acceptable rate. The impact of the fishery on dolphin abundance and growth rates will be evaluated, while taking into consideration natural mortality and environmental factors that may also be affecting dolphin recovery.
To assess the significance of estimated mortality in the fishery, the Secretary will use established standards of marine mammal mortality under the MMPA. These “mortality standards” may include the PBR and the SML systems, as well as other standards as appropriate.
NMFS relies on the PBR system, developed as a tool for implementation of the MMPA, for regulating incidental mortality of marine mammal stocks by U.S. fisheries other than the tuna purse seine fishery in the ETP. The PBR level of a marine mammal stock is the maximum number of animals, in addition to natural mortalities, that may be removed while allowing that stock to reach or maintain OSP. The PBR system was developed in a series of workshops with participation of experts from NMFS and was refined following input from the MMC, outside experts, and the public. PBR serves as a valuable mortality standard to measure significance of mortality in marine mammal-fishery interactions because it is a risk averse method of incorporating uncertainty in management models for marine mammals. The formula for calculating PBR can be found in Wade and Angliss (1997), available at:
In examining estimated mortality, the Secretary may also consider other systems for calculating dolphin mortality standards, such as those utilized under the AIDCP, to manage fishery-induced dolphin mortality levels in the ETP. The AIDCP, a legally binding instrument for dolphin conservation and ecosystem management in the ETP, was negotiated in 1998. The SML system was conceived by nations participating in the IDCP and several non-governmental conservation organizations, in consultation with the IATTC. Nations participating in the AIDCP currently use the SML system for managing dolphin mortality in the ETP. The SML system uses substantially lower limits for dolphin mortality than the PBR approach. Pursuant to the MMPA, as amended by the IDCPA, the SMLs (per-stock per-year dolphin mortality limits) beginning in calendar year 2001 are set at less than or equal to 0.1 percent of the minimum population estimate of each dolphin stock. Additional information on SMLs can be found in Annex III of the AIDCP, available at:
The established standards of PBR and SML are incorporated into the ODP as a mechanism for assessing whether the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets is having a significant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP. Similar to previous work (Gerrodette 1996), NMFS will make calculations of PBR levels and SMLs for the final finding, based on recent dolphin abundance estimates from surveys conducted under the IDCPA research program. Further discussion of how the PBR, SML, or other appropriate mortality standards will be used in the final finding decision process can be found below.
NMFS has developed the ODP to provide the Secretary with a systematic approach for evaluating multiple types of data in a situation complicated by uncertainty. The decision process described here consists of separate measures of fishery and environmental effects on dolphins that the Secretary will consider in reaching a final decision on whether the fishery is having a significant adverse impact on any depleted dolphin stock in the ETP.
The ODP consists of a series of questions that the Secretary will consider in reaching a final decision. These questions are as follows:
(1) Ecosystem Question
(2) Direct Mortality Question
(3) Indirect Effects Question
(4) Growth Rate Question
The answer to the Ecosystem Question will provide an ecological context (as described above) for the Secretary to consider the remaining three questions. For the Direct Mortality and the Growth Rate Questions, the ODP provides basic thresholds that will result in a “yes” or “no” answer. If the Secretary answers “yes” to the Direct Mortality Question, the Secretary will conclude that the fishery is having a significant adverse impact. If the Secretary answers “no” to the Growth Rate Question, the Secretary will conclude that the fishery is having a significant adverse impact. For the Ecosystem and the Indirect Effects Questions, the Secretary will review the available information as well as the evidence presented by members of two expert panels (see below) in reaching final conclusions.
Details on how the Secretary will consider the four questions are as follows:
(1)
To determine the answer to these questions, the Secretary will consider scientific information collected and/or evaluated by NMFS, as well as information rendered individually from members of a panel of independent scientific experts in biological oceanography and ecology (the Ecosystem Panel). The panel members' assessments will be based on their review of relevant oceanographic and ecosystem data (physical and biological habitat and distribution, abundance, and ecology of other organisms in the ETP) from the period of the fishery.
(2)
NMFS scientists will calculate, from the three recent abundance estimates (1998, 1999, and 2000), the PBR levels for each depleted dolphin stock in the ETP and provide them, along with measures of uncertainty, to the Secretary. Estimates of direct mortality and indirect mortality (where appropriate) will be compared to the PBR and other mortality standards to be considered by the Secretary. The Secretary will also take into account the assessments from the Ecosystem Panel members regarding possible changes in the carrying capacity and/or the ecosystem structure of the ETP. When evaluating the impact of mortality levels on dolphin stocks, the Secretary may also consider the SML standard as well as other standards as appropriate. The Secretary will consider the information with the understanding that adverse effects from unfavorable changes in the ecosystem may require the use of a mortality standard below PBR.
(3)
The answer to this question will be based on information collected and/or evaluated by NMFS, as well as from information rendered individually from members of a panel of independent scientific experts in veterinary science, physiology, and other stress-related fields (Indirect Effects Panel). The panel members' assessments will be based on their review of relevant behavioral, ecological, immunological, pathological, and other information with respect to the dolphin stocks involved. For this question, the Secretary will also consider the evidence presented by the Ecosystem Panel members regarding possible changes in the carrying capacity and/or the ecosystem structure of the ETP and how the evidence relates to indirect adverse effects attributable to the fishery on dolphins stocks as described above.
(4)
To answer this question, the Secretary will consider results from calculations in which NMFS scientists fit a population model to the time series of NMFS research vessel abundance estimates using the time series of estimates of the incidental mortality from the TVOD collected by IATTC and national program observers. If pending analysis indicates that the time series of relative abundance estimates from the TVOD are sufficiently reliable, they will also be used to estimate trends in dolphin abundance. NMFS scientists will estimate growth rates for each dolphin stock and determine measures of uncertainty for each estimate and provide this information to the Secretary. The Secretary will also take into account assessments from the members of the Ecosystem Panel when considering the estimated growth rates.
As indicated above in explanations of the Ecosystem and the Indirect Effects Questions, the Secretary will appoint two panels of independent scientific experts to provide individual assessments in determining the answers to these two questions. The independent experts will base their conclusions on a review of the results from the IDCPA research program, information obtained under the IDCP, and other relevant information. The use of independent expert judgment in obtaining guidance on complex and highly technical bodies of information, such as those relevant to the Ecosystem and the Indirect Effects Questions, is consistent with science-based, decision-making processes like that described here. NMFS published a notice in the
The Secretary will make the final finding based on information available from studies conducted under the IDCPA research program, information obtained under the IDCP, and other relevant information. While NMFS is conducting much of the research that will form the basis of the final finding, there may be other sources of information that the Secretary will consider pursuant to the MMPA. Since NMFS will need time to properly assess and evaluate information to be considered by the Secretary, the deadline for submission of information was May 1, 2002, as indicated in the proposed ODP. The Secretary will consider and weigh all quantitative information, as accompanied by associated statistical measures of certainty and confidence, as appropriate in making the final finding.
The weight given to the available scientific information will be determined by the degree to which it meets the following elements: (1) relevance, (2) timeliness, (3) passed independent peer-review, and (4) available to NMFS for verification.
mortality limits for eastern tropical
Pacific dolphins under the
Declaration of Panama and
under Potential
Biological Removal (PBR)
management.
NMFS Administrative Report
LJ-96-18.
initial finding, required under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act of
1972 as amended by the International
Dolphin Conservation Program Act
of 1997, regarding whether the
intentional deployment on or
encirclement
of dolphins with purser seine nets
is having a significant adverse impact
on any depleted dolphin stock in
the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean.
Southwest Fisheries Science Center,
National Marine Fisheries Service,
National Oceanic Atmospheric
Administration.
Guidelines for assessing marine
mammal stocks: Report of the
GAMMS workshop April 3-5, 1996,
Seattle, Washington. U.S. Department
of Commerce, NOAA Technical
Memorandum NMFS-OPR-12.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Withdrawal of application, return of application, and receipt of application for permit.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have applied in due form for a permit to take marine mammals and/or endangered species for the purposes of scientific research:
Dr. Andrew J. Read, Duke University Marine Laboratory, 135 Duke Marine Lab Road, Beaufort, NC 28516-9721 (File No. 1374);
NMFS Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Blvd. E, Seattle, WA 98112-2097 (Dr. Cynthia Tynan, Principal Investigator) (File No. 781-1666); and
Dr. Cynthia Tynan, School of Oceanography, University of Washington, Box 357940, Seattle, WA 98195-7940 (File No. 1035-1688).
Written or telefaxed comments on the new application must be received on or before September 23, 2002.
The applications and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment (See
Carrie Hubard or Ruth Johnson, (301)713-2289.
The subject permits are requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
On March 25, 2002 a notice was published in the
On April 25, 2002 a notice was published in the
For File No. 1035-1688, the applicant requests permission to conduct shipboard line-transect surveys of marine mammals in U.S. waters of the North Pacific. The applicant proposes to take various species of cetaceans and five species of pinnipeds via harassment during photo-identification from small boats or larger research vessels, line-transect surveys from ships, and collection of prey near cetaceans. Cetacean prey will be collected via dip nets and towed zooplankton nets. The goal of this research is to provide temporal (seasonal) and spatial (mesoscale and fine-scale) variability in euphausiid and forage fish occurrence patterns necessary to identify the important bio-physical linkages between top-predator distributions and the density and availability of their prey. Line-transect data will also provide updated abundance estimates.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this application should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those individuals requesting a hearing should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this particular request would be appropriate.
Comments may also be submitted by facsimile at (301)713-0376, provided the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy submitted by mail and postmarked no later than the closing date of the
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of this application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.
Documents are available in the following offices:
All documents: Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376;
For File Nos. 781-1666, 1035-1688: Northwest Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, BIN C15700, Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0700; phone (206)526-6150; fax (206)526-6426;
For File Nos. 781-1666, 1035-1688: Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213; phone (562)980-4001; fax (562)980-4018; and
For File No. 1374: Southeast Region, NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702-2432; phone (727)570-5301; fax (727)570-5320.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that Leszek Karczmarski, Ph.D., Marine Mammal Research Program, Texas A&M University, 4700 Avenue U, Building 303, Galveston, Texas 77551 has been issued an amendment to scientific research Permit No. 1007-1629-00.
The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the following office(s):
Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources, NOAA Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301)713-2289; fax (301)713-0376; and
Protected Species Coordinator, Pacific Area Office, NOAA Fisheries, 1601 Kapiolani Blvd., Room 1110, Honolulu, HI 96814-4700; phone (808)973-2935; fax (808)973-2941.
Jill Lewandowski or Trevor Spradlin, (301)713-2289.
On June 28, 2002, notice was published in the
Permit No. 1007-1629-01 now authorizes the take of 5,000 individual Hawaiian spinner dolphins (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; schedule change; request for comments.
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) announces the availability of a draft Code of Conduct for Responsible Aquaculture in the U. S. Exclusive Economic Zone (Code of Conduct). The purpose of the Code of Conduct is to provide general guidance for siting and operating aquaculture facilities in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) seaward of coastal state boundaries and authorities. NMFS solicits written comments on the Code of Conduct. NMFS also announces a schedule change for the publication of a final Code of Conduct.
Submit written comments on the draft Code of Conduct to the appropriate address or fax number by 5 p.m. on September 23, 2002.
The draft Code of Conduct is available on the NMFS Web site:
Susan Bunsick, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910 or call 301-713-2334 Extension 102. You may also fax your request to 301-713-0596 or send an e-mail to
NMFS has Federal responsibility for the living marine resources of the United States. Under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, NMFS has responsibility for federally managed species and for the conservation and enhancement of essential fish habitat in the zone seaward of coastal state boundaries to the 200-nautical mile limit of the EEZ. NMFS has additional responsibilities for threatened and endangered species and for marine mammals under authorities of the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The United States was an active participant in the 1993-1995 consultations that led to the adoption by the Food and Agriculture Organization
NMFS held a series of six regional workshops during 2000 to obtain stakeholder input on the development of the draft Code of Conduct. These were held in Seattle (WA), Danvers (MA), and Galveston (TX) in September 2000, and in Honolulu (HI), Miami (FL), and Silver Spring (MD) in November 2000. NMFS announced the meetings in two separate
The Code of Conduct provides guidance to potential users of the U.S. EEZ for aquaculture. It provides general guidance to the aquaculture industry for siting and operating aquaculture facilities in this zone, and provides NMFS with a framework that can be used to ensure a more consistent review of aquaculture projects that require agency actions. NMFS may also use the Code of Conduct as a starting point for the development of regulatory standards in the future.
The Code of Conduct was developed with input secured from stakeholders and in consultation with other Federal agencies with authorities in Federal waters. Public comments received regarding this document will be addressed in the notice of availability of the final Code of Conduct, which will be published in the
August 2002: Release draft Code of Conduct for public comment via posting of the document on the NMFS Web site (
September 2002: Public comment period on draft Code of Conduct ends.
November 2002: Release final Code of Conduct via a Federal Register notice of availability and posting on the NMFS Web site (
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 10 U.S.C. 1033(b), the General Counsel of the Department of Defense has designated the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants, and has concurred with the Secretary of the Army's authorization of LTC William L. Tozier to serve, without compensation, on the Board of Directors for the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants.
Authorization to serve on the Board of Directors has been made for the purpose of providing oversight and advice to, and coordination with the National Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants. Participation of the above official in the activities of the Commission will not extend to participation in day-to-day operations.
Mr. Matt Reres, Deputy General Counsel (Fiscal & Ethics), Department of the Army. 703-697-5105.
None.
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice sets forth the schedule and summary agenda for the Curriculum Subcommittee meeting of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC) Board of Visitors (BoV). Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463). The WHINSEC board was chartered on February 1, 2002 in compliance with the requirements set forth in 10 U.S.C. 2166. This Subcommittee was created on June 4, 2002 during the full BoV inaugural session.
Ken LaPlante, Core Processes, Inc., Army G-
The meeting is open to the public. There will be time, specified, for public comments by individuals and organizations at the end of the meeting on September 12. Public comment and presentations will be limited to two minutes each and must be provided in writing and received before Friday, September 6, 2002. Mail written presentations and requests to register to attend the public sessions to: LTC Andres Toro, DAMO-SSR (Rm. 2D337), 400 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-0400. Public seating is limited, and is available on a first come, first served basis.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Fort Worth District has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). This DEIS evaluates potential impacts to the natural, physical and human environment as a result of the proposed mining activities associated with Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) Inc.'s proposed Three Oaks Mine. The USACE regulates this proposed project pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The proposed activity would involve the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States associated with the proposed construction and operation of a surface lignite mine.
Submit comments by October 22, 2002. A public hearing regarding this DEIS will be held on October 2, 2002 (
Send written comments and suggestions concerning this proposal to Ms. Jennifer Walker, Regulatory Project Manager, Regulatory Branch, CESWF-PER-R, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, P.O. Box 17300, Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300 or via e-mail:
Ms. Jennifer Walker, Regulatory Project Manager at (817) 886-1733 or via e-mail:
Discharges of fill material into waters of the United States are regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, with the permitting responsibility administered by the USACE. The proposed project must also address environmental impacts relative to the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA). In accordance with the NEPA, the DEIS evaluates practicable alternatives for the USACE's decision making process. As required by NEPA, the USACE also analyzes the “no action” alternative as a baseline for gauging potential impacts.
As part of the public involvement process, notice is hereby given by the USACE Fort Worth District of a public hearing to be held at the Elgin High School, in Elgin, Bastrop County, TX, from 6:30 to 10 p.m., on October 2, 2002. The public hearing will allow participants the opportunity to comment on the DEIS prepared for the proposed Three Oaks Mine. Written comments should be sent to Ms. Jennifer Walker (
Copies of the DEIS are also available for inspection at the locations identified below:
(1) Bastrop City Hall, 902 Main Street, Bastrop, TX 78602.
(2) Lexington City Hall, P.O. Box 56, Lexington, TX 78947.
(3) Austin City Hall, 124 West 8th Street, P.O. Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767.
(4) Rockdale City Hall, P.O. Box 586, Rockdale, TX 76567.
(5) Elgin City Hall, P.O. Box 591, Elgin, TX 78621.
(6) Giddings City Hall, 118 E. Richmond Street, Giddings, TX 78942.
(7) Lee County Courthouse, P.O. Box 390, Giddings, TX, 78942.
(8) Milam County Courthouse, P.O. Box 1008, Cameron, TX 76520.
(9) Bastrop County Courthouse, 804 Pecan Street, Bastrop, TX 78602.
(10) Travis County Courthouse, 1000 Guadalupe Street, P.O. Box 1748, Austin, TX 78767.
(11) City of Austin Library—Milwood Branch, 12500 Amherst Drive, Austin, TX 78727.
(12) City of Austin Library—John Henry Faulk Branch, 800 Guadalupe, Austin, TX 78701.
(13) City of Austin Library—Will Hampton at Oak Hill Branch, 5125 Convict Hill Road, Austin, TX 78749.
(14) City of Bastrop Public Library, 1100 Church Street, Bastrop, TX 78602.
(15) City of Elgin Public Library, 404 North Main Street, Elgin, TX 78621.
(16) City of Giddings Public Library, 177 South Madison Street, Giddings, TX 78942.
(17) City of Rockdale Public Library, 201 Ackerman Street, Rockdale, TX 76567.
After the public comment period ends, USACE will consider all comments received, revise the DEIS as appropriate, and issue a final Environmental Impact Statement.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) Jacksonville District, announces the availability of a Regulatory Program SEIS for the Phipps Ocean Park Beach Restoration Project. The Town of Palm Beach, Florida is seeking Corps regulatory authorization for the proposed project pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). In accordance with 40
The general environmental impacts of beach restoration and erosion control activities on the Southeast Atlantic Coast of Florida were previously evaluated in the “
As required by NEPA, the Draft SEIS describes the applicant's preferred alternative and other alternatives evaluated to provide shore protection for Phipps Ocean Park within the Town of Palm Beach, Florida. The applicant's preferred alternative is intended to: (1) Mitigate the long-term erosion impacts of Lake Worth Inlet and armored coastline north of the Project area; (2) provide and maintain storm protection to upland improvements; (3) restore and maintain the beach for public recreational use; and (4) restore and maintain the beach for marine turtle nesting habitat.
The applicant's preferred alternative includes placement of approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of fill over approximately 1.9 miles of beach, between DEP Monuments R-116 and R-126 and installation of 3.1 acres of hardbottom reef to mitigate for unavoidable impacts to nearshore hardbottom. Sand compatible with the existing beach has been identified and will be obtained from borrow areas located approximately 3,500 feet offshore and between 1.5 and 2.6 miles south of the fill area. Geotechnical analysis of the borrow area indicates that the material is suitable for the restoration of Phipps Ocean Park beach. The proposed borrow areas have been designed with buffer zones to avoid impact to hardbottom communities in the vicinity of the borrow areas. Mitigation of hardbottom resources within the fill area is required and has been incorporated into the plan.
The Draft SEIS also identifies and evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of the applicant's preferred alternative, including potential impacts on Essential Fish Habitat, hardbottom resources and other specific issues identified in the scoping process. Cooperating agencies for the proposed project are the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The public comment period on the Draft SEIS shall commence upon publication of the Notice of Availability in the
Copies of the Draft SEIS document may be obtained by contacting Lois Edwards, SEIS Public Involvement Coordinator/Third Party Contractor, Coastal Technology Corp., 3625 20th Street, Vero Beach Florida, 32960, telephone (888) 562-8580; facsimile (772) 562-8432 or by e-mail to
Dale Beter at the above address or Peter A. Ravella, SEIS Project Manager/Third Party Contractor, Coastal Technology Corp., 2306 Lake Austin Blvd., Austin, Texas 78703; telephone (512) 236-9494; facsimile (800) 321-9673, or e-mail at
The Draft SEIS examines potential impacts on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and also includes a comprehensive examination of potential cumulative impacts of the project and other projects from Lake Worth Inlet to South Lake Worth Inlet. In accordance with the NEPA, the Draft SEIS evaluates reasonable alternatives for the USACE's decision-making process, including the “no action” alternative as a baseline for gauging potential impacts.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has designated all of the Project area from R-116 to R-126 as an area of “critical erosion.” This designation is based on (a) the erosion attributable to the influence of Lake Worth Inlet and the adjacent armored shoreline and (b) the existing headland features surrounding the Project area.
Shoreline conditions and structures updrift of the Project area exacerbate erosion and, if action is not taken, will lead to significant future erosion of the Project area and the shoreline further south. Net longshore sand transport in the region is to the south. Construction of the Inlet and Inlet jetties interrupts the longshore flow of sand and sand starves the region south of the Inlet leading to the construction of seawalls, groins, and eventually a rock revetment constructed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) north of Sloan's Curve in 1987. The revetment has cut-off the sand supply from the dune landward of the revetment. These conditions are expected to continue to contribute to the erosion within the Project area in the future.
The three miles of shoreline immediately north of Sloan's Curve are fronted by numerous armoring structures including rock revetments, seawalls, and groins. The existing groins north of Phipps Ocean Park deter southerly longshore transport to Phipps Ocean Park and the Project area. The Mid-Town Beach Restoration Project (unrelated to the project for which the applicant seeks authorization) is located to the north of this three-mile segment; the groins and armoring have impeded the southerly migration of the Mid-Town sand. In combination with the effects of Lake Worth Inlet, armoring structures have caused a longshore transport and sediment deficit to the Project area, resulting in erosion, loss of the recreational beach, increase in the storm damage risk to upland property, and loss of sea turtle nesting habitat.
Copies of the Draft SEIS are also available for inspection at the locations identified below:
(1) Town of Palm Beach Clerk's Office, Town Hall, 360 South County Road, Palm Beach, FL 33480.
(2) Town of Palm Beach Public Works Department, 951 Old Okeechobee Road, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
(3) Town of Palm Beach Fire Rescue Station 3, 2185 South Ocean Blvd., Palm Beach, FL 33480.
(4) USACE West Palm Beach Regulatory Office, 400 North Congress
(5) Palm Beach County Government Center, Front Lobby Information Desk, 215 North Olive Avenue, West Palm Beach, FL 33401.
After the public comment period ends, USACE will consider all comments received, revise the Draft SEIS as appropriate, and issue a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. As part of the public involvement process, notice is hereby given by the USACE-Jacksonville District of a public meeting to be held at Town Hall Council Chambers, 360 S. County Road, Town of Palm Beach, Florida, beginning at 7 p.m. on September 12, 2002. The public meeting will allow participants the opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIS.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), New England District is conducting a feasibility study and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) to determine the navigation-related needs of the harbor, port facilities, and harbor users of Boston Harbor. This study will analyze deepening various shipping channels in Boston Harbor, Massachusetts. These include the entrance channel, main ship channel, Presidents Roads anchorage area, and the lower Reserved Channel, all from −40 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) up to −50 feet MLLW, the Chelsea River from −38 feet to −40 feet MLLW, and a portion of the Mystic River channel from −35 to −40 feet MLLW. Without deepening portions of Boston Harbor, the ships and port of Boston will be affected in three ways. (1) Existing shippers and their vessels will continue to experience tidal related inefficiencies with the current channel depths, including negating the full advantage of Massport's deeper 45-foot berths at the Conley Terminal. (2) The port will be unable to accommodate the very large container vessels now beginning to serve the east coast of the United States from southern Asia via the Suez Canal. These vessels will not be able to use Boston efficiently with the current −40-foot channel depth. (3) As larger container and bulk vessels continue to come into service to replace existing vessels, Boston's lack of channel depth will erode its share of tonnage as New England cargo is redirected to the ports of New York-New Jersey and Halifax, Nova Scotia, and transported to New England by other means. Deepening the navigation channels in Boston Harbor would allow Boston to maintain a safe and efficient port.
September 5, 2002 from 1 to 4 p.m. at the Black Falcon Cruise Ship Terminal in South Boston, MA.
If you wish to be placed on the mailing list for this project, contact Mr. Michael Keegan, Project Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England District, Navigation Section, 696 Virginia Road, Concord, MA 01742.
If you have questions about the proposed action and the Draft SEIS, contact Mr. Keegan at (978) 318-8087.
The Corps participation in this study is authorized by a resolution of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Works dated September 12, 1969. This study was initiated at the request of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport), the study sponsor, using funds provided in the Fiscal Year 2000 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill.
Major navigation channel improvements (deepening) were made in 1999 through 2002 in the Reserved Channel, the Mystic River, Inner Confluence and the Chelsea River. A final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the previous navigation improvement project in June of 1995. The current study would investigate the feasibility of deepening the main shipping channels in the port of Boston to a depth greater than the current authorized depths. This study, which will include the preparation of SEIS to the 1995 Record of Decision, will examine the engineering feasibility, economic justification, social and cultural resource impacts, and environmental acceptability of the proposed channel deepening. The existing −40-foot MLLW main harbor entrance channel from Broad Sound, through President Roads, and up to the Marine Terminal just seaward of the Ted Williams Tunnel will be examined for depths up to −50 feet MLLW, as will the Reserved Channel. Deepening of a small area of the Mystic River Channel upstream of the Moran Terminal, from the current −35-foot depth to −40 feet will also be examined, as will deepening the Chelsea River Channel from the current −38-foot depth to −40 feet.
The study will take about three years to complete and Massport and the Corps will share the study cost.
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice of availability of a Financial Assistance Solicitation.
Notice is hereby given of the intent to issue Financial Assistance
Potential applicants are required to submit a technical application, not to exceed twenty-five (25) pages. Based on the technical application, applicants will be selected to enter into negotiations leading to award of a cooperative agreement (financial assistance) for the project. All applications must be submitted through the Industry Interactive Procurement System (IIPS) system in accordance with the instructions in the solicitation. The solicitation will be available on DOE/NETL's Internet address at
Larry D. Gillham, MS 921-162, U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, P.O. Box 10940, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940, e-mail Address:
Through this solicitation, NETL seeks applications in the following thirteen (13) separate (
(1) Combustion Systems.
(2) Environmental and Water Resources.
(3) Carbon Sequestration.
(4) Power Systems Advanced Research.
(5) Vision 21 Technologies.
(6) Coal Fuels and Hydrogen.
(7) Gasification—
(8) Fuel Cells.
(9) Gas Exploration, Production, Storage, and Hydrates.
(10) Infrastructure Reliability for Natural Gas.
(11) Oil and Gas Environmental: Upstream.
(12) Petroleum Fuels.
(13) Transportation Fuels and Chemicals * * *.
Applicants must select and target only one (1) Area of Interest per application. DOE anticipates the award of multiple cost-sharing cooperative agreements under each Area of Interest. Approximately $23.85 million of DOE funds is planned for this solicitation which will cover all Areas of Interest and all evaluation periods. It is anticipated that a total of 50-75 awards will be made as a result of this solicitation. In accordance with Section 3002 of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct), a minimum of 20% cost share will be required for each project. This solicitation includes multiple closing dates. Applicants will submit a technical application and after agency evaluation, the applicant will receive an e-mail notification that they have or have not been selected for negotiations leading to award. Those applicants selected for negotiations leading to award will be instructed in the notification e-mail that they must submit cost and other documentation as described in the solicitation. Selected applicants will generally have less than 30 days to submit the required cost and other documentation. Once released, the solicitation will be available for downloading from the IIPS Internet page,
Prospective applicants who would like to be notified as soon as the solicitation is available should subscribe to the Business Alert Mailing List at
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
There will be a 1-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP)) to consider and review a proposed methodology for projecting domestic percent-crop-treated with pesticides for dietary risk assessment.
The meeting will be held on October 1, 2002, from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 5 p.m., eastern standard time.
For dates on requests to present oral comments, submission of written comments, or requests for special seating arrangements, see Unit I.C. of the
The meeting will be held at Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. The telephone number for the Sheraton Crystal City Hotel is: (703) 486-1111.
Requests to present oral comments, submission of written comments, or requests for special seating arrangements may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
Steven Knott, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Office of Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-8450; fax number: (202) 564-8382; e-mail addresses: knott.steven@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and FQPA. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under
1.
A meeting agenda, EPA's background paper, questions to FIFRA SAP, and FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members and consultants) will be available as soon as possible, but no later than early September. In addition, the Agency may provide additional background documents as the materials become available. You may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other related documents that might be available electronically, from the FIFRA SAP Internet Home Page at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap.
2.
You may submit requests to present oral comments, written comments, or requests for special seating arrangements through the mail, in person, or electronically. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered CBI. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket ID number OPP-2002-0228 in the subject line on the first page of your request.
1.
2.
3.
1.
b.
c.
The FIFRA SAP is an independent scientific peer review group that provides technical advice for EPA's consideration. Amendments to the FIFRA, enacted November 28, 1975, (7 U.S.C. 136w(d)), include a requirement under section 25(d) that notices of intent to cancel or reclassify pesticide regulations pursuant to section 6(b)(2), as well as proposed and final forms of rulemaking pursuant to section 25(a), be submitted to a SAP prior to being made public or issued to a registrant. In accordance with FIFRA section 25(d), the SAP is to have an opportunity to comment on the health and environmental impact of such actions. The Panel shall also make comments, evaluations, and recommendations for operating guidelines to improve the effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists. Members are scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact on health and the environment of regulatory actions under sections 6(b) and 25(a) of FIFRA. The Deputy Administrator appoints seven individuals to serve on the Panel for staggered terms of 4 years, based on recommendations from the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).
The FIFRA SAP will meet to consider and review a proposed methodology for projecting domestic percent-crop-treated with pesticides for dietary risk assessment. The percentage of a given crop which is treated (or, more precisely, not treated) is a critical parameter in OPP's recently instituted, probabilistic human health exposure assessments because this factor determines the proportion of a crop which is assumed to have (or not have) residues. These residues, or expected residues, determine the dietary exposure to pesticides, which is a key component of dietary risk assessment.
EPA has historical data on domestic percent-crop-treated for a large number of crop/chemical combinations. This data can provide a basis for projecting future usage of pesticides (e.g., percent-crop-treated) for regulatory decisions based on dietary risk. Given EPA's mandate to assess pesticide food tolerances on a periodic basis, it is important for EPA to be able to project expected percent-crop-treated using these historical data. There are a number of statistical and/or mathematical methods for projecting future values from a historical record. EPA currently has methods for conducting these projections, but believes that EPA's refinements in these methods are warranted. Therefore, EPA has explored and developed methods that EPA believes, could serve the purpose for refining projected domestic percent-crop-treated, and is seeking SAP input on these method developments.
Previously, EPA has analyzed percent-crop-treated data using a distributed lag, whereby 1-year projections of percent-crop-treated were based on weighted historical data, with older data receiving lower weight and more recent data receiving higher weight. The confidence intervals associated with these projections are based on the variability of these historical data. While these methods have been shown to generate reasonable estimates, in cases where usage is trending upwards (or downwards), the uncertainty of the estimates can increase substantially. Therefore, EPA is seeking to develop a more robust method for projecting/estimating percent-crop-treated.
EPA is proposing to use exponential smoothing as the analytical tool for projecting percent-crop-treated to better reflect upward or downward trends in the data. The size of existing data sets (usually 10 or fewer observations) precludes some regression techniques, and exponential smoothing has been shown to be a robust method in settings where small data sets are common. EPA is also proposing a method for estimating prediction intervals that is consistent with exponential smoothing projections. As part of the development of these techniques, EPA has been working with and testing sets of historical data and plans to present comparisons of results in addition to the theoretical discussion.
The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its recommendations to the Agency in approximately 60 days. The report will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site or may be obtained by contacting the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch at the address or telephone number listed in Unit I. of the
The Agency solicits nominations of scientists to serve on the SRB for this meeting. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified individuals to serve on the SRB. No interested person shall be ineligible to serve on the SRB by reason of their membership on any other advisory committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a Federal department or agency (except EPA). Individuals should have expertise in one or more of the following areas: agricultural economics, pesticide use, pesticide exposure, and forecasting. In addition, nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of providing expert comments as to the impact on
The criteria for selecting scientists to serve on the SRB are that these persons be recognized experts in their fields; that they be as impartial and objective as possible; that they represent an array of backgrounds and perspectives (within their disciplines); and that they be available to participate fully in the review, which will be conducted over a relatively short time frame. Nominees will be asked to attend one public meeting and to participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at this meeting. Finally, they will be asked to review and to help finalize the products and outputs of the FIFRA SAP.
If a SRB nominee is considered to assist in a review by the SAP for a particular session, the SRB nominee is subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634, Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5 CFR part 6401. As such, the SRB nominee is required to submit a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report, which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the nominee's employment, stocks and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the nominee's financial disclosure form prior to the nominee being appointed to a panel reviewing agency actions. This evaluation will identify conflicts that may arise between the member's financial interests and the agency actions under review. If the SRB nominee's financial disclosure form is approved by the EPA, the nominee will be assigned to a SAP session and be hired as a special government employee. Nominations should be provided to the DFO listed under
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Thursday, August 29, 2002 at 10 a.m.
999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC (ninth floor).
This meeting will be open to the public.
Correction and Approval of Minutes.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program Evaluation.
Administrative Matters.
Mr. Ron Harris, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Notice and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted the following collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The collection of information, which is contained in FEMA's interim final rule 44 CFR parts 201 and 206 and published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the collection of information to the Desk Officer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 within 30 days of the date of this notice.
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Muriel B. Anderson, Chief, Records Management Section, Program Services and Systems Branch, Facilities Management and Services
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice.
This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas, (FEMA-1425-DR), dated July 4, 2002, and related determinations.
August 13, 2002.
Rich Robuck, Response and Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705 or
The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 4, 2002:
U.S. Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Notice of availability of funds.
FEMA gives notice of the availability of funds for FY 2002 under the Assistance to Firefighters Fire Prevention and Safety Program (the Program) as authorized the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974. The Program will make available up to $10,000,000 of the total appropriated amount of $360,000,000 for fire prevention activities. FEMA will fund such activities based upon proposals that address the Program's priorities and maximize the benefits to be derived from the funds. FEMA is statutorily mandated to provide these funds to national, State, local, or community organizations that are recognized for their experience and expertise with respect to fire prevention or fire safety programs and activities. In selecting recipients, FEMA will give priority to organizations that focus on prevention of fire (or fire-related) injuries to children.
Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act) 1701(a), 15 U.S.C. 2229 (2000).
This notice of funds availability is effective August 23, 2002.
Brian Cowan, Director, Grants Program Office, U.S. Fire Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 304, 500 C St. SW., Washington DC 20472, 1-866-274-0960, or
The purpose of this notice is to advise of the availability of funds for carrying out fire prevention activities pursuant to section 1701(a) of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2229. Up to ten million dollars ($10,000,000) will be available for this purpose. FEMA reserves the right to use a portion of these funds to supplement previously awarded prevention grants.
National, State, local, or community organizations that are recognized for their experience and expertise in fire prevention or safety programs and activities are eligible to apply for funding through the Program.
1. Recipients of grants or parties entering into cooperative agreements through the Program may not receive more than $750,000 and must agree to maintain in the fiscal year for which the assistance will be received their aggregate expenditures for fire prevention activities at or above the average level of such expenditures in the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year for which the assistance will be received. They must also agree to a match with non-Federal funds an amount of 30 percent of the assistance received or, in the case of fire departments whose personnel serve jurisdictions of 50,000 or fewer residents, an amount of 10 percent of the assistance received. The matching requirement may be met through in-kind contributions.
2. FEMA may, in its discretion, also enter into contracts for fire prevention activities in order to achieve overall program goals. These contracts may not be subject to the limitations and requirements set forth in the previous paragraph.
3. Fire Departments that receive assistance through the Program must provide information to the national fire incident reporting system (NFIRS) for the period covered by the assistance.
4. Grantees must submit a report to the Director describing how their assistance was used and of the benefits derived from the funded activities.
Through the interim final rule for the Assistance to Firefighters Program published on February 27, 2002 in the
Applicants will be required to submit an application to FEMA that includes the following:
1. Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424;
2. Budget Information—Non-construction Program, FEMA Form 20-20;
3. Direct Deposit Sign-up Form, Standard Form 1199A;
4. Summary Sheet for Assurances and Certification, FEMA Form 20-16, 20-16A, and 20-16C;
5. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, Standard Form LLL; and
6. Program Narrative: The narrative describing the activities for which the funding is requested should not exceed 10 pages (double-spaced with one-inch margins and 12-point font). The narrative should also address the eligible activities, program priorities, and evaluation criteria included in Sections E and F.
Application packages will be reviewed for completeness and responsiveness to the following program requirements:
(a) General Information such as the history and description of your organization; a statement regarding the financial need of your organization and funding sources; your organization's capability to achieve proposed objectives and past successes at achievement of project goals; your organization's experience as it specifically relates to fire and injury prevention issues; and the qualifications of the project manager and primary team members.
(b) A project overview, which includes, but is not limited to: a problem statement, including the issues to be addressed, project goals and objectives or tasks to achieve the goals; a description of what will be accomplished during the grant performance period and an explanation of how the project will address the stated problem; a project description addressing the following questions as applicable:
(1) Will this establish a new program, expand an existing program into new areas; or augment an existing fire prevention program?
(2) Who is the target audience: FEMA-identified target population (children under the age of 14, seniors over 65 years of age, and firefighters), or another high-risk population?
(3) Will this program enhance the FEMA fire safety campaign to assist Americans in installing smoke alarms (as well as checking detectors and batteries to make sure they work), planning and practicing escape routes, and conducting home fire safety walkthroughs? If so, describe how.
(4) Will this program establish a multi-organization partnership with other groups in the community? If so describe how.
(c) List of Project benchmarks, phases, or milestones.
(d) Describe the method or procedure for implementation of your project.
(e) Include a detailed explanation of your project's budget including a cost-benefit assessment. The explanation should compare the benefits to be realized with the costs of achieving those benefits.
(f) If the program will be continued beyond the grant period, include an explanation of the means with which it will be sustained.
(g) Describe the methodology that will be used to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
Fire prevention and safety programs are the only eligible activities under the Program and, in particular, those that will reach a significant number of individuals.
FEMA will give priority to programs that focus on the prevention of fire-related injuries to children. Although other programs that address fire prevention and safety may also be considered, the following list provides examples of programs that FEMA deems to be a high funding priority:
(1) Projects that focus on distributing smoke detectors and checking to assure detectors are operational, planning and practicing escape routes, or conducting home fire safety walkthroughs;
(2) Fire prevention programs targeting high-risk audiences, including those that:
(a) Enhance national, state, or local efforts to reduce fires and burn injuries affecting children under the age of 14 or adults over 65.
(b) Target geographical areas with a higher incidence of fire related deaths and injuries based on a five-year history of data from NFIRS or other national data centers (either in absolute numbers or per capita).
(c) Include the translation or development of public education materials aimed at high-risk populations. There is a higher emphasis on development of educational materials in languages other than English or Spanish (because development of these types of materials were funded in FY 01), although purchasing and distributing educational materials in any language are eligible.
(d) Develop fire prevention material using universal signs and symbols that do not include any language or are complete regardless of the language.
(3) Projects in urban neighborhoods that target at-risk populations, involve a partnership or consortium made up of local organizations, such as fire departments, civic organizations, high schools or citizen's task forces, and that include conducting door-to-door home safety checks and distributing smoke detectors and batteries to at least 50 percent of the residents of the neighborhood.
(4) Projects that affect the entire community such as educating the public about residential sprinklers, promoting residential sprinklers, and demonstrating working models of residential sprinklers, adopting or strengthening building codes and enforcement, improving engineering, and enacting fire-related ordinances for new construction are encouraged.
(5) FEMA will consider innovative projects that have a high probability of successfully achieving the Program goals. FEMA reserves the right to work with applicants in developing programs proposed in their applications.
Proposals will be reviewed to determine the degree to which they address the following:
(1) Involves a partnership between the fire department and the community in planning and practicing escape routes or conducting home fire safety walkthroughs;
(2) Targets geographical areas with a higher incidence of fire related deaths and injuries based on a five-year history of data from NFIRS or other national data centers (either in numbers or in per capita);
(3) Is designed to correct problems based on regional or local trends based on fire loss data;
(4) Proposes a program that will be sustained beyond the grant performance period and has a greater potential for long-term benefits;
(5) The Project describes a sound planned approach for getting the prevention message to targeted audiences;
(6) The Project presents a high benefit for the cost incurred and has minimal overhead or administrative costs;
(7) Comes from an organization with a successful track record and is capable of implementing the fire safety program that will help achieve program goals;
(8) Contributes to the national or local effort on fire and burn injury prevention to children under the age of 14 or other at-risk groups; and
(9) Has a high potential for achieving the overall goals and priorities of the Firefighters Assistance Grant Program and the USFA.
FEMA will use the above criteria in making the funding decisions. FEMA considers these criteria to be of equal weight. In general, proposals that adequately address more of the criteria, and meet the program priorities, will be more likely to receive favorable consideration. FEMA intends to use non-federal experts to assist with the preliminary review of proposals. FEMA will use the expert analysis as part of the basis for its decisions. In addition, in making final decisions on funding, FEMA reserves the right to fund a variety of projects consistent with section E above.
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 September 20, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 20, 2002.
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 September 16, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 19, 2002.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 02-20398) published on pages 52722 and 52723 of the issue for Tuesday, August 13, 2002.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City heading, the entry for Morrill Bancshares, Inc., Sabetha, Kansas, is revised to read as follows:
In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to acquire FBC Financial Corporation, Claremore,
In addition, Applicant also has applied to engage
Comments on this application must be received by September 6, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 19, 2002.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 02-20398) published on pages 52722 and 52723 of the issue for Tuesday, August 13, 2002.
Under the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City heading, the entry for Morrill Bancshares, Inc., Sabetha, Kansas, is revised to read as follows:
In connection with this application, Applicant also has applied to acquire FBC Financial Corporation, Claremore, Oklahoma, and thereby indirectly acquire 1st Bank Oklahoma, Claremore, Oklahoma, and thereby engage in operating a savings association, pursuant to § 225.28(b)(4)(ii) of Regulation Y.
In addition, Applicant also has applied to engage
Comments on this application must be received by September 6, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 19, 2002.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Final notice.
This final notice announces our decision to approve the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organization's (JCAHO's) application as a national accrediting organization for critical access hospitals (CAHs) seeking to participate in the Medicare program. Following our evaluation of the organizational and programmatic capabilities of JCAHO, we have determined that JCAHO standards for CAHs meet or exceed the Medicare conditions of participation. Therefore, CAHs accredited by JCAHO will be granted deemed status under the Medicare program.
This final notice is effective November 21, 2002 through November 21, 2008.
Cindy Melanson, (410) 786-0310.
Under the Medicare program, eligible beneficiaries may receive covered services in a critical access hospital (CAH), provided that the hospital meets certain requirements. Sections 1820(c)(2)(B) and 1820(e) of the Social Security Act (the Act) establish distinct criteria for facilities seeking CAH designation. Under this authority, the Secretary has set forth in regulations minimum requirements that a CAH must meet to participate in Medicare. The regulations at 42 CFR part 485, subpart F (Conditions of Participation: Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs)) determine the basis and scope of CAH-covered services. Conditions for Medicare payment for critical access services can be found at § 413.70. Applicable regulations concerning provider agreements are at 42 CFR part 489 (Provider Agreements and Supplier Approval) and those pertaining to facility survey and certification are at 42 CFR part 488, subparts A and B.
In general, we approve a CAH for participation in the Medicare program, if it is participating as a hospital at the time it applies for CAH designation, and is in compliance with parts 482 (Conditions of Participation for Hospitals), and 485, subpart F (Conditions of Participation: Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs)). Section 403 of the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 expanded this criterion to allow a limited number of additional entities to become eligible for CAH designation under certain circumstances. Specifically, a rural health clinic previously downsized from an acute care hospital, or a closed hospital that requests to reopen as a CAH, need only meet the provisions of 42 CFR part 485, subpart F (at the time they apply for CAH designation) to be eligible to participate in Medicare.
For a CAH to enter into a provider agreement, a State survey agency must certify that the CAH is in compliance with the conditions or standards set forth in the statute and part 485 subpart F of our regulations. Then, the CAH is subject to ongoing review by a State survey agency to determine whether it continues meeting Medicare requirements. There is, however, an alternative to State compliance surveys. Certification by a nationally recognized accreditation program can substitute for ongoing State review.
Section 1865(b)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider is accredited by a national accreditation body under standards that meet or exceed the Medicare conditions of participation, the Secretary can “deem” the provider as having met the Medicare requirements for those conditions. Accreditation is voluntary and not required for participation in Medicare; providers have the option to undergo State surveys or pursue accreditation. The American Osteopathic Association (AOA) is currently the only CMS-approved national accreditation organization for CAHs.
Section 1865(b)(3)(A) of the Act provides a statutory timetable to ensure that our review of deeming applications is conducted in a timely manner. The Act provides us with 210 calendar days to complete our survey activities and application review process. Within 60 days of receiving a completed application, we must publish a notice in the
On March 22, 2002, we published a proposed notice at 67 FR 13344 announcing the JCAHO's request for approval as a deeming organization for CAHs. In the notice, we detailed our evaluation criteria. Under section 1865(b)(2) of the Act and § 488.4, we conducted a review of the JCAHO application in accordance with the criteria specified by our regulation, which includes, but is not limited to the following:
• An onsite administrative review of JCAHO's (1) corporate policies; (2) financial and human resources available to accomplish the proposed surveys; (3) procedures for training, monitoring, and evaluation of its surveyors; (4) ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities; and (5) survey review and decision-making process for accreditation.
• A comparison of JCAHO's CAH accreditation standards to our current Medicare CAH conditions of participation standards.
• A documentation review of JCAHO's survey processes to do the following:
• Determine the composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of JCAHO to provide continuing surveyor training.
• Compare JCAHO's processes to those of State survey agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
• Evaluate JCAHO's procedures for monitoring providers or suppliers found to be out of compliance with JCAHO program requirements. The monitoring procedures are used only when the JCAHO identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews, the survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.7(b)(2).
• Assess JCAHO's ability to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
• Establish JCAHO's ability to provide us with electronic data in ASCII-comparable code and reports necessary for effective validation and assessment of JCAHO's survey process.
• Determine the adequacy of staff and other resources.
• Review JCAHO's ability to provide adequate funding for performing required surveys.
• Confirm JCAHO's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced.
• Obtain JCAHO's agreement to provide us with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as we may require, including corrective action plans.
In accordance with section 1865(b)(3)(A) of the Act, the proposed notice also solicited public comments regarding whether JCAHO's requirements met or exceeded the Medicare conditions of participation for CAHs. We received no public comments in response to our proposed notice.
We compared the standards contained in the JCAHO's “Critical Access Hospital (CAH) Manual” and its survey process in the “Critical Access Hospital Surveyor Handbook” with the Medicare CAH conditions of participation and CMS's “State and Regional Operations Manual.” Our review and evaluation of JCAHO's deeming application, which were conducted as described in section III of this notice yielded the following:
• JCAHO provided an updated crosswalk (a table showing the match between their standards and our standards) of recommended revisions or clarifications to its requirements to ensure that the requirements meet or exceed CMS requirements.
• JCAHO adjusted language to consistently refer to CAHs as opposed to hospitals.
• JCAHO modified and adjusted its standards for CAHs to more clearly document the JCAHO standard and intent statement. The reformatted version presents the standards in their entirety and facilitates a comparison to the Medicare COPs.
• JCAHO added language to each chapter of the CAH Manual stating, “Critical Access Hospitals going through a deemed status survey are expected to meet the standards and the full intent of the standards.” This added language eliminates CMS's concern about JCAHO's intent statements not carrying the same weight as the Medicare standards.
• JCAHO modified its standard and intent statement to include a list of drugs and biologicals commonly used in life-saving procedures in order to meet the requirements of § 485.618.
• In order to meet the requirements of § 485.639, JCAHO added to its standard and intent statement the language that surgery can only be performed by: (1) A doctor of medicine or osteopathy, including an osteopathic practitioner recognized under section 1101(a)(7) of the Act; (2) a doctor of dental surgery or dental medicine; or (3) a doctor of podiatric medicine.
• JCAHO standards previously indicated resurvey of a CAH every 3 years. JCAHO modified its standards to indicate in the resurvey requirements that a 1-year-follow-up visit after the initial accreditation survey is required. After the 1-year-follow-up, CAHs will be resurveyed every 3 years.
• JCAHO provided a list of currently accredited facilities and schedule of surveys to be performed to meet the requirements of § 488.4(a)(9) and (10).
• JCAHO addressed our regulations at § 485.623 and specifically, § 485.623(d)(1), by recognizing that assessing compliance with the life safety code (LSC) is a JCAHO responsibility. The LSC, published on an ongoing basis by the National Fire Prevention Association, contains building and construction standards designed to promote fire-safe structures. In addition to the JCAHO requirement that the CAH complete a Statement of Conditions (SOC), which allows the CAH to report any known deficiencies in the physical plant, a JCAHO trained surveyor also surveys the CAH using the JCAHO environment-of-care standards. During the JCAHO survey process, a surveyor will conduct a building tour, including above-the-ceiling inspections, and will validate what the organization has reported on its SOC. As a result of the inspection, JCAHO findings may be cited as requirements for improvement and may impact the score and survey outcome. JCAHO requires that all findings on the SOC be remediated in the same manner as those found independently by JCAHO surveyors. The CMS Financial Report to Congress, published in 2002, includes a report on “Medicare's Validation Program for Hospitals Accredited by the JCAHO”. This report showed a large discrepancy between the LSC survey findings made by the State survey agencies and JCAHO surveys. JCAHO regularly failed to identify LSC deficiencies. We expect
Based on the review and observations described in section III of this final notice, we have determined that JCAHO's requirements for CAHs meet or exceed our requirements. Therefore, we recognize the JCAHO as a national accreditation organization for CAHs that request participation in the Medicare program, effective November 21, 2002 through November 21, 2008.
This final notice does not impose any information collection and recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Consequently, it does not need to be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the authority of the PRA. The requirements associated with granting and withdrawal of deeming authority to national accreditation organizations, codified in 42 CFR part 488, (Survey, Certification, and Enforcement Procedures) are currently approved by OMB under OMB approval number 0938-0690, with an expiration date of September 30, 2002.
We have examined the impact of this notice as required by Executive Order 12866 (September 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review), the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (Pub. L. 98-354), section 1102(b) of the Social Security Act, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), and Executive Order 13132.
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects; distributive impacts; and equity). The RFA requires agencies to analyze options for regulatory relief for small businesses. For purposes of the RFA, States and individuals are not considered small entities.
Also, section 1102(b) of the Act requires the Secretary to prepare a regulatory impact analysis for any notice that may have a significant impact on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. Such an analysis must conform to the provisions of section 604 of the RFA. For purposes of section 1102(b) of the Act, we consider a small rural hospital as a hospital that is located outside of a Metropolitan Statistical Area and has fewer than 100 beds.
This final notice recognizes JCAHO as a national accreditation organization for CAHs that request participation in the Medicare program. There are neither significant costs nor savings for the program and administrative budgets of Medicare. Therefore, this notice is not a major rule as defined in Title 5, United States Code, section 804(2) and is not an economically significant rule under Executive Order 12866. We have determined, and the Secretary certifies, that this notice will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities and will not have a significant effect on the operations of a substantial number of small rural hospitals. Therefore, we are not preparing analyses for either the RFA or section 1102(b) of the Act.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 also requires that agencies assess anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in expenditure in any 1 year by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $110 million. This notice will not result in an impact of $110 million on the governments mentioned or on the private sector.
In an effort to better assure the health, safety, and services of beneficiaries in CAHs already certified as well as provide relief to State budgets in this time of tight fiscal restraints, we deem CAHs accredited by JCAHO as meeting our Medicare requirements. Thus, we continue our focus on assuring the health and safety of services by providers and suppliers already certified for participation in a cost-effective manner.
In accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 12866, this notice was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have determined that this notice will not significantly affect the rights of States, local or tribal governments.
Section 1865 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395bb).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Executive Committee (the Committee) of the Medicare Coverage Advisory Committee (MCAC). The Committee provides advice and recommendations to us about clinical issues. The Committee will act upon recommendations from the Medical and Surgical Procedures Panel of the MCAC regarding the use of deep brain stimulation for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. The Committee will also discuss approaches to assessing clinical evidence in diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2)).
Janet A. Anderson, Executive Secretary, 410-786-2700.
On December 14, 1998 and February 7, 2002, we published a notice in the
Harold C. Sox, M.D.; Daisy Alford-Smith, Ph.D.; Wade Aubry, M.D.; Linda Bergthold, Ph.D.; Ronald M. Davis, M.D.; John H. Ferguson, M.D.; Leslie P. Francis, J.D., Ph.D.; Alan M. Garber, M.D., Ph.D.; Thomas V. Holohan, M.D., M.A.; Michael D. Maves, M.D., M.B.A.; Barbara J. McNeil, M.D., Ph.D.; Robert L. Murray, Ph.D.; Frank J. Papatheofanis, M.D., Ph.D.; Randel E. Richner, M.P.H.
The Committee will act on recommendations from the Medical and Surgical Procedures Panel of the MCAC regarding the use of deep brain stimulation for treatment of Parkinson's disease. The Committee will also discuss methods for assessing clinical evidence concerning diagnosis and treatment of diseases that affect a small population of patients.
This meeting is open to the public. The Committee will hear oral presentations from the public for approximately 90 minutes. The Committee may limit the number and duration of oral presentations to the time available. If you wish to make a formal presentation, you must notify the Executive Secretary named in the
After the public and CMS presentations, the Committee will deliberate openly on the topic. Interested persons may observe the deliberations, but the Committee will not hear further comments during this time except at the request of the chairperson. The Committee will also allow approximately a 30-minute open public session for any attendee to address issues specific to the topic. At the conclusion of the day, the members will vote, and the Committee will make its recommendation.
5 U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(a)(1) and (a)(2).
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice.
In accordance with section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the Practicing Physicians Advisory Council and invites all organizations representing physicians to submit nominees for membership on the Council. There will be several vacancies on the Council as of February 28, 2003. The meetings are open to the public.
The meeting is scheduled for September 23, 2002 from 8:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. e.s.t. and September 24, 2002 from 8:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. e.s.t.
The meeting will be held at CMS Headquarters' Multipurpose Room, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21224-1750.
Paul Rudolf, M.D., J.D., Executive Director, Practicing Physicians Advisory Council, 7500 Security Boulevard., Mail Stop C4-10-07, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850, (410) 786-3379. News media representatives should contact the CMS Press Office, (202) 690-6145.
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) is mandated by section 1868 of the Social Security Act (the Act) to appoint a Practicing Physicians Advisory Council (the Council) based on nominations submitted by medical organizations representing physicians. The Council meets quarterly to discuss certain proposed changes in regulations and carrier manual instructions related to physicians' services, as identified by the Secretary. To the extent feasible and consistent with statutory deadlines, the consultation must occur before publication of the proposed changes. The Council submits an annual report on its recommendations to the Secretary and the Administrator of the Centers for
The Council consists of 15 physicians, each of whom has submitted at least 250 claims for physicians' services under Medicare in the previous year. Members of the Council include both participating and nonparticipating physicians, and physicians practicing in rural and underserved urban areas. At least 11 of the members of the Council shall be physicians described in section 1861(r)(1) of the Act. The remaining members may include dentists, podiatrists, optometrists, and chiropractors. Members serve for overlapping 4-year terms; terms of more than 2 years are contingent upon the renewal of the Council by appropriate action before its termination. Section 1868(a) of the Act provides that nominations to the Secretary for Council membership must be made by medical organizations representing physicians.
The Council held its first meeting on May 11, 1992. The current members are: James Bergeron, M.D.; Richard Bronfman, D.P.M.; Ronald Castellanos, M.D.: Rebecca Gaughan, M.D.; Joseph Heyman, M.D.; Stephen A. Imbeau, M.D.; Joe Johnson, D.O.; Christopher Leggett, M.D.; Dale Lervick, O.D.; Angelyn L. Moultrie-Lizana, D.O.; Barbara McAneny, M.D.; Michael T. Rapp, M.D. (Chairman); Amilu Rothhammer, M.D.; Victor Vela, M.D.; and Douglas L. Wood, M.D.
Council members will be updated on the status of recommendations made during the past year. The agenda will provide for discussion and comment on the following topics:
• Physician's Regulatory Issues Team (PRIT) update.
• Update on the Physician Fee Schedule.
• Beneficiary access.
• Funding for provider education.
• Medicaid access provision.
• Evaluation and management guidelines.
• Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
• Local medical review policy-variation.
• Self-administered drug policy.
• Preventative services.
For additional information and clarification on the topics listed, call the contact person in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this notice. Individual physicians or medical organizations that represent physicians wishing to make 5-minute oral presentations on agenda issues should contact the Executive Director by 12 noon, Friday, September 13, 2002, to be scheduled. Testimony is limited to agenda topics. The number of oral presentations may be limited by the time available. A written copy of the presenter's oral remarks should be submitted to the meeting coordinator at
This notice also serves as an invitation to all organizations representing physicians to submit nominees for membership on the Council. Each nomination must state that the nominee has expressed a willingness to serve as a Council member and must be accompanied by a short resume or description of the nominee's experience. To permit an evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest, potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning financial holdings, consultant positions, research grants, and contracts. Section 1868(b) of the Act provides that the Council meet quarterly, as requested by the Secretary, to discuss proposed changes in regulations and manual issuances that relate to physicians' services. Council members are expected to participate in all meetings. Section 1868(c) of the Act provides for payment of expenses and a per diem allowance for Council members at a rate equal to payment provided members of other advisory committees. In addition to making these payments, the Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services provides management and support services to the Council. The Secretary will appoint new members to the Council from among those candidates determined to have the expertise required to meet specific agency needs and in a manner to ensure appropriate balance of membership.
Part F of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority for the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), (FR, Vol. 67, No. 125, pp. 43632-43633 dated June 28, 2002) is amended to reflect a change to the Office of Communications and Operations Support.
The specific amendments to part F are described below:
• Section F.10. (Organization) is amended to read as follows:
• Section F.20. (Functions) is amended by restructuring the Office of Communications and Operations Support and changing their title to the Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs. The new functional statement reads as follows:
• Manages the Agency's decision-making and regulatory process.
• Serves in a neutral broker coordination role which includes: Scheduling meetings and briefings for the Administrator and coordinating communications between and among central and regional offices to ensure that emerging issues are identified early, all concerned components are directly and fully involved in policy development/decision making, and that all points of view are presented.
• Provides leadership, direction, and advocacy, on behalf of top CMS officials in connection with official policy matters for presentation to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator/Chief Operating Officer to insure that all points of view and program interests of concern to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator/Chief Operating Officer are developed and properly presented for consideration. Reviews policy statements by component Directors and others to anticipate potential problems or inconsistencies with views of the Administrator, Deputy Administrator/Chief Operating Officer, and the Administration. Assists in resolving these matters to the satisfaction of the Agency and top management.
• Manages meeting requests for or on behalf of the Administrator, and Deputy Administrator/Chief Operating Officer. Coordinates the preparation of briefing materials for the Administrator, Deputy Administrator/Chief Operating Officer, and the Department in advance of the Administrator and Deputy Administrator/Chief Operating Officer's participation in meetings, appointments with major groups, etc. Works with CMS components to assure that appropriate briefing materials are presented to Senior Leadership. Senior officials in CMS and the Department, as well as officials of other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and outside interest groups attend these meetings.
• Coordinates the preparation of manuals and other policy instructions to ensure accurate and consistent implementation of the Agency's programs.
• Manages the Agency's system for developing, clearing and tracking regulations, setting regulation priorities and corresponding work agendas; coordinates the review of regulations received for concurrence from departmental and other government agencies, and develops routine and special reports on the Agency's regulatory activities.
• Manages the regulations development process to ensure timely decision making by the Administrator and Deputy Administrator/Chief Operating Officer on CMS regulations.
• Provides leadership and management of the Agency's Executive Correspondence system. Operates the agency-wide correspondence tracking and control system and provides guidance and technical assistance on standards for content of correspondence and memoranda.
• Manages the agency-wide clearance system to ensure appropriate involvement from Agency components and serves as a primary focal point for liaison with the Executive Secretariat in the Office of the Secretary.
• Provides management and administrative support to the Office of the Attorney Advisor and staff.
• Acts as audit liaison with the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG).
• Monitors and coordinates major CMS legislative initiatives such as tracking the status of the Agency's implementation of Balanced Budget Act, Balanced Budget Refinement Act, and the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act provisions.
• Coordinates and prepares the advance planning reports for the Secretary and the Administrator (Secretary's Forecast Report).
• Acts as the liaison with the Office of the Secretary for Reports to the Congress and maintains a tracking system to monitor status. Also serves as the CMS liaison with the Small Business Administration's Office of the National Ombudsman.
• Develops standard processes for all CMS FACA committees and provides operational and logistical support to CMS components for conferences and on all matters relating to Federal Advisory Committees.
• Conducts activities necessary to the receipt, management, response, and reporting requirements of the Department under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding all requests received by CMS.
• Maintains a log of all FOIA requests received by the central office, refers requests to the appropriate components within headquarters, the regions or among carriers and intermediaries for the collection of the documents requested. Makes recommendations and prepares replies to requesters, including denials of information as permitted under FOIA, and drafts briefing materials and responses in connection with appeals of denial decisions.
• Directs the maintaining and amending of CMS-wide records for confidentiality and disclosure to the Privacy Act to include: planning, organizing, initiating and controlling privacy matching assignments.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Minority Health and Health Disparities.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to Executive Order 13263, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health in September 2002.
The meeting will be open and will consider how to accomplish the Commission's mandate to conduct a comprehensive study of the United States mental health service delivery system and to make recommendations on improving the delivery of public and private mental health services for adults and children. The Commission meeting will focus on issues relating to children and families including access to and coordination of mental health services, family engagement efforts, school-based services, the juvenile court system and trauma-related issues.
Attendance by the public will be limited to space available. Public comments are welcome. Please communicate with the individual listed as contact below to make arrangements to comment or to request special accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Additional information and a roster of Commission members may be obtained either by accessing the Commission Web site,
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval number (2502-0514) and should be sent to: Lauren Wittenberg, OMB Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Fax number (202) 395-6974; E-mail
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval number (2502-0358) and should be sent to: Lauren Wittenberg, OMB Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Fax number (202) 395-6974; e-mail
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S. C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval number (2503-0009) and should be sent to: Lauren Wittenberg, OMB Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Fax number (202) 395-6974; E-mail
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as described below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable; (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Chief Information Officer, HUD.
Notice.
The proposed information collection requirement described below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB approval number (2503-0001) and should be sent to: Lauren Wittenberg, OMB Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; Fax number (202) 395-6974; E-mail
Wayne Eddins, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, Southwest, Washington, DC 20410; e-mail
The Department has submitted the proposal for the collection of information, as decribed below, to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The Notice lists the following information: (1) The title of the information collection proposal; (2) the office of the agency to collect the information; (3) the OMB approval number, if applicable; (4) the description of the need for the information and its proposed use; (5) the agency form number, if applicable, (6) what members of the public will be affected by the proposal; (7) how frequently information submissions will be required; (8) an estimate of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information submission including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response; (9) whether the proposal is new, an extension, reinstatement, or revision of an information collection requirement; and (10) the name and telephone number of an agency official familiar with the proposal and of the OMB Desk Officer for the Department.
This Notice also lists the following information:
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as amended.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice.
This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.
August 23, 2002.
Mark Johnston, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-7588.
In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of intent.
This notice advises that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) intends to gather information necessary to prepare a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations.
A CCP will be prepared for the future Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located in Jefferson County, Colorado. The purpose of the CCP is to describe the future conditions of the Rocky Flats NWR and provide long-term guidance and management direction to achieve the refuge's purpose and restore its ecological integrity.
In the EIS, the Service will describe and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives and the anticipated impacts of each. This information will be used in the draft CCP for the Rocky Flats NWR. The Service is furnishing this Notice in compliance with Service CCP policy to advise other agencies and the public of its intentions and to obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to be considered in the planning process.
Public scoping meetings will be held in surrounding communities in September 2002. Written scoping comments must be received by October 31, 2002.
Comments and inquiries should be directed to Rocky Flats NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Attn: Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader, Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR, Building 111, Commerce City, Colorado 80022. Comments also may be mailed electronically to
Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader (see address above) at (303) 289-0980, or Fax (303) 289-0579.
The Service has initiated Comprehensive Conservation Planning for the future Rocky Flats NWR in Jefferson County, Colorado. Each national wildlife refuge
The Federal Government acquired 2,519 acres of the 6,300-acre Rocky Flats site in 1951 for use as a nuclear weapons production facility. The remaining acreage was acquired in 1974-1976. In 1992, the mission of the Rocky Flats site changed to site cleanup and closure in a manner that is safe, environmentally and socially responsible, physically secure, and cost-effective. The majority of the site has generally remained undisturbed since its acquisition, and provides habitat for many wildlife species, including a resident, federal-listed threatened species. Within the site is a rare xeric tallgrass prairie plant community. Establishing the site as a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System will promote the preservation and enhancement of its natural resources for present and future generations.
By Federal law, all lands within the National Wildlife Refuge System are to be managed in accordance with an approved CCP. A CCP describes the desired future conditions of the refuge and provides long-range guidance and management direction to accomplish the purposes of the refuge, contribute to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and meet other relevant mandates. The planning process will consider many elements including habitat and wildlife management, wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, environmental education, and other wildlife-dependent uses. Public input into this process is essential. The Service is requesting input for issues, concerns, ideas, and suggestions for the future management of Rocky Flats NWR. Anyone interested in providing input is invited to respond to the following three questions:
(1) What makes the Rocky Flats NWR special or unique to you?
(2) What problems or issues do you want to see addressed in the CCP?
(3) What are your recommendations for future management of Rocky Flats NWR?
The above questions were designed to stimulate thinking about Rocky Flats and its future management. The Service invites any relevant comments or ideas and does not require that participants provide any specific information. Comments received by the planning team will be used as part of the planning process.
An opportunity will be given to the public to provide input at public meeting to scope issues and concerns. These public scoping meetings will be held in nearby communities in September 2002. The meetings will take place in facilities meeting accessibility requirements outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Citizens with disabilities that may require accommodation to participate in or to understand the meeting, should contact Laurie Shannon, Refuge Planner, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service at (303) 289-0980 at least one week in advance so arrangements for accommodations can be made. Comments also may be submitted anytime during the planning process by writing to the above addresses.
The environmental review of this project will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
U.S. Geological Survey.
Notice of proposed Cooperative Research & Development Agreement (CRADA) negotiations.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is contemplating entering into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the American Geological Institute to develop and distribute USGS GIS database information in a variety of educational mediums.
If any other parties are interested in similar activites with the USGS, please contact Beth Duff, Business Development Office, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 500, Reston, Virginia, 20192, phone: (703) 648-4621.
This notice is submitted to meet the USGS policy requirements stipulated in Survey Manual Chapter 500.20.
U.S. Geological Survey.
Notice of proposed Cooperative Research & Development Agreement (CRADA) negotiations.
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is contemplating entering into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Pixxures, Inc. to develop spatial data Internet deployment technologies which allow Internet publication of aerial imagery.
If any other parties are interested in similar activities with the USGS, please contact Beth Duff, Business Development Office, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 500, Reston, Virginia 20192, phone: (703) 648-4621.
This notice is submitted to meet the USGS policy requirements stipulated in Survey Manual Chapter 500.20.
Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to Public Law 108-148, the NCGMP Advisory Committee will meet in Room 7000 A of the Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC. The Advisory Committee, composed of scientists from Federal Agencies, State Agencies, academic institutions, and private companies, will advise the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey on planning and implementation of the geologic mapping program. Topics to be reviewed and discussed by the Advisory Committee include the:
• Progress of the NCGMP towards fulfilling the purposes of the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.
• Updates on the Federal, State, and educational components of the NCGMP
• Strategic Goals
September 17-18, commencing at 9 a.m. on September 17th and adjourning by 5 p.m. on September 18th.
Peter T. Lyttle, U.S. Geological Survey, 908 National Center, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648-6943.
Meetings of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program Advisory Committee are open to the Public.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, California Desert District, Riverside, California.
Notice of Availability of the Proposed Plan and associated Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Northern and Eastern Mojave Desert planning area (NEMO), an amendment to the Bureau of Land Management California Desert Conservation Area Plan.
NEMO amends the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan for a 3.3 million acre area in the northeastern portion of the CDCA, and provides for conservation and recovery of T & E species, reduces the need for further species listings and streamlines the processing of land-use permits. NEMO includes goals, objectives, management prescriptions and monitoring in accordance with the Federal Lands Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) for comprehensive, strategic, management of the desert landscapes, including a programmatic biological opinion for the desert tortoise, strategies for the Amargosa watershed which include multiple listed species and sensitive bat habitat. The FEIS evaluates the Proposed Plan Amendments and alternatives, includes public comments on the Draft EIS and provides responses to those comments.
Written protests on the Final EIS will be accepted if received within 30 calendar days from the date that a Notice of Availability is published in the
Copies of the NEMO Proposed Plan/FEIS are being mailed to those who received the Draft EIS or provided comments on the Draft EIS. The document is available for review online at
Edythe Seehafer, Barstow Field Office, 2601 Barstow Road, Barstow, California 92311; Telephone (760) 252-6021.
Development of the plan began in 1994, with scoping meetings held in conjunction with the National Park Service (NPS). NPS is conducting concurrent planning efforts on adjacent lands. The NEMO Planning Area covers 3.3 million acres of land in the southeastern California Desert of which 2.7 million acres are public lands. This document describes and analyzes a number of alternatives for managing species and habitats on public lands administered by the BLM. Issues identified during public scoping included (1) recovery of threatened and endangered species, including the desert tortoise, the Amargosa vole, the Amargosa niterwort, the Ash Meadows Gumplant and spring-loving Centaury; (2) maintenance of public access through the NEMO planning area which includes sensitive areas, is surrounded by two national park units and two large military bases, and includes all or parts of twenty-four wilderness and eight wilderness study areas; (3) addressing impacts to other land uses; and (4) protection of County tax base.
The Environmental Protection Agency published the Notice of Availability of the NEMO DEIS in the
Following are the instructions from the
(1) The protest shall be in writing and shall be filed with the Director. The protest shall be filed within 30 days of the date the Environmental Protection Agency published the notice of receipt of the final environmental impact statement containing the plan or amendment in the
(2) The protest shall contain:
(i) The name, mailing address, telephone number and interest of the person filing the protest;
(ii) A statement of the issue or issues being protested;
(iii) A statement of the part or parts of the plan or amendment being protested;
(iv) A copy of all documents addressing the issue or issues that were submitted during the planning process by the protesting party or an indication of the date the issue or issues were discussed for the record; and
(v) A concise statement explaining why the State Director's decision is believed to be wrong.
(3) The Director shall promptly render a decision on the protest. The decision shall be in writing and shall set forth the reasons for the decision. The decision shall be sent to the protesting party by certified mail, return receipt requested.
(b) The decision of the Director shall be the final decision for the Department of the Interior.
Mailing address for filing a protest:
Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area.
Meeting notice for the Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee.
The Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee will meet at the North State Blood Center, 1876 Park Marina Drive, Redding, CA 96001 on Thursday, September 12, 2002 from 9:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Suggested topics include:
• Effectiveness Monitoring,
• Restoration efforts in the basin, and
• PAC membership.
Information to be distributed to the committee members is requested ten (10) days prior to the start of the meeting.
The entire meeting is open to the public. Opportunities for public comment are scheduled for 11:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 3 to 3:30 p.m.
Additional information concerning the Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee may be obtained from Teresa Raml, Field Manager, Klamath Falls Resource Area, 2795 Anderson Ave., Building 25, Klamath Falls, OR 97603, Phone Number 541-883-6916, FAX 541-884-2097, or e-mail
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Notice of availability for final environmental impact statement (FEIS).
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, has completed an FEIS on the proposed renewal of a long-term water service contract for irrigation water from the Angostura Unit, Cheyenne River Basin, South Dakota. The FEIS describes four alternatives, including no action, and evaluates the environmental consequences of each of these alternatives. Reclamation's preferred alternative is the Improved Efficiencies alternative.
The DEIS was issued on January 18, 2001. Responses to comments received from agencies, interested organizations, and individuals on the DEIS are addressed in the FEIS. No decision will be made on the proposed action until 30 days following the release of the FEIS. Following the 30-day waiting period, Reclamation will complete and sign a Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will describe the action to be implemented and will discuss factors contributing to that decision.
Printed copies of a Summary of the FEIS or the entire FEIS (with appendices) may be obtained from Kenneth Parr, Dakotas Area Office, Rapid City Field Office, 515 9th Street, Room 101, Rapid City, SD 57701 or by telephone at (605) 394-9757 x3004 or by e-mail at
Kenneth Parr, Dakotas Area Office, Rapid City Field Office, 515 9th Street, Room 101, Rapid City, SD 57701 or by telephone at (605) 394-9757 x3004 or e-mail
The FEIS considers the effects of renewing a long-term water service contract with the Angostura Irrigation District. The authority for contract renewal is found in the Act of July 2, 1956, 70 Stat. 483, and the Act of June 21, 1963, 77 Stat. 68, which requires the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to renew long-term water service contracts upon request.
The Angostura Unit has been providing supplemental irrigation water to the irrigation district since 1953. The original long-term water service contract had a term of 40 years and expired in 1996. In order to continue the rights and obligations of the original contracts during the contract renewal process, the Angostura Irrigation District has been operating under a temporary contract.
The FEIS describes four alternatives, including no action, reestablishment of natural flows below the dam, improved efficiencies, and reservoir recreation and fisheries alternatives, and evaluates the environmental consequences of each of the alternatives. The FEIS considered the following issues: surface water quantity, surface water quality, groundwater, sediment, stream corridor, wetlands, fisheries, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, social and economic conditions, Indian trust assets, environmental justice, cultural resources, paleontological resources, and cumulative impacts.
The Improved Efficiencies Alternative is Reclamation's preferred alternative and is designed to continue delivery of irrigation water to the irrigation district while improving the efficiency of the water delivery system and on-farm efficiencies. A public process will be undertaken to establish uses for the water saved through facility and on-
• Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, Rapid City Field Office, 515 9th Street, Room 101, Rapid City, SD 57701—telephone (605) 394-9757 x3004.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, 304 East Broadway, Bismarck, ND 58502—telephone (701) 250-4242.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Great Plains Regional Office, 316 North 26th Street, Billings, MT 59101—telephone (406) 247-7720.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Reclamation Service Center Library, Building 67, Room 167, Denver Federal Center, Sixth and Kipling, Denver, CO 80225—telephone (303) 445-2072.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Program Analysis Office, Room 7456, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240—telephone (202) 208-4662.
• Angostura Irrigation District, Main Street, Oral, SD 57766.
• South Dakota State Library, Mercedes MacKay Building, 800 Governors Drive, Pierre, SD 57501-2294.
• Rapid City Public Library, 610 Quincy Street, Rapid City, SD 57701-3655.
• Hot Springs Library, 1543 Baltimore Avenue, Hot Springs, SD 57747.
• Custer County Library, 447 Crook #4, Custer, SD 57730.
• Oglala Lakota College, 3 Mile Creek, Piya Wiconi Road, Kyle, SD 57752.
• Cheyenne River Community College, Main Street, Box 212, Eagle Butte, SD 57625.
• Lower Brule Tribal Library, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD 57548.
• Pine Ridge Library, Main St., Box 439, Pine Ridge, SD 57770.
International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on July 23, 2002, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc. of Little Neck, New York. A letter supplementing the complaint was filed on August 14, 2002. The complaint as supplemented alleges violations of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain ground fault circuit interrupters (“GFCIs”) and products containing same by reason of infringement of claims 1-4 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,595,894.
The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a permanent general exclusion order and a permanent cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at
David H. Hollander, Jr., Esq., Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone 202-205-2746.
The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in §210.10 of the Commission's rules of practice and procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2002).
Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on August 19, 2002,
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation, of certain ground fault circuit interrupters or products containing same by reason of infringement of claim 1, 2, 3, or 4 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,595,894, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337.
(2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is—Leviton Manufacturing Co., Inc., 59-25 Little Neck Parkway, Little Neck, NY 11362.
(b) The respondents are the following companies alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(c) David H. Hollander, Jr.,
(3) For the investigation so instituted, the Honorable Sidney Harris is designated as the presiding administrative law judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with §210.13 of the
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to that respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter both an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of a limited exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against that respondent.
Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committees on Rules of Bankruptcy and Criminal Procedure, and the Rules of Evidence.
Notice of proposed amendments and open hearings.
The Advisory Committees on Rules of Bankruptcy and Criminal Procedure, and the Rules of Evidence have proposed amendments to the following rules:
The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure submits these rules for public comment. All comments and suggestions with respect to them must be placed in the hands of the Secretary as soon as convenient and, in any event, not later than February 15, 2003. All written comments on the proposed rule amendments can be sent by one of the following three ways: By overnight mail to Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20002; by electronic mail via the Internet at
Public hearings are scheduled to be held on the amendments to:
• Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, DC, on January 24, 2003;
• Criminal Rules and Rules Governing § 2254 Cases and § 2255 Proceedings in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 31, 2003; and
• Evidence Rules in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2003.
Those wishing to testify should contact the Secretary at the address above in writing at least 30 days before the hearing.
The text of the proposed rule amendments and the accompanying Committee Notes can be found at the United States Federal Courts' Home Page at
John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Notice is hereby given that Viacom International, Inc. (“Viacom”), has moved to terminate the Final Judgment entered against it by the United States District Court for the Central District of California on January 17, 1973. In a stipulation also filed with the Court, the United States has tentatively agreed not to oppose the motion, but as a matter of policy will not finally consent to the termination of any judgment without providing public notice and an opportunity for public comments to be received and considered.
On April 14, 1972, the United States filed separate actions against CBS, NBC and ABC, the companies that operated the three then-existing national television networks (the “Network Cases”). The Network Cases charged the three networks with restraint of trade, monopolization and attempted monopolization of the market for prime time entertainment programming in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.
The syndication operations of CBS had been spun off from CBS to Viacom in 1971 in order to comply with a 1970 FCC rule. Viacom was named as an additional defendant in the action against CBS to insure that any relief obtained against CBS would be effective. The Final Judgment prohibited any Viacom director or officer from also being a director or officer of a broadcast television network, and from owning or controlling more than one percent of the stock of any such network.
Between 1977 and 1980, each of the three networks entered into settlements with the United States (the “Network Decrees”). Among other things, the Network Decrees: (1) Prohibited the three networks from acquiring certain financial interests or proprietary rights in television programs produced by others; (2) limited the amount of programming that each network could produce for its own use; and (3) prohibited the networks from engaging in the domestic syndication of television programs. Following significant changes in the marketplace and the erosion of broadcast television's share of the overall television market, the Network Decrees were modified by the Court in 1993 and have ceased to be operable.
Viacom has filed with the Court a memorandum setting forth the reasons it believes that termination of the Final Judgment would serve the public interest. Copies of Viacom's motion and supporting memorandum, the stipulation containing the United States' tentative consent, and all further papers filed with the Court in connection with the motion will be available for inspection at the Antitrust Documents Group of the Antitrust Division, 325 7th Street, NW., Room 215 North, Liberty Place Building, Washington, DC 20530, and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Copies of these materials may be obtained from
Interested persons may submit comments to the United States regarding the proposed termination of the Final Judgment. Such comments must be received by the Antitrust Division within sixty (60) days and will be filed with the Court. Comments should be addressed to J. Robert Kramer, II, Chief, Litigation II Section, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1401 H Street, NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20530.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
Notice of meeting.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR), utilizing emergency review procedures, 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). OMB approval has been requested by September 6, 2002. A copy of each individual ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling the Department of Labor. To obtain documentation contact Marlene Howze at (202) 693-4158 or e-mail
Comments and questions about the ICR listed below should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, and within five (5) 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;
• 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.
General wage determination decisions of the Secretary of Labor are issued in accordance with applicable law and area based on the information obtained by the Department of Labor from its study of local wage conditions and data made available from other sources. They specify the basic hourly wage rates and fringe benefits which are determined to be prevailing for the described classes of laborers and mechanics employed on construction projects of a similar character and in the localities specified therein.
The determinations in these decisions of prevailing rates and fringe benefits have been made in accordance with 29 CFR part 1, by authority of the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of March 3, 1931, as amended (46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U.S.C. 276a) and of other Federal statutes referred to in 29 CFR part 1, Appendix, as well as such additional statutes as may from time to time be enacted containing provisions for the payment of wages determined to be prevailing by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The prevailing rates and fringe benefits determined in these decisions shall, in accordance with the provisions of the foregoing statutes, constitute the minimum wages payable on Federal and federally assisted construction projects to laborers and mechanics of the specified classes engaged on contract work of the character and in the localities described therein.
Good cause is hereby found for not utilizing notice and public comment procedure thereon prior to the issuance of these determinations as prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553 and not providing for delay in the effective date as prescribed in that section, because the necessity to issue current construction industry wage determinations frequently and in large volume causes procedures to be impractical and contrary to the public interest.
General wage determination decisions, and modifications and supersedeas decisions thereto, contain no expiration dates and are effective from their date of notice in the
Any person, organization, or governmental agency having an interest in the rates determined as prevailing is encouraged to submit wage rate and fringe benefit information for consideration by the Department. Further information and self-explanatory forms for the purpose of submitting this data may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Wage and Hour Division, Division of Wage Determinations, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S-3014, Washington, DC 20210.
The number of the decisions listed to the Government Printing Office document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts” being modified are listed by Volume and State. Dates of publication in the
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts, including those noted above, may be found in the Government Printing Office (GPO) document entitled “General Wage Determinations Issued Under the Davis-Bacon And Related Acts”. This publication is available at each of the 50 Regional Government Depository Libraries and many of the 1,400 Government Depository Libraries across the country.
General wage determinations issued under the Davis-Bacon and related Acts
Hard-copy subscriptions may be purchased from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, (202) 512-1800.
When ordering hard-copy subscription(s), be sure to specify the State(s) of interest, since subscriptions may be ordered for any or all of the six separate Volumes, arranged by State. Subscriptions include an annual edition (issued in January or February) which includes all current general wage determinations for the States covered by each volume. Throughout the remainder of the year, regular weekly updates will be distributed to subscribers.
The following parties have filed petitions to modify the application of existing safety standards under section 101(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977.
Buck Mountain Coal Company, PO Box 6, Tremont, Pennsylvania 17981 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1002-1 (Location of other electric equipment; requirements for permissibility) to its Buck Mountain Slope Mine (I.D. No. 36-01962) located in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the use of non-permissible electric equipment within 150 feet of the pillar line. The petitioner states that the non-permissible equipment would include drags and battery locomotives due in part to the method of mining used in pitching anthracite mines and the alternative evaluation of the mine air quality for methane on an hourly basis during operation. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Buck Mountain Coal Company, PO Box 6, Tremont, Pennsylvania 17981 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1100-2(a) (Quantity and location of firefighting equipment) to its Buck Mountain Slope Mine (I.D. No. 36-01962) located in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner requests a modification of the standard to permit use of only portable fire extinguishers to replace existing requirements where rock dust, water cars, and other water storage equipped with three (3) ten quart pails is not practical. The petitioner proposes to use two (2) fire extinguishers near the slope bottom and an additional portable fire extinguisher within 500 feet of the working face for equivalent fire protection for the Buck Mountain Slope Mine. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Buck Mountain Coal Company, PO Box 6, Tremont, Pennsylvania 17981 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1200 (d) & (i) (Mine map) to its Buck Mountain Slope Mine (I.D. No. 36-01962) located in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner proposes to use cross-sections instead of contour lines through the intake slope, at locations of rock tunnel connections between veins, and at 1,000 foot intervals of advance from the intake slope; and to limit the required mapping of the mine workings above and below to those present within 100 feet of the vein being mined except when veins are interconnected to other veins beyond the 100-foot limit through rock tunnels. The petitioner asserts that due to the steep pitch encountered in mining anthracite coal veins, contours provide no useful information and their presence would make portions of the map illegible. The petitioner further asserts that use of cross-sections in lieu of contour lines has been practiced since the late 1800's thereby providing critical information relative to the spacing between veins and proximity to other mine workings which fluctuate considerably. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Buck Mountain Coal Company, PO Box 6, Tremont, Pennsylvania 17981 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1202 and 75.1202-1(a) (Temporary notations, revisions, and supplements) to its Buck Mountain Slope Mine (I.D. No. 36-01962) located in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The petitioner proposes to revise and supplement mine maps annually instead of every 6 months as required, and to update maps daily by hand notations. The petitioner also proposes to conduct surveys prior to commencing retreat mining and whenever either a drilling program under 30 CFR 75.388 or plan for mining into inaccessible areas under 30 CFR 75.389 is required. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Energy West Mining Company, PO 310, Huntington, Utah 84528 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.500(d) (Permissible electric equipment) to its Deer Creek Mine (I.D. No. 42-00121) located in Emery County, Utah. The petitioner proposes to use the following non-permissible equipment inby the last open crosscut: low-voltage or battery powered electronic testing and diagnostic equipment such as lap top computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, recording amp meters, thermal image devices, infrared temperature devices and recorders, pressure and flow measurement devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic thickness gauges, electronic component testers, and electronic tachometers; low-voltage or battery powered equipment such as electric and/or battery operated drills and grinders; and other testing and diagnostic equipment if approved by the District Office. The petitioner states that equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut shall be examined by a qualified person on a weekly basis, and new equipment would be examined prior to use. The petitioner has listed in this petition specific procedures that would be followed when using this
Border Mining, Inc., 7617 Upper Johns Creek Road, Phelps, Kentucky 41553 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.503 (Permissible electric face equipment; maintenance) and 30 CFR 18.41(f) (Plug and receptacle-type connectors) to its No. 2 Mine (I.D. No. 15-17110) located in Knott County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use permanently installed, spring-loaded locking devices to prevent battery plugs from unintentionally loosening from battery receptacles to eliminate the hazards associated with difficult removal of padlocks during emergency situations. The petitioner asserts that application of the existing standard would result in a diminution of safety to the miners, and that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
R & T Coal Company, Inc., 405 KY HWY 1092, Sitka, Kentucky 41255 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.800 (High-voltage circuits; circuits breakers) to its Mine No. 1 (I.D. No. 15-18523) located in Morgan County, Kentucky. The petitioner proposes to use a Jennings RP-170-2300 high-voltage contactor in lieu of circuit breakers in its substation. The petitioner states that the Jennings RP-170-2300 is equivalent electrically and mechanically to high-voltage circuit breakers; that the substation has 12470 volts feed with 30 amp high-voltage fuses on the pole limiting the 4160 side to no more than 90 amps; that available vault current from Licking Valley Rural Electric is 924 amps line to ground and 1200 amps phase to phase; and that the Jennings contactor is more than capable of carrying the load. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Oxbow Mining, LLC, PO Box 535, 3737 Highway 133, Somerset, Colorado 81434 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.350 (Air course and belt haulage entries) to its Elk Creek Mine (I.D. No. 05-04674) located in Gunnison County, Colorado. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing safety standard to permit air coursed through the conveyor belt haulage entries to be used to ventilate working places. The petitioner proposes to install a carbon monoxide monitoring system as an early warning fire detection system in all belt entries used to course intake air to a working place. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Energy West Mining Company, PO Box 310, Huntington, Utah 84528 has filed a petition to modify the application of 30 CFR 75.1002-1(a) (Location of other electric equipment; requirements for permissibility) to its Deer Creek Mine (I.D. No. 42-00121) located in Emery County, Utah. The petitioner requests a modification of the existing standard to permit the following non-permissible equipment to be used within 150 feet from pillar workings (longwall gob): lap top computers, oscilloscopes, vibration analysis machines, cable fault detectors, point temperature probes, recording amp meters, thermal image devices, infrared temperature devices and recorders, pressure and flow measurement devices, signal analyzer devices, ultrasonic thickness gauges, electronic component testers, and electronic tachometers, low-voltage or battery powered equipment such as electric and/or battery operated drills and grinders, and may use other testing and diagnostic equipment if approved by the District Office. The petitioner states that equipment used in or inby the last open crosscut shall be examined by a qualified person on a weekly basis, and that new equipment would be examined prior to use. The petitioner has listed in this petition for modification specific procedures that would be followed when using this equipment. The petitioner asserts that the proposed alternative method would provide at least the same measure of protection as the existing standard.
Persons interested in these petitions are encouraged to submit comments via e-mail to “
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces an open meeting of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC).
Tuesday, September 10, 2002, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m; and Wednesday, September 11, 2002, 8 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), NASA, Building 180, Room 101, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109.
Ms. Kathy Dakon, Code IC, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546-0001, 202/358-0732.
The meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:
Due to increased security measures at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), interested members of the public including the news media must contact Helen Paley (818) 354-6427 or Cecil Brower (818) 354-6974 no later than Friday, September 6, 2002, by 12 Noon PDT to make arrangements for badging, parking and escorting while at JPL. Access to JPL will be limited to those
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice at least once monthly of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. They authorize the preservation of records of continuing value in the National Archives of the United States and the destruction, after a specified period, of records lacking administrative, legal, research, or other value. Notice is published for records schedules in which agencies propose to destroy records not previously authorized for disposal or reduce the retention period of records already authorized for disposal. NARA invites public comments on such records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a).
Requests for copies must be received in writing on or before October 7, 2002. Once the appraisal of the records is completed, NARA will send a copy of the schedule. NARA staff usually prepare appraisal memorandums that contain additional information concerning the records covered by a proposed schedule. These, too, may be requested and will be provided once the appraisal is completed. Requesters will be given 30 days to submit comments.
To request a copy of any records schedule identified in this notice, write to the Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Requests also may be transmitted by FAX to 301-837-3698 or by e-mail to
Larry Baume, Acting Director, Life Cycle Management Division (NWML), National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. Telephone: 301-837-1505. e-mail:
Each year Federal agencies create billions of records on paper, film, magnetic tape, and other media. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval, using the Standard Form (SF) 115, Request for Records Disposition Authority. These schedules provide for the timely transfer into the National Archives of historically valuable records and authorize the disposal of all other records after the agency no longer needs them to conduct its business. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
No Federal records are authorized for destruction without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. This approval is granted only after a thorough consideration of their administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private persons directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not they have historical or other value.
Besides identifying the Federal agencies and any subdivisions requesting disposition authority, this public notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or indicates agency-wide applicability in the case of schedules that cover records that may be accumulated throughout an agency. This notice provides the control number assigned to each schedule, the total number of schedule items, and the number of temporary items (the records proposed for destruction). It also includes a brief description of the temporary records. The records schedule itself contains a full description of the records at the file unit level as well as their disposition. If NARA staff has prepared an appraisal memorandum for the schedule, it too includes information about the records. Further information about the disposition process is available on request.
1. Department of Defense, Defense Commissary Agency, (N1-506-02-3, 140 items, 139 temporary items). Records relating to personnel management and legal affairs. Included are records relating to such subjects as career development and internship programs, reemployment matters, overseas tour extensions, training courses, special pay rates, performance management system guidelines, incentive awards, relocation services guidelines and applications, reduction and realignment programs, early retirement and separations, personnel strength reporting, litigation cases, legal representation, contractual disputes, and fraud investigations. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of files relating to the preparation and processing of legislation. This schedule authorizes the agency to apply the proposed disposition instructions to any recordkeeping medium.
2. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (N1-60-02-1, 4 items, 3 temporary items). Single section case files relating to enforcement of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using word processing and electronic mail. Recordkeeping copies of multi-section case files are proposed for permanent retention.
3. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (N1-170-02-1, 4 items, 4 temporary items). Records relating to procurement transactions, including market survey files, rejected requisition files, and logs containing control numbers assigned to procurement-related transactions. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing.
4. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration (N1-170-02-2, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Records relating to advance procurement planning, including
5. Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service (N1-527-02-2, 3 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing that are accumulated in connection with the preparation of orientation and briefing books for senior management. Recordkeeping copies of orientation and briefing books are proposed for permanent retention.
6. Department of Justice, United States Marshals Service (N1-527-02-3, 4 items, 3 temporary items). Working papers, charts, and preliminary report information relating to tactical and strategic planning. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Recordkeeping copies of published studies, strategic plans, annual operating plans, and assessment reports are proposed for permanent retention.
7. Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons (N1-129-02-3, 8 items, 8 temporary items). Records of the Industrial, Education and Vocational Training Financial Management Branch consisting of program statement files, operations memoranda files, special projects files, general correspondence files, institution files, program review audits, and audit reports. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.
8. Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research (N1-59-02-4, 37 items, 21 temporary items). Chronological files, document search files, and reference files accumulated by the Office of Intelligence Resources Coordination. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are recordkeeping copies of such records as subject files, visa case files, interagency committee and working group files, country files, counterintelligence files, and foreign disclosure files.
9. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (N1-436-02-2, 3 items, 3 temporary items). Employee service agreements maintained by the Travel and Relocation Branch that are used to determine employee eligibility for travel and transportation expenses when transferred or assigned to a new post. Also included are electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing.
10. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Office of Policy and Regional Operations (N1-311-01-4, 4 items, 3 temporary items). Records accumulated in connection with the National Performance Review. Included are program office reports, internal agency correspondence, and electronic copies of documents created using electronic mail and word processing. Recordkeeping copies of final agency reports submitted to the White House are proposed for permanent retention.
11. Farm Credit Administration, Agency-wide (N1-103-01-1, 12 items, 9 temporary items). Web site pages containing copies of records duplicated in other agency files, audiovisual records that do not document mission-related activities, and retirement case files. Also included are electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing. Proposed for permanent retention are audiovisual records that document the agency's mission and copies of web site pages that are not duplicated in other records. The schedule specifies that initial transfers of permanent web pages to NARA will consist of paper copies but also allows for future transfers in an electronic format. Likewise, audiovisual records currently maintained in paper will initially be transferred to NARA in that medium but may be transferred in an electronic format in the future.
12. National Archives and Records Administration, Government-wide (N1-GRS-02-1, 20 items, 20 temporary items). Employment applications and examination and certification records included in General Records Schedule (GRS) 1, Civilian Personnel Records. Included are such records as correspondence or notices received from eligibles, cancelled and ineligible applications for positions filled from a register or inventory, and eligible applications for positions that either are not referred to the hiring official or are returned to the examining office by the hiring official. This schedule also revises series descriptions or disposition instructions for records already included in GRS 1, including examination announcement case files, registers of eligibles, and certificate files.
13. Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, Administrative Services Division (N1-220-02-15, 19 items, 12 temporary items). Electronic data of the Accounting Information System, including general ledger data, daily accounting data, electronic fund transfer vendor information, and query reports. Also included are daily, weekly, monthly, six-week, and yearly backups. Proposed for permanent retention from the Accounting Information System are client and vendor databases and related system documentation.
14. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-1, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to administrative management. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to internal agency housekeeping operations such as management improvement programs, records disposition, and forms control. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Administrative Management Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Administrative Management Section of the manual to requestors.
15. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-3, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to appeals actions. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as Administrative Law Judge qualifications and appellate cases. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Appeals Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Appeals Section of the manual to requestors.
16. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-4, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to budget and finance. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as internal payroll, work reporting, cost analysis, and the budget program. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in Budget and Finance Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Budget and Finance Section of the manual to requestors.
17. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-5, 2 items, 2
18. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-6, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to the organization and activities of boards and committees over which the agency has administrative jurisdiction. Included are electronic copies of records associated with such files as general correspondence, publications, news releases, and speeches. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Committee Management Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Committee Management Section of the manual to requestors.
19. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-8, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to Government-wide employment processes. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as certification of eligibles, selections, appointments, placements, and transfers. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Employment Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Employment Section of the manual to requestors.
20. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-9, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to Government-wide labor-management programs. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as unfair labor practices, contract agreements, and arbitration decisions. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Employee Relations and Services Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Employee Relations and Services Section of the manual to requestors.
21. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-10, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to the Government-wide personnel management evaluation program. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as evaluations and special studies, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and position classification advisory opinions. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Evaluations Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Evaluations Section of the manual to requestors.
22. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-11, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to the Government-wide examination and recruitment program. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as test materials, examination announcements, and applicant data sheets. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Examining and Recruiting Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Examining and Recruiting Section of the manual to requestors.
23. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-13, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to information services. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as public relations, publications and other information releases, and press services. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Information Services Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Information Services Section of the manual to requestors.
24. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-15, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to Government-wide security investigation programs. Included are electronic copies of records relating to investigative and appraisal files as well as to related control and adjudication files. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in the Investigations Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Investigations Section of the manual to requestors.
25. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-17, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to internal and Government-wide medical programs and services. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as individual employee health care, health units, and reviews of confidential information. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in Medical Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Medical Section of the manual to requestors.
26. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-19, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to administration of the civil service retirement system. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as annuities,
27. Office of Personnel Management, Agency-wide (N9-478-02-20, 2 items, 2 temporary items). Electronic copies of records created using electronic mail and word processing that relate to legal matters. Included are electronic copies of records pertaining to such subjects as political activity, the Hatch Act, and the Voting Rights Program. Recordkeeping copies of these files are included in Legal Section of the OPM Administrative Manual Supplement. This schedule does not include descriptions of records at the file series level, but, instead, provides citations to the agency's Administrative Manual Supplement. To facilitate review of this schedule, NARA will provide the Legal Section of the manual to requestors.
Notice is hereby given that by petition dated June 21, 2002, Ms. Edith Gbur of the Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch, et al. (petitioners), have requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to AmerGen Energy Company's Oyster Creek Generating Station Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation.
The petitioners requested the following NRC actions:
(1) Suspend Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1004 for the NUHOMS dry spent fuel storage system.
(2) Halt transfer of spent fuel from wet pool storage to dry storage modules.
(3) Conduct a site-specific public hearing before independent judges on the dry cask licensing proceeding for Oyster Creek Generating Station (Oyster Creek) and other nuclear issues identified in the petition.
(4) Make a determination of the NUHOMS' capability to withstand terrorist attacks similar to those on September 11, 2001.
(5) Develop criteria and regulations to empirically verify dry storage system capability and to apply those requirements to Oyster Creek.
(6) Halt loading until a thorough inspection of the total system has been completed to verify that the NUHOMS modules were fabricated properly and will last the design life.
As the basis for the request, the petitioners presented a number of safety concerns related to:
(1) Location of the Oyster Creek independent spent fuel storage installation relative to local roads and communities;
(2) Ability of the NUHOMS dry spent fuel storage system to survive a sabotage attack;
(3) Adequacy of Oyster Creek security measures for fuel handling activities;
(4) Adequacy of the Oyster Creek emergency evacuation plan; and
(5) Quality of the NUHOMS systems planned for use at Oyster Creek.
The request is being addressed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner participated in a telephone call with the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards' Petition Review Board on July 18, 2002, to discuss the petition. The results of that discussion were considered in the Board's determination regarding the petitioner's request for immediate action and in establishing the schedule for review of the petition. By letter dated August 12, 2002, the Director denied the petitioner's request for immediate suspension of Certificate of Compliance No. 1004 for the NUHOMS dry spent fuel storage system and to halt transfer of spent fuel from wet pool storage to dry storage modules at the Oyster Creek Generating Station. A copy of the petition is available for inspection in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35, NPF-52, NPF-9, and NPF-17 issued to Duke Energy Corporation, et al., (the licensee) for operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, and McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, located in York County, South Carolina and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.
The proposed amendments would revise Technical Specification (TS) 5.6.5 regarding the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR). TS 5.6.5.a lists the parameters for which the limiting values have been relocated by previous TS amendments from the TS to the COLR. Specifically, for both Catawba and McGuire Nuclear Stations, the amendments would revise the TS 5.6.5.a by (1) adding “60 ppm” to Item 5.6.5.a.1 regarding the moderator temperature coefficient (MTC) surveillance limit for Specification 3.1.3, and (2) by adding Item 5.6.5.a.12, “31 EFPD [effective full-power day] surveillance penalty factors for Specifications 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.” In addition, for Catawba Nuclear Station, the amendments would add Item 5.6.5.a.13, “Reactor makeup water pumps combined flow rates limit for Specifications 3.3.9 and 3.9.2.” The limiting values for these parameters were previously relocated from the TS to the COLR without the parameter identifier being retained in the TS. Inclusion of the parameter identifier in the TS will improve consistency between the TS and the COLR. The amendments would also change Bases
Before issuance of the proposed 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.
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendments would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis against the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c). The NRC staff's review is presented below:
1. Would implementation of the changes proposed in these amendments involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. These amendments make clarifications and additions to the list of referenced TS listed in both McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations TS 5.6.5.a. The additions to the list of referenced TS are consistent with the COLR and provide additional clarifications. Therefore, the proposed changes have no impact on any accident probabilities or consequences.
2. Would implementation of the changes proposed in these amendments create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed changes contained in these amendments only make additions or clarifications that are consistent with the McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations COLR and established plant operating practices. Therefore, no new or different kinds of accidents are being created.
3. Would implementation of the changes proposed in these amendments Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. Margin of safety is related to the confidence in the ability of the fission product barriers to perform their design functions during and following an accident situation. These barriers include the fuel cladding, the reactor coolant system, and the containment system. These barriers are unaffected by the changes proposed in these amendments. The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant structures, systems, and components, the parameters within which the plant is operated, and the establishment of the setpoints for the actuation of equipment relied upon to respond to an event and thereby protect the fission product barriers. The changes proposed in these amendments make additions to a list of referenced TS that are currently approved for use at McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations. These changes have no affect on the applicable McGuire and Catawba Nuclear Stations licensing bases, and following implementation of the proposed changes, all applicable acceptance criteria will continue to be met. Consequently, no margin of safety will be significantly impacted by these amendments.
Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendments before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
By September 23, 2002, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendments to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714,
(1) A petition for leave to intervene or a request for hearing, consider the following factors, among other things:
(i) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding.
(ii) The nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding.
(iii) The possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.
(2) The admissibility of a contention, refuse to admit a contention if:
(i) The contention and supporting material fail to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of this section; or
(ii) The contention, if proven, would be of no consequence in the proceeding because it would not entitle petitioner to relief.”
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendments under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendments and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendments.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendments.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, by the above date. Because of the continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that petitions for leave to intervene and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated October 7, 2001, as supplemented by letter dated August 7, 2002, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (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) has granted the request of Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) to withdraw its June 22, 2000, application, as supplemented January 19, 2001, and July 26, 2001, for proposed amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7 for the North Anna Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in Louisa County, Virginia.
The proposed amendments would have revised the Technical Specifications to permit the elimination of the assumed increase in the rod control cluster assembly drop time resulting from a concurrent trip and seismic event.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments published in the
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendments dated June 22, 2000, supplemental letters dated January 19, 2001, and July 26, 2001, and the licensee's letter dated July 17, 2002, which withdrew the application for license amendments. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 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,
In accordance with the purposes of sections 29 and 182b. of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b), the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) will hold a meeting on September 12-14, 2002, in Conference Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of this meeting was previously published in the
[
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACRS meetings were published in the
In accordance with Subsection 10(d) Pub. L. 92-463, I have determined that it is necessary to close a portion of this meeting noted above to discuss classified information per 5 U.S.C. 552b (c)(1).
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements, and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by contacting Dr. Sher Bahadur, Associate Director for Technical Support (301-415-0138), between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., EDT.
ACRS meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room at
Videoteleconferencing service is available for observing open sessions of ACRS meetings. Those wishing to use this service for observing ACRS meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACRS Audio Visual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 p.m., EDT, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the availability of this service. Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the equipment and facilities that they use to establish the videoteleconferencing link. The availability of videoteleconferencing services is not guaranteed.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, May 22, 1995 and 5 CFR 1320), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget a request for review of a revised information collection. RI 38-117, Rollover Election, is used to collect information from each payee affected by a change in the tax code (Public Law 102-318) so that OPM can make payment in accordance with the wishes of the payee. RI 38-118, Rollover Information, explains the election. RI 37-22, Special Tax Notice Regarding Rollovers, provides more detailed information.
Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of the appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Approximately 1,000 RI 38-117 forms will be completed annually. We estimate it takes approximately 30 minutes to complete the form. The annual burden is 500 hours.
For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or e-mail to
Comments on this proposal should be received within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Send or deliver comments to Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3349A, Washington, DC 20415-3450.
Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Desktop Publishing & Printing Team, Budget and Administrative Services Division, (202) 606-0623.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
This gives notice of OPM decisions, granting authority to make appointments under Schedule C in the excepted service as required by 5 CFR 6.1 and 213.103.
Pam Shivery, Director, Washington Service Center, Employment Service (202) 606-1015.
Appearing in the listing below are the individual
Chief of Staff to the Director, Office of Cuba Broadcasting. Effective July 31, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service. Effective July 2, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration. Effective July 17, 2002.
Personal and Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment). Effective July 4, 2002.
Public Affairs Specialist to the Director of Public Affairs. Effective July 8, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Economic Development. Effective July 17, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement. Effective July 24, 2002.
Public Affairs Specialist to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. Effective July 10, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Legislative Affairs. Effective July 12, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, Office of the Deputy Secretary. Effective July 2, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, Office of the Under Secretary. Effective July 2, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Chief Financial Officer. Effective July 2, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective July 2, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Chief Financial Officer. Effective July 8, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management. Effective July 9, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective July 11, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Effective July 11, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, Office the Under Secretary. Effective July 15, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Chief Financial Officer. Effective July 16, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Educational Technology. Effective July 16, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective July 22, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Public Affairs. Effective July 24, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Vocational and Adult Education. Effective July 29, 2002.
Executive Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy. Effective July 24, 2002.
Confidential Advisor to the Director, Office of Science. Effective July 24, 2002.
Director of Communications to the Assistant Secretary of Health. Effective July 10, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Deputy Administrator and Chief Operating Officer. Effective July 23, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective July 24, 2002.
Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Housing. Effective July 2, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. Effective July 8, 2002.
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Initiatives to the Assistant Secretary, Community Planning and Development. Effective July 9, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Administration. Effective July 9, 2002.
Director, Office of Small and Business Utilization to the Deputy Secretary. Effective July 10, 2002.
Staff Assistant to the Senior Advisor, Office of the Deputy Secretary. Effective July 11, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. Effective July 24, 2002.
Staff Assistant to the President, Government National Mortgage Association. Effective July 25, 2002.
Director of Scheduling and Advance to the Chief of Staff. Effective July 8, 2002.
Counselor to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs. Effective July 25, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Policy and International Affairs. Effective July 26, 2002.
Assistant Director, Legislative and Congressional Affairs to the Director, National Park Service. Effective July 26, 2002.
Senior Advisor to the Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division. Effective July 8, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division. Effective July 11, 2002.
Assistant to the Attorney General for Scheduling and Advance to the Director of Scheduling and Advance. Effective July 12, 2002.
Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy. Effective July 3, 2002.
Staff Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective July 3, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective July 10, 2002.
Counsel to the Deputy Secretary of Labor. Effective July 15, 2002.
Chief of Staff to the Assistant Secretary for Policy. Effective July 16, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division. Effective July 16, 2002.
Staff Assistant to the Secretary of Labor. Effective July 26, 2002.
Member to the Director, Policy Planning Staff. Effective July 3, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs. Effective July 8, 2002.
(Press Officer) Public Affairs Specialist to the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. Effective July 23, 2002.
Counselor to the Deputy Secretary of Transportation. Effective July 9, 2002.
Counselor to the Associate Deputy Secretary. Effective July 30, 2002.
Chief of Staff to the Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. Effective July 3, 2002.
Special Assistant (Advance Person) to the Administrator. Effective July 25, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Vice President for Public Affairs. Effective July 11, 2002.
Special Assistant (Coordination/Advance) to the Director. Effective July 3, 2002.
Director, Congressional and Legislative Affairs Division to the Assistant Director, External Affairs. Effective July 9, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Effective July 9, 2002.
Staff Assistant to the General Counsel. Effective July 11, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Deputy Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Effective July 17, 2002.
Confidential Assistant to the Chief of Staff. Effective July 9, 2002.
Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs. Effective July 22, 2002.
Deputy Associate Administrator for Enterprise Development to the Associate Administrator for Enterprise Development. Effective July 23, 2002.
Director of Administration to the Chief of Staff. Effective July 29, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Director, Office of Congressional and White House Liaison. Effective July 23, 2002.
General Counsel to the Chairman. Effective July 9, 2002.
Project Director, Public and Constituent Services to the Director, Office of Communications. Effective July 31, 2002.
Assistant Associate Director for Telecommunications and Information Technology to the Associate Director for Technology. Effective July 26, 2002.
Director of Advisor Councils to the Associate Administrator for Communications and Public Liaison. Effective July 17, 2002.
Senior Advisor to the Deputy Administrator. Effective July 23, 2002.
Special Assistant to the Administrator, Small Business Administration. Effective July 29, 2002.
Trial Clerk to the Judge. Effective July 17, 2002.
Trial Clerk to the Judge. Effective July 17, 2002.
Congressional Liaison Officer to the Chief of Staff. Effective July 3, 2002.
5 U.S.C. 3301 and 3302; E.O. 10577, 3 CFR 1954-1958 Comp., P.218
In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections.
Under Section 2(b) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) pays supplemental annuities to qualified RRB employee annuitants. A supplemental annuity, which is computed according to Section 3(e) of the RRA, can be paid at age 60 if the employee has at least 30 years of creditable railroad service or at age 65 if the employee has 25-29 years of railroad service. In addition to 25 years of service, a “current connection” with the railroad industry is required. Eligibility is further limited to employees who had at least one month of rail service before October 1981 and were awarded regular annuities after June 1966. Further, if an employee's 65th birthday was prior to September 2, 1981, he or she must not have worked in rail service after certain closing dates (generally the last day of the month following the month in which age 65 is attained).
Under Section 2(h)(2) of the RRA, the amount of the supplemental annuity is reduced if the employees receive monthly pension payments, or lump-sum pension payments, from heir former railroad employer, which are based in whole or in part on contributions from that railroad employer. The employees' own contributions to their pension accounts do not cause a reduction. An employer private pension is described in 20 CFR 216.40-216.42.
The RRB requires the following information from railroad employers to calculate supplemental pension plans cause reductions to the RRB supplemental annuity; (b) the amount of the employer private pension being paid to the employee; (c) whether or not the employer make contributions to the pension; (d) whether or not the employee was cashed out before attaining retirement age under the employer pension plan or received the pension in a lump-sum payment in lieu of monthly pension payments; (e) whether the employer pension plan continues when the employer status under the RRA changes. The requirement that railroad employers furnish pension information to the RRB is contained in 20 CFR 209.2.
The RRb currently utilizes Form(s) G-88p (Employer's Supplemental Pension Report), G-88r (Request for Information About New or Revised Pension Plan), and G-88.1 (Request for Additional Information about Employer Pension Plan in Case of Change of Employer Status or Termination of Pension Plan), to obtain the necessary information from railroad employers. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion mandatory.
The RRB proposed significant burden impacting changes to Form G-88p. New items requesting information regarding lump-sum payments paid in lieu of a monthly pension have been added as well as items instructing employers to retain a copy of the form for later transmittal are being proposed. The RRB also is proposing to delete several items
The RRB also proposes to delete information no longer needed due to RRSIA from Forms G-88r and G-88r.1. Non burden impacting editorial and formatting changes are also proposed to all of the forms.
The estimated annual respondent burden is as follows:
On May 31, 2002, the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CSE”) on behalf of itself and the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”), the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”), the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (“BSE”), the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (“CHX”), the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”), and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (“PHLX”) (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Participants”),
The Nasdaq UTP Plan governs the collection, processing, and dissemination on a consolidated basis of quotation and last sale information for each of its Participants. This consolidated information informs investors of the current quotation and recent trade prices of Nasdaq securities. It enables investors to ascertain from one data source the current prices in all the markets trading Nasdaq securities. The Plan serves as the required transaction reporting plan for its Participants, which is a prerequisite for their trading Nasdaq securities.
As discussed in the 13th Amendment Notice, proposed amendments to the Plan have been segregated into four categories: (1) Category 1, “Effective Upon Nasdaq's Exchange Registration;” (2) Category 2, “Effective Upon Launch of the Internal SIP;” (3) Category 3, “Effective Upon End of Parallel Period—Elimination of the Legacy SIP;” and (4) Category 4, “Timing Not An Issue.” Through the 13th Amendment Notice, the Commission granted temporary summary effectiveness to amendments detailed in Category 2 so as to allow the target launch date for the new Internal Securities Information Processor (“SIP”) data feeds to be met.
This partial temporary approval order approves the 13th Amendment's extension of the Plan through August 19, 2003. This order does not approve the amendments detailed in Categories 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the 13th Amendment Notice,
The Commission finds that extending the Plan for one year is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and, in particular, section 12(f)
The Commission finds that extending the pilot period of the Plan furthers the goals described above by preventing the lapsing of the sole effective transaction reporting plan for Nasdaq securities traded by other exchanges pursuant to unlisted trading privileges. The Commission believes that the Plan is currently a critical component of the national market system and that the Plan's expiration would have a serious, detrimental impact on the further development of the national market system.
By the Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The proposed rule change would amend OCC's by-laws and rules relating to exchanges' reports of matched trades to OCC and to OCC providing positions and exercise information to clearing members.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would modify OCC's by-laws and rules to accommodate the transition to near real-time reporting of matching trade information by the options exchanges.
Each option exchange currently compares the trade information submitted by purchasing and selling members with respect to each transaction effected on that exchange. A compared transaction reflects that the parties to the trade have agreed on the terms of the trade. After the completion of its comparison processing, an exchange transmits to OCC a cumulative report of all matched trades effected or reconciled on that exchange on that particular trading day.
In connection with systems modification, OCC is proposing to amend its by-laws and rules so that it would accept and process matched trades reported by the exchanges on a near real-time basis. After receipt of a matched trade, OCC would process the matching trade information and make available updated position information for clearing member review throughout the trading day. However, a matched trade reported by a particular exchange might not always be complete or accurate for a variety of reasons. A clearing member may need to modify or append additional information after the matched trade has been sent to OCC. For example, a clearing member may need to reflect that a transaction was either to open or close a position. In such cases, the reporting exchange would instruct OCC to disregard a previously reported matched trade and would report new matching trade information to replace the original transaction. No replacement matching trade information would be reported by an exchange if the previously reported matched trade was to be disregarded altogether. Because an exchange may instruct OCC to disregard a previously submitted matched trade, OCC proposes to amend Article VI, Section 7 of its by-laws to reflect that, in accordance with such an instruction, the matched trade would be deemed null and void and given no effect under the by-laws and rules. In addition, Section 7 would be amended to reflect that OCC would not be liable to any writer, holder, buyer, or seller in acting on an exchange's instruction to disregard a previously submitted trade. Article VII, Section 7 and Rules 401 and 402 also would be amended to eliminate references to the receipt of a report of matched trades. Instead, these provisions would reference the reporting of matching trade information by an exchange. Other by-law and rule provisions that describe the receipt of a
Rule 501, which governs position reporting by OCC to its clearing members, would be amended to reflect that position information updated during a business day would only be provisional and informational in nature and that only clearing members' daily position reports could be relied upon as definitely reflecting their final positions. Daily position reports are made available to clearing members the business day after the trade date.
Rule 801, which relates to exercises of options, also would be amended to reflect that exercise information provided throughout a business day would be provisional and informational only. Exercises accepted by OCC would be definitely reflected in delivery advices and exercise and assignment reports. Such advices or reports are made available the following business day.
OCC requests that the Commission approve this rule change by October 31, 2002, so that the changes are effective when OCC implements the supporting system changes. These system changes are scheduled for implementation in early November 2002.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 17A of the Act because it facilitates the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of cleared contracts.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
Within thirty five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(a) By order approve the 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 Section, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-OCC-2002-18 and should be submitted by September 13, 2002.
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 rule change would amend OCC Rule 803 to provide that assignments of exercise notices will be dated and effective on the same date that the applicable exercise notice was accepted by OCC.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of this rule change is to modify Rule 803 to provide that assignments will be dated and effective on the same date that the related exercise notice was accepted by OCC. Rule 803(b) currently provides that assignments are dated and effective as of the business day following the exercise date. This reflects the mechanics of OCC's processing. OCC assigns exercises on an overnight basis, but assigned clearing members do not receive notice of assignment until the morning of the day after exercise. OCC's practice has been to date assignments as of the day the assigned clearing members receive the notice of assignment. However, the trade (
This has the potential to cause confusion for call writers. OCC has learned that some, if not all, clearing members use the same assignment date
Other, nonsubstantive changes are proposed for Rule 803 for the purposes of updating obsolete language. In addition, a conforming change is made to Rule 402, which pertains to supplemental reports of matched trades.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 17A of the Act because it eliminates a potential source for investor confusion.
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition.
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change, and none have been received.
Within thirty five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(a) By order approve the 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 Section, 450 Fifth Street NW., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of OCC. All submissions should refer to the File No. SR-OCC-2002-15 and should be submitted by September 13, 2002.
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Pub. L. 104-13 effective October 1, 1995, The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection packages that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections and extensions (no change) of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection(s) should be submitted to the OMB Desk Officer and the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses:
I. The information collections listed below are pending at SSA and will be submitted to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. Therefore, your comments should be submitted to SSA within 60 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain copies of the collection instruments by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer at 410-965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
2.
3.
II. The information collection listed below has been submitted to OMB for clearance. Your comments on the information collections would be most useful if received by OMB and SSA within 30 days from the date of this publication. You can obtain a copy of the OMB clearance package by calling the SSA Reports Clearance Officer on (410) 965-0454, or by writing to the address listed above.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998 directed federal agencies to develop electronic service delivery instruments as an alternative to traditional paper-based methods. SSA plans to expand its Internet services to enable citizens to complete the application process as well as to process their requests for post-entitlement transactions online. A major requirement for filing applications and for processing transactional requests is SSA's ability to adequately authenticate the citizen. SSA cannot disclose information unless it is under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974. Because these transactions will be taking place online, SSA must authenticate citizens by asking for information that would positively
SSA plans to conduct a limited pilot using its online Direct Deposit application to test the Treasury Department's Pay.Gov authentication engine as a possible tool for the Agency to validate beneficiaries online that do not have a current Pin/Password. The respondents to this test will be SSA Title II recipients who need to be authenticated before access can be granted to SSA's Direct Deposit online service.
8.
The Social Security Act mandates periodic redeterminations of the non-medical factors that relate to the SSI recipients' continuing eligibility for SSI payments. Recent SSA studies have indicated that as many as
A test of forms SSA-3988-TEST and SSA-3989-TEST will be used to determine whether SSI recipients have met and continue to meet all statutory and regulatory non-medical requirements for SSI eligibility, and whether they have been and are still receiving the correct payment amount. The SSA-3988-TEST and SSA-3989-TEST are designed as self-help forms that will be mailed to recipients or to their representative payees for completion and return to SSA. The objectives of the expanded test are to determine the public's ability to understand and accurately complete the test forms. The respondents are recipients of SSI benefits or their representatives.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages that will require clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with P.L. 104-13 effective October 1, 1995, The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The information collection package(s) that may be included in this notice are for new information collections, revisions to OMB-approved information collections and extensions (no charge) of OMB-approved information collections.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility and clarity; and on ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Written comments and recommendations regarding the information collection should be submitted to the SSA Reports Clearance Officer. The information can be mailed and/or faxed to the address or fax number listed below: (SSA) Social Security Administration, DCFAM, Attn: Reports Clearance Officer 1300 Annex Bldg., 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 410-965-6400.
Department of State.
Notice.
Pursuant to section 654(c) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, notice is hereby given that the Secretary of State has made a determination pursuant to section 73 of the Arms Export Control Act and has concluded that publication of the determination would be harmful to the national security of the United States.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619-5997, and the address is United States Department of State, SA-44, Room 700, 301 4th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
For further information, contact Orde F. Kittrie, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, (telephone: 202/401-4779). The address is Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Bureau of Nonproliferation, Department of State.
Notice.
A determination has been made that a North Korean entity has engaged in activities that require the imposition of measures pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, and the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (as carried out under Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001).
August 16, 2002.
Pamela K. Roe, Office of Chemical, Biological and Missile Nonproliferation, Bureau of Nonproliferation, Department of State (202-647-4931).
Pursuant to section 73(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(1)); section 11B(b)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2401b(b)(1)), as carried out under Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (hereinafter cited as the “Export Administration Act of 1979”); and Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 1993; the U.S. Government determined on August 16, 2002 that the following foreign person has engaged in missile technology proliferation activities that require the imposition of the sanctions described in section 73(a)(2)(A) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797b(a)(2)(A) and section 11B(b)(1)(B)(i) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. app. 2410b(b)(1)(B)(i) on this person: Changgwang Sinyong Corporation (North Korea) and its sub-units and successors.
Accordingly, the following sanctions are being imposed on this person:
(A) New individual licenses for exports to the person described above of MTCR Annex-controlled equipment or technology controlled pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979 will be denied for two years;
(B) New licenses for export to the person described above of MTCR Annex-controlled equipment or technology controlled pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act will be denied for two years; and
(C) No new United States Government contracts relating to MTCR Annex-controlled equipment or technology involving the person described above will be entered into for two years.
With respect to items controlled pursuant to the Export Administration Act of 1979, the export sanctions only apply to exports made pursuant to individual export licenses.
Additionally, because North Korea is a country with a non-market economy that is not a former member of the Warsaw pact (as referenced in the definition of “person” in section 74(8)(B) of the Arms Export Control Act), the following sanctions shall be applied to all activities of the North Korean government relating to the development or production of missile equipment or technology and all activities of the North Korean government affecting the development or production of electronics, space systems or equipment, and military aircraft:
(A) New individual licenses for export to the government activities described above of MTCR Annex-controlled equipment or technology controlled pursuant to the Arms Export Control Act will be denied for two years; and
(B) No new U.S. Government contracts relating to MTCR Annex-controlled equipment or technology involving the government activities described above will be entered into for two years.
These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the United States Government as provided in Executive Order 12851 of June 11, 1993.
The following applications for certificates of public convenience and necessity and foreign air carrier permits were filed under subpart B (formerly subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's procedural regulations (
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of availability of proposed Advisory Circular; extension of comment period.
This notice announces the extension of the comment period on proposed Advisory Circular (AC) 43-L39, L-39 Albatross Military Jet Recommended Inspection Program and Overhaul Times. The proposed AC provides a recommended inspection program and overhaul times for L-39 Albatross aircraft issued experimental airworthiness certificates for the purpose of exhibition. This AC provides a means, but not the only means, of addressing the inspections and overhaul times for the purpose of complying with continued airworthiness requirements specified in an aircraft's operating limitations. This notice is necessary to give all interested persons the opportunity to present their views on the proposed AC.
Comments must be received on or before November 21, 2002.
Send all comments on the proposed AC to: Federal Aviation Administration, Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Division (Attention: AFS-305), 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or electronically to
Bill O'Brien, AFS-305, at the address above, by e-mail at
The proposed AC is available on the FAA Web site at
The L-39 Albatross aircraft is an all metal, two place, tandem, military jet training aircraft. Almost 3000 L-39 aircraft have been manufactured in the Czech Republic by Aero Vodochody and the aircraft currently constitutes the most numerous former military jet trainer imported into the United States civilian aircraft market. There are currently over 110 registered L-39 aircraft operating in the United States. Additionally, almost 200 L-39 aircraft are undergoing repairs and alterations in the United States in preparation for the issuance of airworthiness certificates.
L-39 aircraft registered in the United States have been issued experimental certificates for the purpose of exhibition. In conjunction with the issuance of experimental certificates for the purpose of exhibition, the Administrator issues operating
The FAA recognizes that the manufacturer's inspection program did not originally contemplate civilian operation of the aircraft for the purpose of exhibition and therefore is specifically requesting comments on the scope of the program for civilian application and that portion of the program pertaining to ejection seat inspection. The FAA is particularly interested in comments on how the manufacturer's engine overhaul times can be extended and comments that include more detailed procedures for performing L-39 ejection seat and canopy inspections.
Use of the recommended inspection program and compliance with recommended overhaul times should provide a uniform level of safety for operators of these aircraft while simultaneously streamlining the process for airworthiness certification.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Minot International Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
Comments must be received on or before September 23, 2002.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Bismarck Airports District Office, 2301 University Drive Building 23B, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Michael Ryan, Airport Director, City of Minot, North Dakota at the following address: Minot International Airport, 25 Airport Road, Suite 10, Minot, North Dakota 58701-1457.
Air Carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the City of Minot, North Dakota under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Mr. Steven J. Obenauer, Manager, Bismarck Airports District Office, 2301 University Drive, Building 23B, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504, (701) 323-7380. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Minot International Airport under the provisions of the 49 U.S.C. 40117 and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On July 23, 2002, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by the City of Minot was substantially complete within the requirements of section 185.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than October 26, 2002.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the City of Minot, North Dakota—Airport Director's office at the Minot International Airport.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Denial of petition for a defect investigation.
This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition submitted by Mr. William H. Muzzy III, dated January 23, 2001, to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162, requesting that the agency commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to motor vehicle safety in model year 1990 through 1995 Toyota 4Runner vehicles. After a review of the petition and other information, NHTSA has concluded that further expenditure of
Mr. Jonathan White, Chief, Defect and Recall Information Analysis Division, Office of Defects Investigation (ODI), NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-5226.
By letter dated January 23, 2001, Mr. William H. Muzzy III, submitted a petition requesting that the agency investigate the rear seat belt routing in model year (MY) 1990 through 1995 Toyota 4Runner vehicles (subject vehicles). The petitioner alleges that when the second row (rear) seat is folded down and then placed in its upright position, the outboard seat belt webbings can become caught behind the folding seat back latches. When this occurs, the seat belt routing is no longer proper, and occupant(s) using the seat belts in this condition would not be properly restrained. The petitioner alleges this seat belt misrouting condition has resulted in a serious injury and a fatality for the rear seat occupants of a subject vehicle that was in an accident. Finally, the petitioner alleges that the warning labels near the rear seat and the warning in the owner's manual for misrouting of rear seat belts are inadequate.
In response to ODI's information request letter, Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (Toyota), indicated that it has received one complaint of a damaged rear outboard seat belt because of possible contact with the rear seat back striker. Also, there has been one lawsuit filed against Toyota involving the aforementioned accident. ODI has not received any other reports of similar seat belt misrouting on the subject vehicles.
Considering the fact that over 367,000 subject vehicles were produced and the average vehicle age is about 10 years, the probability for the aforementioned rear seat outboard seat belt misrouting condition to occur, go unnoticed, and subsequently result in an injury and/or a fatality is extremely low. Further, warning notices to prevent seat belt misrouting are near the rear seat and in the owner's manual.
In view of the foregoing, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for the notification and remedy of the alleged defect as defined by the petitioner at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the petition. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied.
49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice of meeting.
This notice announces the date, time, and location for the quarterly meeting of the Treasury Advisory Committee on Commercial Operations of the U.S. Customs Service (COAC), and the provisional meeting agenda.
The next meeting of the COAC will be held on Friday, September 20, 2002, starting at 9 a.m., in Seattle, Washington. The meeting will be held at Microsoft Conference Center—Building 33, (Conference Center), 16070 NE 36th Way, Redmond, WA 98052, for approximately four hours.
Gordana S. Earp, Director, Tariff and Trade Affairs (Enforcement), Office of the Under Secretary (Enforcement), Telephone: (202) 622-0336.
At the meeting, the Advisory Committee is expected to pursue the following draft agenda. The agenda may be modified prior to the meeting.
The COAC was created by Congress in Public Law 100-203, Title IX, Section 9503(c), December 22, 1987, 100 Stat. 1330-381 (19 U.S.C. 2071 note). The Committee advises the Secretary of the Treasury and reports to Congress any recommendations on matters involving the commercial operations of the United States Customs Service. By statute, the Secretary of the Treasury appoints the members of this Committee, and the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement presides over the meetings.
The September 20, 2002 meeting of the Committee is open to the public; however, participation in the Committee's deliberations is limited to Committee members, Customs and Treasury Department staff, and persons invited to address the meeting for special presentations. A person other than an Advisory Committee member who wishes to attend the meeting should contact Theresa Manning at (202) 622-0220 or Helen Belt at (202) 622-0230.
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 October 22, 2002.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 22, 2002.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 22, 2002.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before October 22, 2002.
Submit written comments on the collection of information to Nancy J. Kessinger, Veterans Benefits Administration (20S52), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 or e-mail:
Nancy J. Kessinger at (202) 273-7079 or FAX (202) 275-5947.
Under the PRA of 1995 (Public Law 104-13; 44 U.S.C., 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C., 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before September 23, 2002.
Denise McLamb, Records Management Service (005E3), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-8030, FAX (202) 273-5981 or e-mail:
Send comments and recommendations concerning any aspect of the information collection to VA's OMB Desk Officer, OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503 (202) 395-7316. Please refer to “OMB Control No. 2900-0006” in any correspondence.
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
By direction of the Secretary.
In notice document 02-20236 beginning on page 51820 in the issue of Friday, August 9, 2002, make the following correction:
On page 51821, in the second column, in the fourth line, “September 9, 2002” should read “October 8, 2002”.
In rule document 02-19576 beginning on page 50362 in the issue of Friday, August 2, 2002, make the following corrections:
1. On page 50363, in § 65.4, in the table, in the second column, in the second entry, “Town of Cave Creek, (02-09-241XO” should read, “Town of Cave Creek, (02-09-241X)”.
2. On page 50364, in the same section, in the table, in the second column, in the fourth entry, “City of Scottsdale, )01-09-1199P)” should read, “City of Scottsdale, (01-09-1199P)”.
3. On page 50365, in the same section, in the table, in the second column, in the fourth entry, “City of Escondido, (01-09-8498X)”should read, “City of Escondido, (02-09-498X)”.
4. On page 50366, in the same section, in the table, in the second column, in the fourth entry, “City of Fort Collins, (01-08-045P)” should read, “City of Fort Collins, (01-08-349P)”.
In rule document 02-21138 beginning on page 53877 in the issue of August 20, 2002, make the following correction:
On page 53878, in the first column, in the sixth line from the bottom, “Comments” should read “Commenters”.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
This rule prescribes final early-season frameworks from which the States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands may select season dates, limits, and other options for the 2002-03 migratory bird hunting seasons. Early seasons are those that generally open prior to October 1, and include seasons in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. The effect of this final rule is to facilitate the selection of hunting seasons by the States and Territories to further the annual establishment of the early-season migratory bird hunting regulations.
This rule takes effect on August 23, 2002.
States and Territories should send their season selections to: Chief, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, ms 634-ARLSQ, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may inspect the comments we received on this rulemaking action during normal business hours in room 634, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia.
Robert Blohm, Acting Chief, or Ron W. Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (703) 358-1714.
On March 19, 2002, we published in the
On June 19 and 20, we held open meetings with the Flyway Council Consultants at which the participants reviewed information on the current status of migratory shore and upland game birds and developed recommendations for the 2002-03 regulations for these species plus regulations for migratory game birds in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, special September waterfowl seasons in designated States, special sea duck seasons in the Atlantic Flyway, and extended falconry seasons. In addition, we reviewed and discussed preliminary information on the status of waterfowl as it relates to the development and selection of the regulatory packages for the 2002-03 regular waterfowl seasons. On July 17, we published in the
The preliminary proposed rulemaking, which appeared in the March 19
Categories used to discuss issues related to duck harvest management are: (A) General Harvest Strategy, (B) Regulatory Alternatives, including specification of framework dates, season length, and bag limits, (C) Zones and Split Seasons, and (D) Special Seasons/Species Management. The categories correspond to previously published issues/discussion, and only those containing substantial recommendations are discussed below.
The Upper- and Lower-Region Regulations Committees of the Mississippi Flyway Council recommended that Minnesota be allowed to continue their experimental special September Canada goose season (1-week extension) in 2002 while the 3-year evaluation is being completed.
We also concur with the extension of Minnesota's experimental special season to allow completion of the evaluation.
The Pacific Flyway Council recommended establishing an experimental season for Rocky Mountain Population sandhill cranes for 2002-03, in Uintah County, Utah. The framework for the 30-day season would be September 1, 2002 to January 31, 2003, with a bag limit not to exceed 3 daily and 9 per season. Participants must have a valid permit, issued by the appropriate State, in their possession while hunting. Numbers of permits, open areas, season dates, protection plans for other species, and other provisions of seasons must be consistent with the management plan and approved by the Central and Pacific Flyway Councils.
NEPA considerations are covered by the programmatic document, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement: Issuance of Annual Regulations Permitting the Sport Hunting of Migratory Birds (FSES 88-14),” filed with the Environmental Protection Agency on June 9, 1988. We published a Notice of Availability in the
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543; 87 Stat. 884), provides that, “The Secretary shall review other programs administered by him and utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of this Act” (and) shall “insure that any action authorized, funded or carried out * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of [critical] habitat * * *.” Consequently, we conducted formal consultations to ensure that actions resulting from these regulations would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. Findings from these consultations are included in a biological opinion and concluded that the regulations are not likely to adversely affect any endangered or threatened species. Additionally, these findings may have caused modification of some regulatory measures previously proposed and the final frameworks reflect any such modifications. Our biological opinions resulting from this Section 7 consultation are public documents available for public inspection at the address indicated under the caption
This rule was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget'(OMB). The migratory bird hunting regulations are economically and are annually reviewed by OMB under E.O. 12866. As such, a cost/benefit analysis was prepared in 1998 and is further discussed under the heading Regulatory Flexibility Act. Copies of the cost/benefit analysis are available upon request from the address indicated under the caption
These regulations have a significant economic impact on substantial numbers of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule is a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. For the reasons outlined above, this rule has an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. However, because this rule establishes hunting seasons, we do not plan to defer the effective date under the exemption contained in 5 U.S.C. 808(1) .
We examined these regulations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. We utilize the various recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed under regulations established in 50 CFR part 20, Subpart K, in the formulation of migratory game bird hunting regulations. Specifically, OMB has approved the information collection requirements of the Migratory Bird Harvest Information Program and assigned clearance number 1018-0015 (expires 10/31/2004). This information is used to provide a sampling frame for voluntary national surveys to improve our harvest estimates for all migratory game birds in order to better manage these populations. OMB has also approved the information collection requirements of the Sandhill Crane Harvest Questionnaire and assigned clearance number 1018-0023 (expires 7/31/2003). The information from this survey is used to estimate the magnitude and the geographical and temporal distribution of harvest, and the portion it constitutes of the total population.
A Federal 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.
We have determined and certify, in compliance with the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Department, in promulgating this rule, has determined that this rule will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. While this rule is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, it is not expected to adversely affect energy supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have significant takings implications and does not affect any constitutionally protected property rights. This rule will not result in the physical occupancy of property, the physical invasion of property, or the regulatory taking of any property. In fact, this rule will allow hunters to exercise otherwise unavailable privileges, and, therefore, reduces restrictions on the use of private and public property.
Due to the migratory nature of certain species of birds, the Federal Government has been given responsibility over these species by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. We annually prescribe frameworks from which the States make selections and employ guidelines to establish special regulations on Federal Indian reservations and ceded lands. This process preserves the ability of the States and Tribes to determine which seasons meet their individual needs. Any State or Tribe may be more restrictive than the Federal frameworks at any time. The frameworks are developed in a cooperative process with the States and the Flyway Councils. This allows States to participate in the development of frameworks from which they will make selections, thereby having an influence on their own regulations. These rules do not have a substantial direct effect on fiscal capacity, change the roles or responsibilities of Federal or State governments, or intrude on State policy or administration. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, these regulations do not have significant federalism effects and do not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The rulemaking process for migratory game bird hunting must, by its nature, operate under severe time constraints. However, we intend that the public be given the greatest possible opportunity to comment. Thus, when the preliminary proposed rulemaking was published, we established what we believed were the longest periods possible for public comment. In doing this, we recognized that when the comment period closed, time would be of the essence. That is, if there were a delay in the effective date of these regulations after this final rulemaking, States would have insufficient time to select season dates and limits; to communicate those selections to us; and to establish and publicize the necessary regulations and procedures to implement their decisions. We therefore find that “good cause” exists, within the terms of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, and these frameworks will, therefore, take effect immediately upon publication.
Therefore, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (July 3, 1918), as amended, (16 U.S.C. 703-711), we prescribe final frameworks setting forth the species to be hunted, the daily bag and possession limits, the shooting hours, the season lengths, the earliest opening and latest closing season dates, and hunting areas, from which State conservation agency officials will select hunting season dates and other options. Upon receipt of season and option selections from these officials, we will publish in the
Exports, Hunting, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
The rules that eventually will be promulgated for the 2002-03 hunting
Pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and delegated authorities, the Department of the Interior approved the following frameworks, which prescribe season lengths, bag limits, shooting hours, and outside dates, within which States may select for certain migratory game birds between September 1, 2002, and March 10, 2003.
Atlantic Flyway—includes Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Mississippi Flyway—includes Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.
Central Flyway—includes Colorado (east of the Continental Divide), Kansas, Montana (Counties of Blaine, Carbon, Fergus, Judith Basin, Stillwater, Sweetgrass, Wheatland, and all counties east thereof), Nebraska, New Mexico (east of the Continental Divide except the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation), North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming (east of the Continental Divide).
Pacific Flyway—includes Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and those portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming not included in the Central Flyway.
Eastern Management Unit—All States east of the Mississippi River, and Louisiana.
Central Management Unit—Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming.
Western Management Unit—Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.
Eastern Management Region—Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Central Management Region—Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Other geographic descriptions are contained in a later portion of this document.
Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected for the Eastern Unit of Maryland and Delaware. Seasons not to exceed 20 days during September 1-20 may be selected for the Northeast Hunt Unit of North Carolina. Seasons not to exceed 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected by New Jersey. Except for experimental seasons described below, seasons may not exceed 25 days during September 1-25 in the remainder of the Flyway. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Experimental Canada goose seasons of up to 25 days during September 1-25 may be selected for the Montezuma Region of New York and the Lake Champlain Region of New York and Vermont. Experimental seasons of up to 30 days during September 1-30 may be selected by Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New York (Long Island Zone), North Carolina (except in the Northeast Hunt Unit), Rhode Island, and South Carolina. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected, except in the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, where the season may not extend beyond September 10. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
An experimental Canada goose season of up to 7 consecutive days during September 16-22 may be selected by Minnesota, except in the Northwest Goose Zone. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
An experimental Canada goose season of up to 10 consecutive days during September 1-10 may be selected by Michigan for Huron, Saginaw, and Tuscola Counties, except that the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge, Shiawassee River State Game Area Refuge, and the Fish Point Wildlife Area Refuge will remain closed. The daily bag limit may not exceed 2 Canada geese.
Canada goose seasons of up to 15 days during September 1-15 may be selected. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese. Areas open to the hunting of Canada geese must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
An experimental Canada goose season of up to 12 consecutive days during September 16-27 may be selected by South Dakota. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
An experimental Canada goose season of up to 9 consecutive days during September 22-30 may be selected by Oklahoma. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
An experimental Canada goose season of up to 5 consecutive days during September 16-20 may be selected by North Dakota. The daily bag limit may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
California may select a 9-day season in Humboldt County during the period September 1-15. The daily bag limit is 2.
Colorado may select a 9-day season during the period of September 1-15 in Grand County, excluding Shadow Mountain Reservoir, and that portion of Summit County north of U.S. Interstate 70. The daily bag limit is 3.
Oregon may select a special Canada goose season of up to 15 days during the period September 1-15. In addition, in the NW goose management zone in Oregon, a 15-day season may be selected during the period September 1-20. Daily bag limits may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
Idaho may select a 7-day season in the special East Canada Goose Zone, as described in State regulations, during the period September 1-15. All participants must have a valid State permit, and the total number of permits issued is not to exceed 110 for this zone. The daily bag limit is 2.
Idaho may select a 7-day Canada Goose Season during the period September 1-15 in Nez Perce County, with a bag limit of 4.
Washington may select a special Canada goose season of up to 15 days during the period September 1-15. Daily bag limits may not exceed 5 Canada geese.
Wyoming may select an 8-day season on Canada geese between September 1-15. This season is subject to the following conditions:
1. Where applicable, the season must be concurrent with the September portion of the sandhill crane season.
2. All participants must have a valid State permit for the special season.
3. A daily bag limit of 3, with season and possession limits of 6, will apply to the special season.
Areas open to hunting of Canada geese in each State must be described, delineated, and designated as such in each State's hunting regulations.
Regular goose seasons may open as early as September 16 in Wisconsin and Michigan. Season lengths, bag and possession limits, and other provisions will be established during the late-season regulations process.
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming may select seasons for hunting sandhill cranes within the range of the Rocky Mountain Population (RMP) subject to the following conditions:
1. In Utah, the requirement for monitoring the racial composition of the harvest in the experimental season is waived, and 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota;
2. In Arizona, the annual requirement for monitoring the racial composition of the harvest is changed to once every 3 years;
3. In Idaho, seasons are experimental, and the requirement for monitoring the racial composition of the harvest is waived; 100 percent of the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota; and
4. In New Mexico, the season in the Estancia Valley is experimental, with a requirement to monitor the level and racial composition of the harvest; greater sandhill cranes in the harvest will be assigned to the RMP quota.
Clapper and King Rails—In Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland, 10, singly or in the aggregate of the two species. In Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, 15, singly or in the aggregate of the two species.
Sora and Virginia Rails—In the Atlantic, Mississippi, and Central Flyways and the Pacific-Flyway portions of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Wyoming, 25 daily and 25 in possession, singly or in the aggregate of the two species. The season is closed in the remainder of the Pacific Flyway.
Hunting Seasons and Daily Bag Limits: Not more than 9 consecutive days, with a daily bag limit of 2 band-tailed pigeons.
Regulations for bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours must be uniform within specific hunting zones.
States may select hunting seasons in each of two zones. The season within each zone may be split into not more than three periods.
A. The hunting season may be split into not more than two periods, except in that portion of Texas in which the special white-winged dove season is allowed, where a limited mourning dove season may be held concurrently with that special season (see white-winged dove frameworks).
B. A season may be selected for the North and Central Zones between September 1 and January 25; and for the South Zone between September 20 and January 25.
C. Daily bag limits are aggregate bag limits with mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves (see white-winged dove frameworks for specific daily bag limit restrictions).
D. Except as noted above, regulations for bag and possession limits, season length, and shooting hours must be uniform within each hunting zone.
Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington—Not more than 30 consecutive days with a daily bag limit of 10 mourning doves.
Nevada—Not more than 30 consecutive days with a daily bag limit of 10 mourning doves, except in Clark and Nye Counties where the daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Arizona and California—Not more than 60 days, which may be split between two periods, September 1-15 and November 1-January 15. In Arizona, during the first segment of the season, the daily bag limit is 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 6 may be white-winged doves. During the remainder of the season, the daily bag limit is 10 mourning doves. In California, the daily bag limit is 10 mourning doves, except in Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties where the daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Except as shown below, seasons must be concurrent with mourning dove seasons.
In Florida, the daily bag limit may not exceed 12 mourning and white-winged doves (15 under the alternative) in the aggregate, of which no more than 4 may be white-winged doves.
In the remainder of the Eastern Management Unit, the season is closed.
In Texas, the daily bag limit may not exceed 12 mourning, white-winged, and white-tipped doves (15 under the alternative) in the aggregate, of which no more than 2 may be white-tipped doves. In addition, Texas also may select a hunting season of not more than 4 days for the special white-winged dove area of the South Zone between September 1 and September 19. The daily bag limit may not exceed 10 white-winged, mourning, and white-tipped doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 5 may be mourning doves and 2 may be white-tipped doves.
In the remainder of the Central Management Unit, the daily bag limit may not exceed 12 (15 under the alternative) mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
Arizona may select a hunting season of not more than 30 consecutive days, running concurrently with the first segment of the mourning dove season. The daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate, of which no more than 6 may be white-winged doves.
In the Nevada Counties of Clark and Nye, and in the California Counties of Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino, the daily bag limit may not exceed 10 mourning and white-winged doves in the aggregate.
In the remainder of the Western Management Unit, the season is closed.
Ducks—Except as noted, a basic daily bag limit of 7 and a possession limit of 21 ducks. Daily bag and possession limits in the North Zone are 10 and 30, and in the Gulf Coast Zone, they are 8 and 24, respectively. The basic limits may include no more than 1 canvasback daily and 3 in possession and may not include sea ducks.
In addition to the basic duck limits, Alaska may select sea duck limits of 10 daily, 20 in possession, singly or in the aggregate, including no more than 6 each of either harlequin or long-tailed ducks. Sea ducks include scoters, common and king eiders, harlequin ducks, long-tailed ducks, and common and red-breasted mergansers.
Light Geese—A basic daily bag limit of 3 and a possession limit of 6.
Dark Geese—A basic daily bag limit of 4 and a possession limit of 8.
1. In Units 5 and 6, the taking of Canada geese is permitted from September 28 through December 16. A special, permit-only Canada goose season may be offered on Middleton Island. No more than 10 permits can be issued. A mandatory goose identification class is required. Hunters must check-in and check-out. Bag limit of 1 daily and 1 in possession. Season to close if incidental harvest includes 5 dusky Canada geese. A dusky Canada goose is any dark-breasted Canada goose (Munsell 10 YR color value five or less) with a bill length between 40 and 50 millimeters.
2. In Unit 10 (except Unimak Island), the taking of Canada geese is prohibited.
3. In Unit 9(D) and the Unimak Island portion of Unit 10, the limits for dark geese are 6 daily and 12 in possession.
Brant—A daily bag limit of 2.
Common snipe—A daily bag limit of 8.
Sandhill cranes—Bag and possession limits of 2 and 4, respectively, in the Southeast, Gulf Coast, Kodiak, and Aleutian Zones, and Unit 17 in the Northern Zone. In the remainder of the Northern Zone (outside Unit 17), bag and possession limits of 3 and 6, respectively.
Tundra Swans—Open seasons for tundra swans may be selected subject to the following conditions:
1. All seasons are by registration permit only.
2. All season framework dates are September 1-October 31.
3. In Game Management Unit (GMU) 17, an experimental season may be
4. In Game Management Unit (GMU) 18, no more than 500 permits may be issued during the operational season. Up to 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
5. In GMU 22, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. Each permittee may be authorized to take up to 3 tundra swan per permit. No more than 1 permit may be issued per hunter per season.
6. In GMU 23, no more than 300 permits may be issued during the operational season. No more than 3 tundra swans may be authorized per permit with no more than 1 permit issued per hunter per season.
Mourning doves may be taken in Hawaii in accordance with shooting hours and other regulations set by the State of Hawaii, and subject to the applicable provisions of 50 CFR part 20.
Ducks—Not to exceed 6.
Common moorhens—Not to exceed 6.
Common snipe—Not to exceed 8.
Falconry is a permitted means of taking migratory game birds in any State meeting Federal falconry standards in 50 CFR 21.29(k). These States may select an extended season for taking migratory game birds in accordance with the following:
South Zone—Baldwin, Barbour, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Dale, Escambia, Geneva, Henry, Houston, and Mobile Counties.
North Zone—Remainder of the State.
White-winged Dove Open Areas—Imperial, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties.
Northwest Zone—The Counties of Bay, Calhoun, Escambia, Franklin, Gadsden, Gulf, Holmes, Jackson, Liberty, Okaloosa, Santa Rosa, Walton, Washington, Leon (except that portion north of U.S. 27 and east of State Road 155), Jefferson (south of U.S. 27, west of State Road 59 and north of U.S. 98), and Wakulla (except that portion south of U.S. 98 and east of the St. Marks River).
South Zone—Remainder of State.
Northern Zone—That portion of the State lying north of a line running west to east along U.S. Highway 280 from Columbus to Wilcox County, thence southward along the western border of Wilcox County; thence east along the southern border of Wilcox County to the Ocmulgee River, thence north along the Ocmulgee River to Highway 280, thence east along Highway 280 to the Little Ocmulgee River; thence southward along the Little Ocmulgee River to the Ocmulgee River; thence southwesterly along the Ocmulgee River to the western border of Jeff Davis County; thence south along the western border of Jeff Davis County; thence east along the
South Zone—Remainder of the State.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of Interstate Highway 10 from the Texas State line to Baton Rouge, Interstate Highway 12 from Baton Rouge to Slidell and Interstate Highway 10 from Slidell to the Mississippi State line.
South Zone—The remainder of the State.
White-winged Dove Open Areas—Clark and Nye Counties.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of a line beginning at the International Bridge south of Fort Hancock; north along FM 1088 to TX 20; west along TX 20 to TX 148; north along TX 148 to I-10 at Fort Hancock; east along I-10 to I-20; northeast along I-20 to I-30 at Fort Worth; northeast along I-30 to the Texas-Arkansas State line.
South Zone—That portion of the State south and west of a line beginning at the International Bridge south of Del Rio, proceeding east on U.S. 90 to San Antonio; then east on I-10 to Orange, Texas.
Special White-winged Dove Area in the South Zone—That portion of the State south and west of a line beginning at the International Bridge south of Del Rio, proceeding east on U.S. 90 to Uvalde; south on U.S. 83 to TX 44; east along TX 44 to TX 16 at Freer; south along TX 16 to TX 285 at Hebbronville; east along TX 285 to FM 1017; southwest along FM 1017 to TX 186 at Linn; east along TX 186 to the Mansfield Channel at Port Mansfield; east along the Mansfield Channel to the Gulf of Mexico.
Area with additional restrictions—Cameron, Hidalgo, Starr, and Willacy Counties.
Central Zone—That portion of the State lying between the North and South Zones.
North Zone—Alpine, Butte, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity Counties.
South Zone—The remainder of the State.
North Zone—North of a line following U.S. 60 from the Arizona State line east to I-25 at Socorro and then south along I-25 from Socorro to the Texas State line.
South Zone—Remainder of the State.
Western Washington—The State of Washington excluding those portions lying east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River in Klickitat County.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of NJ 70.
South Zone—The remainder of the State.
North Zone—That portion of the State north of I-95.
South Zone—Remainder of the State.
Eastern Unit—Anne Arundel, Calvert, Caroline, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Harford, Kent, Queen Anne's, St. Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico, and Worcester Counties, and those portions of Baltimore, Howard, and Prince George's Counties east of I-95.
Western Unit—Allegany, Carroll, Frederick, Garrett, Montgomery, and Washington Counties, and those portions of Baltimore, Howard, and Prince George's Counties west of I-95.
Western Zone—That portion of the State west of a line extending south from the Vermont border on I-91 to MA 9, west on MA 9 to MA 10, south on MA 10 to U.S. 202, south on U.S. 202 to the Connecticut border.
Central Zone—That portion of the State east of the Berkshire Zone and west of a line extending south from the New Hampshire border on I-95 to U.S. 1, south on U.S. 1 to I-93, south on I-93 to MA 3, south on MA 3 to U.S. 6, west on U.S. 6 to MA 28, west on MA 28 to I-195, west to the Rhode Island border; except the waters, and the lands 150 yards inland from the high-water mark, of the Assonet River upstream to the MA 24 bridge, and the Taunton River upstream to the Center St.-Elm St. bridge shall be in the Coastal Zone.
Coastal Zone—That portion of Massachusetts east and south of the Central Zone.
Lake Champlain Zone—The U.S. portion of Lake Champlain and that area east and north of a line extending along NY 9B from the Canadian border to U.S. 9, south along U.S. 9 to NY 22 south of Keesville; south along NY 22 to the west shore of South Bay, along and around the shoreline of South Bay to NY 22 on the east shore of South Bay; southeast along NY 22 to U.S. 4, northeast along U.S. 4 to the Vermont border.
Long Island Zone—That area consisting of Nassau County, Suffolk County, that area of Westchester County southeast of I-95, and their tidal waters.
Western Zone—That area west of a line extending from Lake Ontario east along the north shore of the Salmon River to I-81, and south along I-81 to the Pennsylvania border, except for the Montezuma Zone.
Montezuma Zone—Those portions of Cayuga, Seneca, Ontario, Wayne, and Oswego Counties north of U.S. Route 20, east of NYS Route 14, south of NYS Route 104, and west of NYS Route 34.
Northeast Hunt Unit—Counties of Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Pasquotank, Perquimans, Tyrrell, and Washington.
Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada Goose Zone—
A. All of Hennepin and Ramsey Counties.
B. In Anoka County, all of Columbus Township lying south of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 18, Anoka County; all of the cities of Ramsey, Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids, Spring Lake Park, Fridley, Hilltop, Columbia Heights, Blaine, Lexington, Circle Pines, Lino Lakes, and Centerville; and all of the city of Ham Lake except that portion lying north of CSAH 18 and east of U.S. Highway 65.
C. That part of Carver County lying north and east of the following described line: Beginning at the northeast corner of San Francisco Township; thence west along the north boundary of San Francisco Township to the east boundary of Dahlgren Township; thence north along the east boundary of Dahlgren Township to U.S. Highway 212; thence west along U.S. Highway 212 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 284; thence north on STH 284 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 10; thence north and west on CSAH 10 to CSAH 30; thence north and west on CSAH 30 to STH 25; thence east and north on STH 25 to CSAH 10; thence north on CSAH 10 to the Carver County line.
D. In Scott County, all of the cities of Shakopee, Savage, Prior Lake, and Jordan, and all of the Townships of Jackson, Louisville, St. Lawrence, Sand Creek, Spring Lake, and Credit River.
E. In Dakota County, all of the cities of Burnsville, Eagan, Mendota Heights, Mendota, Sunfish Lake, Inver Grove Heights, Apple Valley, Lakeville, Rosemount, Farmington, Hastings, Lilydale, West St. Paul, and South St. Paul, and all of the Township of Nininger.
F. That portion of Washington County lying south of the following described line: Beginning at County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 on the west boundary of the county; thence east on CSAH 2 to U.S. Highway 61; thence south on U.S. Highway 61 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 97; thence east on STH 97 to the intersection of STH 97 and STH 95; thence due east to the east boundary of the State.
Northwest Goose Zone—That portion of the State encompassed by a line extending east from the North Dakota border along U.S. Highway 2 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 32, north along STH 32 to STH 92, east along STH 92 to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 2 in Polk County, north along CSAH 2 to CSAH 27 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 27 to STH 1, east along STH 1 to CSAH 28 in Pennington County, north along CSAH 28 to CSAH 54 in Marshall County, north along CSAH 54 to CSAH 9 in Roseau County, north along CSAH 9 to STH 11, west along STH 11 to STH 310, and north along STH 310 to the Manitoba border.
Southeast Goose Zone—That part of the State within the following described boundaries: beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 52 and the south boundary of the Twin Cities Metro Canada Goose Zone; thence along the U.S. Highway 52 to State Trunk Highway (STH) 57; thence along STH 57 to the municipal boundary of Kasson; thence along the municipal boundary of Kasson County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 13, Dodge County; thence along CSAH 13 to STH 30; thence along STH 30 to U.S. Highway 63; thence along U.S. Highway 63 to the south boundary of the State; thence along the south and east boundaries of the State to the south boundary of the Twin Cities Metro Canada Goose Zone; thence along said boundary to the point of beginning.
Five Goose Zone—That portion of the State not included in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Canada Goose Zone, the Northwest Goose Zone, or the Southeast Goose Zone.
West Zone—That portion of the State encompassed by a line beginning at the junction of State Trunk Highway (STH) 60 and the Iowa border, then north and east along STH 60 to U.S. Highway 71, north along U.S. 71 to Interstate Highway 94, then north and west along I-94 to the North Dakota border.
Middle Tennessee Zone—Those portions of Houston, Humphreys, Montgomery, Perry, and Wayne Counties east of State Highway 13; and Bedford, Cannon, Cheatham, Coffee, Davidson, Dickson, Franklin, Giles, Hickman, Lawrence, Lewis, Lincoln, Macon, Marshall, Maury, Moore, Robertson, Rutherford, Smith, Sumner, Trousdale, Williamson, and Wilson Counties.
East Tennessee Zone—Anderson, Bledsoe, Bradley, Blount, Campbell, Carter, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Cumberland, DeKalb, Fentress, Grainger, Greene, Grundy, Hamblen, Hamilton, Hancock, Hawkins, Jackson, Jefferson, Johnson, Knox, Loudon, Marion, McMinn, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Overton, Pickett, Polk, Putnam, Rhea, Roane, Scott, Sequatchie, Sevier, Sullivan, Unicoi, Union, Van Buren, Warren, Washington, and White Counties.
Early-Season Subzone A—That portion of the State encompassed by a line beginning at the intersection of U.S. Highway 141 and the Michigan border near Niagara, then south along U.S. 141 to State Highway 22, west and southwest along State 22 to U.S. 45, south along U.S. 45 to State 22, west and south along State 22 to State 110, south along State 110 to U.S. 10, south along U.S. 10 to State 49, south along State 49 to State 23, west along State 23 to State 73, south along State 73 to State 60, west along State 60 to State 23, south along State 23 to State 11, east along State 11 to State 78, then south along State 78 to the Illinois border.
Early-Season Subzone B—The remainder of the State.
September Canada Goose Kansas City/Topeka Unit—That part of Kansas bounded by a line from the Kansas-Missouri State line west on K-68 to its junction with K-33, then north on K-33 to its junction with U.S.-56, then west on U.S.-56 to its junction with K-31, then west-northwest on K-31 to its junction with K-99, then north on K-99 to its junction with U.S.-24, then east on U.S.-24 to its junction with K-63, then north on K-63 to its junction with K-16, then east on K-16 to its junction with K-116, then east on K-116 to its junction with U.S.-59, then northeast on U.S.-59 to its junction with the Kansas-Missouri line, then south on the Kansas-Missouri line to its junction with K-68.
September Canada Goose Wichita Unit—That part of Kansas bounded by a line from I-135 west on U.S. 50 to its junction with Burmac Road, then south on Burmac Road to its junction with 279 Street West (Sedgwick/Harvey County line), then south on 279 Street West to its junction with K-96, then east on K-96 to its junction with K-296, then south on K-296 to its junction with 247 Street West, then south on 247 Street West to its junction with U.S.-54, then west on U.S.-54 to its junction with 263 Street West, then south on 263 Street West to its junction with K-49, then south on K-49 to its junction with 90 Avenue North, then east on 90 Avenue North to its junction with KS-55, then east on KS-55 to its junction with KS-15, then east on KS-15 to its junction with U.S.-77, then north on U.S.-77 to its junction with Ohio Street, then north on Ohio to its junction with KS-254, then east on KS-254 to its junction with KS-196, then northwest on KS-196 to its junction with I-135, then north on I-135 to its junction with U.S.-50.
September Canada Goose North Unit—Clark, Codington, Day, Deuel, Grant, Hamlin, Marshall, and Roberts County.
September Canada Goose South Unit—Beadle, Brookings, Hanson, Kingsbury, Lake, Lincoln, McCook, Miner, Minnehaha, Moody, Sanborn, and Turner Counties,
East Zone—Bonneville, Caribou, Fremont, and Teton Counties.
Northwest Zone—Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Lane, Lincoln, Linn, Marion, Polk, Multnomah, Tillamook, Washington, and Yamhill Counties.
Southwest Zone—Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jackson, Josephine, and Klamath Counties.
East Zone—Baker, Gilliam, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, and Wasco Counties.
Area 1—Skagit, Island, and Snohomish Counties.
Area 2A (SW Quota Zone)—Clark County, except portions south of the Washougal River; Cowlitz, and Wahkiakum counties.
Area 2B (SW Quota Zone)—Pacific and Grays Harbor counties.
Area 3—All areas west of the Pacific Crest Trail and west of the Big White Salmon River that are not included in Areas 1, 2A, and 2B.
Area 4—Adams, Benton, Chelan, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, Kittitas, Lincoln, Okanogan, Spokane, and Walla Walla Counties.
Area 5—All areas east of the Pacific Crest Trail and east of the Big White Salmon River that are not included in Area 4.
Bear River Area—That portion of Lincoln County described in State regulations.
Salt River Area—That portion of Lincoln County described in State regulations.
Farson-Eden Area—Those portions of Sweetwater and Sublette Counties described in State regulations.
Teton Area—Those portions of Teton County described in State regulations.
Bridger Valley Area—The area described as the Bridger Valley Hunt Unit in State regulations.
Colorado—The Central Flyway portion of the State except the San Luis Valley (Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Hinsdale, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache Counties east of the Continental Divide) and North Park (Jackson County).
Kansas—That portion of the State west of a line beginning at the Oklahoma border, north on I-35 to Wichita, north on I-135 to Salina, and north on U.S. 81 to the Nebraska border.
Regular-Season Open Area—Chaves, Curry, De Baca, Eddy, Lea, Quay, and Roosevelt Counties.
Middle Rio Grande Valley Area—The Central Flyway portion of New Mexico in Socorro and Valencia Counties.
Estancia Valley Area—Those portions of Santa Fe, Torrance and Bernalillo Counties within an area bounded on the west by New Mexico Highway 55 beginning at Mountainair north to NM 337, north to NM 14, north to I-25; on the north by I-25 east to U.S. 285; on the east by U.S. 285 south to U.S. 60; and on the south by U.S. 60 from U.S. 285 west to NM 55 in Mountainair.
Southwest Zone—Sierra, Luna, Dona Ana Counties, and those portions of Grant and Hidalgo Counties south of I-10.
Oklahoma—That portion of the State west of I-35.
Area 1—That portion of the State west of a line beginning at the International Bridge at Laredo, north along I-35 to the Oklahoma border.
Area 2—That portion of the State east and south of a line from the International Bridge at Laredo northerly along I-35 to U.S. 290; southeasterly along U.S. 290 to I-45; south and east on I-45 to State Highway 87, south and east on TX 87 to the channel in the Gulf of Mexico between Galveston and Point Bolivar; EXCEPT: That portion of the State lying within the area bounded by the Corpus Christi Bay Causeway on U.S. 181 at Portland; north and west on U.S. 181 to U.S. 77 at Sinton; north and east along U.S. 77 to U.S. 87 at Victoria; east and south along U.S. 87 to Texas Highway 35; north and east on TX 35 to the west end of the Lavaca Bay Bridge; then south and east along the west shoreline of Lavaca Bay and Matagorda Island to the Gulf of Mexico; then south and west along the shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico to the Corpus Christi Bay Causeway.
Area 1—That portion of the State west of U.S. 281.
Area 2—That portion of the State east of U.S. 281.
South Dakota—That portion of the State west of U.S. 281.
Montana—The Central Flyway portion of the State except that area south of I-90 and west of the Bighorn River.
Regular-Season Open Area—Campbell, Converse, Crook, Goshen, Laramie, Niobrara, Platte, and Weston Counties.
Riverton-Boysen Unit—Portions of Fremont County.
Park and Big Horn County Unit—Portions of Park and Big Horn Counties.
Special-Season Area—Game Management Units 30A, 30B, 31, and 32.
Special-Season Area—See State regulations.
Special-Season Area—Rich, Cache, and Unitah Counties and that portion of Box Elder County beginning on the Utah-Idaho State line at the Box Elder-Cache County line; west on the State line to the Pocatello Valley County Road; south on the Pocatello Valley County Road to I-15; southeast on I-15 to SR-83; south on SR-83 to Lamp Junction; west and south on the Promontory Point County Road to the tip of Promontory Point; south from Promontory Point to the Box Elder-Weber County line; east on the Box Elder-Weber County line to the Box Elder-Cache County line; north on the Box Elder-Cache County line to the Utah-Idaho State line.
Bear River Area—That portion of Lincoln County described in State regulations.
Salt River Area—That portion of Lincoln County described in State regulations.
Eden-Farson Area—Those portions of Sweetwater and Sublette Counties described in State regulations.
North Zone—State Game Management Units 11-13 and 17-26.
Gulf Coast Zone—State Game Management Units 5-7, 9, 14-16, and 10 (Unimak Island only).
Southeast Zone—State Game Management Units 1-4.
Pribilof and Aleutian Islands Zone—State Game Management Unit 10 (except Unimak Island).
Kodiak Zone—State Game Management Unit 8.
Ruth Cay Closure Area—The island of Ruth Cay, just south of St. Croix.
Municipality of Culebra Closure Area—All of the municipality of Culebra.
Desecheo Island Closure Area—All of Desecheo Island.
Mona Island Closure Area—All of Mona Island.
El Verde Closure Area—Those areas of the municipalities of Rio Grande and Loiza delineated as follows: (1) All lands between Routes 956 on the west and 186 on the east, from Route 3 on the north to the juncture of Routes 956 and 186 (Km 13.2) in the south; (2) all lands between Routes 186 and 966 from the juncture of 186 and 966 on the north, to the Caribbean National Forest Boundary on the south; (3) all lands lying west of Route 186 for 1 kilometer from the juncture of Routes 186 and 956 south to Km 6 on Route 186; (4) all lands within Km 14 and Km 6 on the west and the Caribbean National Forest Boundary on the east; and (5) all lands within the Caribbean National Forest Boundary whether private or public.
Cidra Municipality and adjacent areas—All of Cidra Municipality and portions of Aguas Buenas, Caguas, Cayey, and Comerio Municipalities as encompassed within the following boundary: beginning on Highway 172 as it leaves the municipality of Cidra on the west edge, north to Highway 156, east on Highway 156 to Highway 1, south on Highway 1 to Highway 765, south on Highway 765 to Highway 763, south on Highway 763 to the Rio Guavate, west along Rio Guavate to Highway 1, southwest on Highway 1 to Highway 14, west on Highway 14 to Highway 729, north on Highway 729 to Cidra Municipality boundary to the point of the beginning.
Office of the Secretary, HUD.
Public Notice of the Granting of Regulatory Waivers from January 1, 2002, through March 31, 2002.
Section 106 of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (the HUD Reform Act) requires HUD to publish quarterly
For general information about this notice, contact Aaron Santa Anna, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8391.
For information concerning a particular waiver action for which public notice is provided in this document, contact the person whose name and address follow the description of the waiver granted in the accompanying list of waiver-grant actions.
As part of the HUD Reform Act, the Congress adopted, at HUD's request, legislation to limit and control the granting of regulatory waivers by HUD. Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act added a new section 7(q) to the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (2 U.S.C. 3535(q)), which provides that:
1. Any waiver of a regulation must be in writing and must specify the grounds for approving the waiver;
2. Authority to approve a waiver of a regulation may be delegated by the Secretary only to an individual of Assistant Secretary rank or equivalent rank, and the person to whom authority to waive is delegated must also have authority to issue the particular regulation to be waived;
3. Not less than quarterly, the Secretary must notify the public of all waivers of regulations that HUD has approved, by publishing a notice in the
a. Identify the project, activity, or undertaking involved;
b. Describe the nature of the provision waived, and the designation of the provision;
c. Indicate the name and title of the person who granted the waiver request;
d. Describe briefly the grounds for approval of the request; and
e. State how additional information about a particular waiver-grant action may be obtained.
Section 106 of the HUD Reform Act also contains requirements applicable to waivers of HUD handbook provisions that are not relevant to the purpose of this notice.
Today's document follows publication of HUD's Statement of Policy on Waiver of Regulations and Directives issued by HUD on April 22, 1991 (56 FR 16337). This notice covers HUD's waiver-grant activity from January 1, 2002, through March 31, 2002. This notice also includes a waiver from an earlier reporting period that was inadvertently omitted from the appropriate earlier report. For ease of reference, the waivers granted by HUD are listed by HUD program office (for example, the Office of Community Planning and Development, the Office of Housing, the Office of Public and Indian Housing, etc.). Within each program office grouping, the waivers are listed sequentially by the section of title 24 being waived. For example, a waiver-grant action involving the waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 58 would come before a waiver of a provision in 24 CFR part 570.
Where more than one regulatory provision is involved in the granting of a particular waiver request, the action is listed under the section number of the first regulatory requirement that appears in title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations and that is being waived as part of the waiver-grant action. For example, a waiver of both § 58.73 and § 58.74 would appear sequentially in the listing under § 58.73.
Waiver-grant actions involving the same initial regulatory citation are in time sequence beginning with the earliest-dated waiver-grant action.
Should HUD receive additional reports of waiver actions taken during the period covered by this report before the next report is published, the next updated report will include these earlier actions, as well as those that occurred during April 1, 2002, through June 30, 2002.
Accordingly, information about approved waiver requests pertaining to HUD regulations is provided in the Appendix that follows this notice.
More information about the granting of these waivers, including a copy of the waiver request and approval, may be obtained by contacting the person whose name is listed as the contact person directly after each set of waivers granted.
The regulatory waivers granted appear in the following order:
I. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Community Planning and Development.
II. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control.
III. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Housing.
IV. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring.
V. Regulatory waivers granted by the Office of Public and Indian Housing.
For further information about the following waiver actions, please see the name of the contact person immediately following the description of the waiver granted.
• Regulation: 24 CFR 91.520(a).
•
•
Section 570.511(b) provides that interest earned on escrow accounts established in accordance with this section shall be remitted to HUD at least quarterly, but not more frequently than monthly, less any service charges for the account. Section 570.511(a)(2) provides that the contract between the property owner and the contractor shall specifically provide that payment to the contractor shall be made through an escrow account maintained by the recipient, a subrecipient as defined at 24 CFR 570.500 (c), by a public agency designated under § 570.501(a), or by an agent under a procurement contract governed by 24 CFR 85.36. Section 570.511(a)(3) requires that all funds drawn under this section shall be deposited into one interest earning account.
For further information about the following waiver actions, please see the name of the contact person who immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
For further information about the following waiver actions, please see the name of the contact person who immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For further information about the following waiver actions, please see the name of the contact person who immediately follows the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
For further information about the following public housing drug elimination program (PHDEP) waiver actions, please see the name of the contact person immediately following the description of the waiver granted.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Regulation: 24 CFR 982.503(c)(2)(ii).
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•