Agricultural Marketing Service
Commodity Credit Corporation
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Housing Service
Rural Utilities Service
Engineers Corps
Refugee Resettlement Office
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
Engineers Corps
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Refugee Resettlement Office
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Justice Programs Office
Employment and Training Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Research and Special Programs Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
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.
Farm Service Agency, Department of Agriculture.
Final rule.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is amending its agricultural loan mediation regulations to implement the requirements of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (the 1994 Act) and the United States Grain Standards Act of 2000 (the Grain Standards Act). This rule establishes and modifies requirements and procedures for certification and funding of State mediation programs. This rule also moves the mediation provisions, as amended, from the Rural Development chapter of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to the FSA chapter of the same title.
September 10, 2002.
Chester A. Bailey, Mediation Program Manager, FSA, telephone 202-720-1471.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The title and number of the Federal assistance program, as found in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, to which this rule applies, are Certified Mediation Program—10.435.
This activity is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
It has been determined that this action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is needed under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12612, Federalism. The agency has determined that this action does not have significant Federalism implications.
This final rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted, no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and administrative proceedings published at 7 CFR part 11 must be exhausted before action for judicial review may be brought.
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this program. The administration certifies that this program will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. By statute, this grant program applies only to States. These grants cannot be made to small entities or individuals. Small entities may participate in mediation, however, to the same extent as individuals and other entities affected by adverse decisions covered by certified mediation programs.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, tribal governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the Agency generally must prepare a written Statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 1 year. When such a Statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the Agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, tribal governments, or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FSA submitted a request to OMB for the approval of the certified mediation program information collection package (0560-0165). OMB control number 0560-0165 was approved for use through February 29, 2004.
On November 9, 1999, FSA published a proposed rule (64 FR 61034) to amend its agricultural loan mediation program regulations to implement the requirements of the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (the 1994 Act) (Pub. L. 103-354). The 1994 Act expanded the scope of issues that may be mediated in State mediation programs certified by FSA. The proposed rule modified previously established requirements and procedures for certification and funding of State mediation programs under the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (the 1987 Act) (7 U.S.C. 5101
On November 9, 2000, the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement
FSA has incorporated these statutory provisions in the final rule. Section 785.1(d) of the final rule provides that mediation is voluntary and a that a person may not be compelled to participate in a mediation, but that the statute does not affect any law requiring mediation before foreclosure on agricultural land or property. A conforming definition of mediation services has been added in § 785.2, and a new definition of “covered persons” in § 785.2 specifies who may request mediation and issues that may be mediated.
This rule also removes the mediation provisions from the Rural Development chapter of Title 7 of the CFR (Chapter 18) and incorporates those provisions into a new part 785 in the FSA chapter (Chapter 7) of Title 7.
The comment period for the proposed rule ended on January 10, 2000. FSA solicited comments on the proposed rule in general, and particularly on certain specific matters addressed or considered during development of the proposed rule, specifically: Training programs implemented by States, the requirement for quarterly reporting by certified State mediation programs, the experience of States in mediating the additional issues authorized for mediation in the 1994 Act, mediation not involving USDA agencies and programs, the proposed changes in procedures for determining grant awards and managing an administrative reserve, and the appropriateness of requiring mediation program participants to satisfy a needs test as a condition for use of grant funds to pay for financial advisory and counseling services in preparing participants for mediation.
Comments were received from the Coalition of Agricultural Mediation Programs (CAMP) representing 25 USDA-certified State mediation programs, 12 USDA-certified State mediation programs, the American Bar Association, the Nebraska Legal Aid Society, the Oklahoma Farmers Union, and two mediators. The comments addressed a number of issues relating to the proposed rule in addition to those for which we had specifically solicited comment. FSA considered the comments and incorporates many of the recommendations and suggestions in this rule. The following is a review of the general subjects of comments and of the changes made in the final rule in response.
The proposed rule required a state requesting certification to describe the State mediation program education and training requirements for mediators. One commentor stated that the request for information concerning State programs for training mediators is appropriate provided that FSA understands that each program will employ different models of mediation, and that the training curricula will vary from one program to another. The commentor also stated that it is necessary for the various USDA agencies to work with the State agricultural mediation programs to provide training so that mediators are adequately trained on issues relating to USDA programs.
The commentor observed that USDA personnel need additional training regarding the objectives of mediation and its potential benefits. The commentor recommended that as part of a cooperative training effort, USDA personnel who will be involved in the mediation process receive training on mediation. Another comment proposed that the USDA conduct routine mediation training and orientation workshops for USDA staff and other consumer populations on the use and processes associated with mediation services.
Several other comments came from certified State mediation programs pointing out that their State laws set standards for training, qualifications, ethics and continuing education requirements for approved mediation programs and mediators. Other comments encouraged FSA to work with CAMP and States with certified mediation programs to develop criteria for those training requirements if there are specific areas that FSA believes it needs to monitor considering that training requirements are generally approved under individual State laws as well. Other commentors suggested that the USDA work with certified States to develop curriculum and materials that comport with USDA standards, for example, in a joint project with special funding. In contrast, other comments suggested that because of the diversity of State laws and the specific needs of the individual State programs, mediator qualifications and training requirements generally should be left to the respective certified mediation programs.
FSA agrees that both USDA employees and mediators must be adequately trained for the mediation process to function effectively. In response to the comments, FSA has added minimum Federal standards of mediator training to this rule to ensure a threshold level of mediator qualifications in all certified State mediation programs. For clarity, “mediator” and “qualified mediator” are separately defined in § 785.2. The definition of “qualified mediator” establishes a minimum training requirement that will apply in any State without a law prescribing mediator qualifications. The minimum training requirements in the final rule correspond to the minimums among States that prescribe mediator qualifications by law. As one condition of USDA certification under § 501 of the 1987 Act, a State mediation program must train its mediators. FSA also intends to work with certified States on an on-going basis to schedule joint training programs from time to time as funding is available.
One commentor stated that reporting requirements need to stay proportional to the level of funding that is received by the States. Because of the relatively small size of the maximum grants to certified State mediation programs, annual rather than quarterly reporting is
In light of these comments, the final rule does not modify reporting requirements in § 785.8 to require quarterly reporting on program performance except as required under the Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, 7 CFR part 3015, and the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, 7 CFR part 3016. FSA will continue to work with certified State mediation programs to determine how best to minimize the paperwork burden on certified States and, at the same time, provide a better method of measuring annual performance of the States' mediation programs.
The procedure for determining grant awards to certified State mediation programs in the proposed rule represented an important change from the existing regulations. Under current regulations, certified States are awarded grants based on their requests, subject to the statutory limitations. Where States' total grant requests exceeded the funds appropriated, funds are allocated to States
In addition, the proposed rule provided for an administrative reserve that would be funded by withholding 10 percent of the total funds so that funds from the reserve could be obligated later in the fiscal year to newly qualified States or reallocated to States to meet demand for mediation services exceeding States' initial projections, and then, subsequently, to requesting States. In addition, to provide for flexibility in allocation of the program's limited funding, the reserve mechanism is intended to provide a means for the program to award funding at the beginning of the second half of a fiscal year for a mediation program in a State that newly qualifies in the first half of a fiscal year. Under the current regulation, a newly certified State program is required to wait for an award of grant funds until the following fiscal year.
Several State mediation programs suggested that 5 percent of the total grant funds should be held in reserve rather than 10 percent because the sum withheld would be excessive when total funds appropriated are not sufficient to meet all eligible State matching grant needs. These commentors also suggested that making the reserve a bit smaller rather than larger should encourage States to submit applications for new certification or re-certification by the August 1 deadline. The commentors further suggested that meeting excess demand for mediation in existing certified States should be a priority over making grants to States newly certified in the current fiscal year or to previously certified States missing the August 1 deadline for recertification. FSA agrees with these comments, and the final rule provides in § 785.7(d) for a reserve of 5 percent of the total grant funds appropriated for the fiscal year. The final rule also revises priorities for disbursements from the administrative reserve fund to provide in § 785.7(d)(1) that additional unbudgeted demands for mediation services in qualifying States submitting certifications or recertifications on or before August 1 in a calendar year that are received on or before March 1 of the fiscal year will be given priority over requests for certification received between August 2 and March 1. As suggested by commentors, this change will provide additional incentive for States to submit timely requests for certification and re-certification.
One commentor questioned why FSA will accept requests for certification after the annual August 1 deadline, objecting because the policy reduces funding available to States that submit timely grant requests. To clarify the purpose of the reserve, the reserve is relabeled an “administrative reserve” in the final rule to reflect its administrative utility more clearly. FSA policy to receive and consider requests for certification and recertification submitted after the August 1 deadline reflects its belief that FSA should accommodate the varying schedules on which States may be able to meet certification requirements, particularly those requiring legislative action by the respective State governments. In response to other comments, the final rule provides in § 785.7(d)(1)(i)—(ii) that grant requests received between August 2 and March 1 will not be considered for funding in a fiscal year until the Administrator has determined what additional funding from the administrative reserve should be allocated to qualifying States that submitted timely requests.
The final rule also provides in § 785.7(d)(1)(ii) that funding granted in response to a late-submitted request for a grant by a State requesting re-certification may be made effective as of the beginning of the fiscal year. To accommodate the differences in designations of fiscal years by the Federal Government and the States, the final rule expressly provides in § 785.7(e), pursuant to 7 CFR 3016.23, that any State receiving a grant may carry forward funds unobligated at the end of the Federal fiscal year into the next fiscal year.
In combination, these provisions in the final rule are intended to provide a measure of administrative flexibility to support USDA policy favoring increased use of mediation as a means for resolution of administrative disputes, to assist efficient allocations of limited funds in response to unanticipated demands, and to accelerate start-up of newly certified State mediation programs.
Several commentors expressed concern about the criteria that are to be used to determine funding. There were concerns that using both objective criteria and criteria providing for discretion could operate unfairly. States with mandatory mediation programs would clearly serve more clients while States without mandatory agricultural mediation programs would need to commit resources for outreach that would be unnecessary in States with mandatory agricultural mediation requirements. The existence of these competing concerns is a reason why the final rule must provide for discretion in allocating grant funds. The criteria in the final rule accordingly identify considerations that will affect determinations of grant awards but do not specify a formula. No substantive changes were made in response to these comments.
One commentor stated that it appreciates the need for USDA to receive sufficient information and documentation to adequately evaluate whether a State's request for certification meets the eligibility criteria to become a certified mediation program. However, it maintains that the existing certification process provides USDA with adequate information to make this decision. The commentor requested that the certification process be kept as simple as possible so as not to discourage new or existing States from participating.
FSA agrees that the procedures for requesting certification of a State mediation program and for requesting grant assistance should be manageable for States participating in the certified State mediation program. The final rule is reorganized to reflect more clearly the differing requirements for certification of a State mediation program (§ 785.3) and submission of a request to obtain grant funds for a certified program (§ 785.4). For purposes of certification, FSA will rely on the certification required of a governor or the head of a State agency designated by the governor. The changes from the proposed rule requiring submission by States of information concerning training of mediators and the State's experience in delivery of mediation services are adopted to achieve a better allocation of grant funds relative to needs while preserving some administrative flexibility to make grants to support mediation programs in newly qualifying States.
Also, while, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 5101(c)(3)(E)-(F), the governor of a State must certify that lenders and borrowers of agricultural loans received adequate notification of the mediation program (§ 785.3(a)(2)(v)) and that, in the case of other issues covered by the mediation program, persons directly affected by actions of the USDA received adequate notification of the mediation program (§ 785.3(a)(2)(vi)), these requirements are effectively met by USDA agencies. As required by 7 U.S.C. 6995, covered agencies must offer mediation when a certified mediation program is available as part of their informal appeals process.
Several commentors recommended that regulations be modified to identify what specific information must be included in a grant request in compliance with 7 CFR parts 3015 and 3016. FSA believes that modifying the rule as suggested would introduce either redundancy or inconsistency, so no changes have been made in response to these comments. Parts 3015 and 3016 contain uniform rules that apply to USDA grants and cooperative agreements to State and local governments, universities, non-profit and for-profit organizations. The State mediation programs qualifying to date are operated primarily by State universities or State departments of agriculture, but other State agencies can be certified as State mediation programs. As a general matter, States are familiar with the uniform requirements set forth in parts 3015 and 3016. It is the responsibility of the State to know and comply with the applicable sections of parts 3015 and 3016 when applying for and receiving USDA grants.
Several commentors stated that the allowable costs provision in the proposed rule appears to authorize mediation programs to use grant funds to mediate disputes for persons directly affected by actions of any USDA agency, but that the USDA has required that the Secretary make a specific designation for grant funds to be used to mediate disputes in other programs of the USDA. The final rule removes this inconsistency and provides in § 785.2, in the definition of “covered persons,” that the Secretary may designate issues for mediation where other persons are directly affected by actions of the USDA and that State mediation programs may certify that they provide mediation services to such persons (§ 785.3(a)(2)). Within the general scope of the discretion of the Secretary authorized by section 501(c)(1) of the 1987 Act, the final rule contemplates that the specific authorizations for uses of grant funds to mediate such disputes will vary with particular circumstances and should not be specified in the final rule.
The final rule also provides that a certified State mediation program may require non-USDA participants in mediations to pay a fee for mediation services (§ 785.5), but that no such fee may be required of any USDA agency that is mandated to participate in mediation. The restriction against imposition of fees on USDA agencies mandated to participate in mediations reflects that the USDA is already funding the mediation program through grants and cannot reasonably be expected to pay twice. In addition, one of the primary reasons to charge a fee for mediation is to ensure good-faith participation. By law, USDA agencies must participate in good faith in mediation. As a result, there is no reason to charge USDA agencies a fee to participate in mediation to ensure their good faith.
Both the 1994 Act and the Grain Standards Act expanded the statutory coverage of issues that may be mediated by a State mediation program and the categories of persons that may be eligible for mediation services through a certified program. The proposed rule reflected the specific expansions of coverage under the 1994 Act and also its authorization for the Secretary to identify other issues appropriate for mediation.
The Secretary's Memorandum 4710-1, dated March 23, 2000, entitled “USDA Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy,” authorized expansion of the issues handled by USDA-certified State mediation programs in accordance with the 1994 Act to include rural housing loans; rural business loans; crop insurance; and other issues the Secretary may subsequently consider appropriate. The final rule also reflects further expansions of coverage of issues and of persons eligible for mediation services under the Grain Standards Act to include mediations of disputes between producers and their creditors involving agricultural loans, regardless of whether the loans are made or guaranteed by the USDA or are made by a third party (§§ 785.2 (“Covered persons”) and 785.3(b)(2)). Significantly, the final rule does not refer to “agricultural loan mediation,” but instead refers to mediation services delivered by certified State mediation programs. Pursuant to the Secretary's alternative dispute resolution policy, the final rule also supports greater utilization of the certified State mediation programs to resolve both credit and non-credit issues in rural communities.
In light of this policy, the USDA solicited specific comments regarding program experience to date in mediating the broader range of issues covered by the 1994 Act. Comments from the certified State programs were generally supportive that the coverage of issues for mediation under their programs could be expanded. With respect to mediation of non-credit issues, one mediator commented that the opportunities for resolution of such issues in mediation has been constrained by rigidity in the program regulations governing many such disputes. For mediation to be effective, participants must have confidence that there are options that can be explored with the assistance of a mediator. The
Other commentors suggest that the differing opportunities for developing options are a consideration that States are taking into account in management of their mediation intake processes. These States are determining at an early stage whether an issue in dispute may be amenable to mediation, so that their clients may be soundly advised whether mediation is a good option for resolution of the dispute.
FSA agrees that mediation programs should take appropriate steps to determine at an early stage whether the issues in a dispute are subject to statutory or regulatory requirements that must apply uniformly that diminish or eliminate opportunities for effective mediation of a dispute. FSA likewise agrees that in situations where there is a sense that nothing can be accomplished, the mediation program as a whole is adversely affected. In a number of situations, however, mediations involving disputes under uniformly applicable regulatory standards may focus on strategies for resolution of a dispute with options,
One commentor noted that agriculture disputes not involving USDA or agricultural credit may be mediated by certified programs, but that USDA funds may not cover such costs. FSA agrees that with regard to the costs of non-USDA non-agricultural credit mediation, grant funds are not allowed to assist producers who have disputes with other producers. The Grain Standards Act clarified that persons eligible for mediation services include agricultural producers, creditors of producers (as appropriate), and persons directly affected by actions of the USDA. It is intended that grant funds will be used by certified States to assist producers resolve agriculture-related disputes with the USDA that, if not timely resolved, would discourage lenders from financing their operations. FSA has clarified this issue in the final rule in § 785.4(c)(1) by providing that grant funds can be used to pay eligible costs that are reasonable and necessary to carry out the State's certified mediation program in providing mediation services to covered persons,
The proposed rule provided that costs of providing financial advisory and counseling services to mediation clients would be allowed if: the services were incidental to a mediation case, a financial need was demonstrated under guidelines established by the program and reported to FSA, the work product was made available to all parties to a mediation, the services were provided under the control of a mediator, and were determined in advance to be reasonable, necessary, and consistent with the goal of mediation in the particular case. Comments were solicited particularly regarding this financial needs test.
One commentor stated that the requirement that preparatory financial advisory and counseling services should be provided under the control of the mediator should be deleted, or at least modified to provide for control by staff of the mediation program rather than by the mediator. The commentor believed that mediators would be exposed to
Several commentors stated that the requirement in the proposed rule that the results of financial analysis be made available to all parties as a condition for allowing the cost should be deleted. One commentor observed that, as a practical matter, participants are going to provide all relevant information to an analyst only if participants are reasonably certain to retain some control over the information that they provide. This suggested change is reflected in § 785.4 of the final rule, however, which provides that such services may be provided under guidelines established by the certified State mediation program. To ensure accountability in delivery of such services under guidelines established by certified State mediation programs, the final rule also provides, in § 785.9(a), that records of delivery of financial advisory and counseling services are pertinent records for review that must be maintained by the program and that the USDA or other Federal Departments must be granted access to these records for purposes of evaluation, audit, and monitoring of the certified State mediation program.
As a general matter, commentors supported providing financial and counseling services by certified mediation programs, but did not support the requirement of a financial needs test. The commentors stated that requiring a financial needs test would be a burden on both mediation programs and producers seeking assistance. In cases where a mediation client might be desperately in need of assistance simply to sort out financial documents prior to a mediation, requiring the mediation client to complete a financial needs assessment could impede the client from actually requesting financial advice because the process to qualify for assistance would appear too complicated.
Other commentors pointed out that in an overwhelming majority of the credit cases handled, producers will have financial need; otherwise, they would not be seeking mediation in the first place. Given these general circumstances, the commentors suggested that administering the financial needs test would delay and interfere with time better spent assisting mediation clients with preparations for productive mediation sessions. FSA agrees and has revised § 785.4 accordingly.
One comment was received suggesting that the proposed rule should clarify how potential mediation clients receiving adverse decisions in USDA programs are to be notified of mediation services. The final rule clarifies in § 785.1(b) that, where a certified State mediation program is available, USDA agency notices of decisions will offer as part of the agency's informal appeal process the opportunity to mediate the decision under the certified State mediation program, in accordance with the agency regulations applicable to its informal appeals process. The USDA adverse decision notice will satisfy the grantee's notice requirement.
Because section 274 of the 1994 Act requires that notices of decisions by covered agencies must offer the opportunity to mediate in States with
One commentor suggested that FSA should clarify the manner in which USDA agencies are to participate in mediations, specifically, that FSA should “clearly delineate both the format and the level of participation the Department and its sub-agencies will follow.” The commentor observed that the proposed rule does not adequately establish how the assistance to mediation programs provided for in the rule is to culminate in delivery of mediation services.
FSA agrees that its guidance regarding the duties of agency participants in mediations should be clarified. For example, FSA is currently streamlining its farm loan program regulations and expects to resolve the apparent inconsistencies and update many obsolete provisions in current regulations during this process. As to a need for more general guidance regarding the duties of agency participants in mediation programs, FSA agrees that guidance regarding the contours and constraints on agency participation in mediation processes should be addressed in the rules governing informal agency appeals processes,
The proposed rule expressly provided that pertinent records of certified State mediation programs must be made available to the Government in accordance with 7 CFR 3015.24. It further provided that parties in a mediation should sign an acknowledgment that the Government would have access to mediation records to conduct an audit or evaluation of mediation services funded in whole or part by the USDA.
One commentor stated that “records” should be defined and that the rule should expressly identify what records will be considered pertinent that must be made available for an audit. Section 785.9 of the final rule identifies specific “pertinent records” of mediations to be maintained and made available for purposes of audit, evaluation, or monitoring. “Pertinent records” include the following: (i) Names and addresses of applicants for mediation services; (ii) dates mediations are opened and closed; (iii) issues mediated; (iv) records of financial advisory and counseling services furnished to parties in mediation; (v) dates of sessions with mediators; (vi) names of mediators; (vii) other mediation services furnished to participants by the program; (viii) sums charged for each mediation service; and (ix) outcomes of mediation services including formal settlement results and supporting documentation. These are the minimum records needed for FSA and the Office of Inspector General to monitor the use of Federal grants for certified mediation programs and ensure the integrity of the grant program. Most of these items would not be protected as “dispute resolution communications” under sections 571 and 574 of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADR Act) (5 U.S.C. 571
The final rule also clarifies in § 785.9 that, notwithstanding 7 CFR 3015.24, pertinent records must be disclosed to the USDA, the Comptroller General of the United States, the Administrator, and their representatives only as necessary to monitor, audit or evaluate mediation services funded in whole or in part by the USDA. This access provision is not intended to be used to seek information to use against the participant in an unrelated administrative decision. FSA recognizes that not all communications made to a mediator in confidence or all mediator work product, including records of mental impressions, will be maintained indefinitely. The final rule is intended to clarify that mediators' notes, other highly sensitive documents prepared for mediation, and other records of mediators' impressions will not be the “pertinent records” that mediators will be expected to produce to substantiate services delivered during a mediation. The purpose of the access requirement is to ensure that there is adequate documentation for the Government to review to verify that only authorized mediation services have in fact been furnished by a certified State mediation program in connection with a mediation.
Two State mediation programs commented that the requirement for execution of an acknowledgment of Government access to records by parties in a mediation was “an extreme example of overkill” that would encourage disputing parties simply to go through motions and not help mediation programs in their effort to solve problems. FSA believes that clarification of the limited purposes for which Government access may be required should minimize this potential obstacle. Credible mediators should be able to explain that as recipients of Federal grant funds their mediation programs have a responsibility to be accountable to the Government. No changes were made in response to these comments.
Several commentors suggested that the definition of confidentiality be changed to make divulging of mediation records subject to section 574 of the ADR Act. Some suggested that the rule expressly provide that to the extent that 7 CFR 3015.24 conflicts with statutory provisions for confidentiality in the ADR Act or section 501 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, as amended, 7 U.S.C. 5101(c)(3), the statutory provisions would take precedence. FSA agrees that the definition of “confidential mediation” should be consistent with the ADR Act to the extent possible in carrying out the Federally funded certified mediation programs in accordance with authorizing legislation and regulations. FSA, therefore, has revised the proposed definition of the term to mean a mediation in which the mediator will not disclose to any person oral or written communications provided in confidence to the mediator except as allowed by section 574 of the ADR Act or the record access provisions in 7 CFR 785.9.
Several commentors suggested that the USDA should continue to use an annual reporting system for monitoring the effectiveness and productivity of all State mediation services, inclusive of all affiliated services incidental to caseload. These commentors encouraged the USDA to clearly delineate the categories, methodologies, measurement criteria, forms, and other equations for those purposes. The final rule is responsive to these suggestions and includes in section 785.8 more specific guidance regarding matters to be contained in the annual report than was set forth in the proposed rule. The emphasis of the revisions is to afford certified State mediation programs better means to report uniformly on the costs and benefits of their services and on areas where delivery of mediation services to covered persons can be improved. Because the final rule furnishes additional detail regarding the organization and coverage expected in the annual report, FSA believes that the revisions will simplify reporting for certified State mediation programs and will reduce the burden on the grantee.
Several commentors observed that FSA and other USDA agencies are in a better position than the mediation programs to track which cases go from mediation to appeals. They stated that it is the responsibility of the USDA to articulate a standard for data comparisons and recommended that data on administrative appeal costs should be furnished to certified States by the USDA. The final rule adopts this suggestion in section 785.8(a)(2) and provides that the mediation program will project costs of avoided administrative appeals based on data furnished by FSA.
One commentor observed that the proposed rule was unclear regarding who should receive annual reports from mediation programs, the Administrator of FSA, or the FSA State Executive Directors. The final rule clarifies that annual reports must be submitted to the Administrator.
Other significant changes are as follows:
This new section expressly provides that non-USDA parties who elect to participate in mediation may be required to pay a fee for mediation services, but that a State certified mediation program may not require a USDA agency to pay a fee to participate in a mediation. Because of the grant funding made available by the USDA for certified State mediation programs, the restriction against imposition of fees on USDA agencies protects against double charging of the Government. Further, charging fees ensures good faith participation by the parties. By law USDA agencies must participate in mediation in good faith. Charging a fee to USDA agencies under such circumstances is, therefore, not warranted.
This new section provides for reconsideration by the Administrator of any determination that a State is not a qualifying State or of penalties imposed pursuant to section 785.10. The decision of the Administrator following reconsideration is the final administrative decision of FSA.
Agriculture, Federal-State relations, Grant programs—Intergovernmental relations, Mediation.
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; and 7 U.S.C. 5101-5104.
(a) States meeting conditions specified in this part may have their mediation programs certified by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and receive Federal grant funds for the operation and administration of agricultural mediation programs.
(b) USDA agencies participate in mediations pursuant to agency rules governing their informal appeals processes. Where mediation of an agency decision by a certified State mediation program is available to participants in an agency program as part of the agency's informal appeal process, the agency will offer a participant receiving notice of an agency decision the opportunity to mediate the decision under the State's certified mediation program, in accordance with the agency's informal appeals regulations.
(c) USDA agencies making mediation available as part of the agency informal appeals process may execute memoranda of understanding with a certified mediation program concerning procedures and policies for mediations during agency informal appeals that are not inconsistent with this part or other applicable regulations. Each such memorandum of understanding will be deemed part of the grant agreement governing the operation and administration of a State certified mediation program receiving Federal grant funds under this part.
(d) A mediator in a program certified under this part has no authority to make decisions that are binding on parties to a dispute.
(e) No person may be compelled to participate in mediation provided through a mediation program certified under this part. This provision shall not affect a State law requiring mediation before foreclosure on agricultural land or property.
(1) Wetlands determinations;
(2) Compliance with farm programs, including conservation programs;
(3) Agricultural loans (regardless of whether the loans are made or guaranteed by the USDA or are made by a third party);
(4) Rural water loan programs;
(5) Grazing on National Forest System lands;
(6) Pesticides; or
(7) Such other issues as the Secretary may consider appropriate.
To obtain FSA certification of the State's mediation program, the State must meet the requirements of this section.
(1)
(i) A summary of the program;
(ii) An identification of issues available for mediation under the program;
(iii) Management of the program;
(iv) Mediation services offered by the program;
(v) Program staffing and staffing levels;
(vi) Uses of contract mediation services in the program describing both services provided by contractors and costs of such services;
(vii) State statutes and regulations in effect that are applicable to the State's mediation program; and
(viii) A description of the State program's education and training requirements for mediators including:
(A) Training in mediation skills and in USDA programs;
(B) Identification and compliance with any State law requirements; and
(C) Other steps by the State's program to recruit and deploy qualified mediators.
(ix) Any other information requested by FSA;
(2)
(i) That the State's mediation program provides mediation services to covered persons with the aim of reaching mutually agreeable decisions between the parties under the program;
(ii) That the State's mediation program is authorized or administered by an agency of the State government or by the Governor of the State;
(iii) That the State's mediation program provides for training of mediators in mediation skills and in all issues covered by the State's mediation program;
(iv) That the State's mediation program shall provide confidential mediation as defined in § 785.2;
(v) That the State's mediation program ensures, in the case of agricultural loans, that all lenders and borrowers of agricultural loans receive adequate notification of the mediation program;
(vi) That the State's mediation program ensures, in the case of other issues covered by the mediation program, that persons directly affected by actions of the USDA receive adequate notification of the mediation program; and
(vii) That the State's mediation program prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status.
(b)
(a)
(1) Be certified as described in § 785.3; and
(2) Submit an application for a grant with its certification or re-certification request as set forth in this section.
(b)
(1) Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424 (available in any FSA office and on the Internet,
(2) A budget with supporting details providing estimates of the cost of operation and administration of the program. Proposed direct expenditures will be grouped in the categories of allowable direct costs under the program as set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section;
(3) Other information pertinent to the funding criteria specified in § 785.7(b); and
(4) Any additional supporting information requested by FSA in connection with its review of the grant request.
(c)
(1)
(i) Staff salaries and fringe benefits;
(ii) Reasonable fees and costs of mediators;
(iii) Office rent and expenses, such as utilities and equipment rental;
(iv) Office supplies;
(v) Administrative costs, such as workers' compensation, liability insurance, employer's share of Social Security, and travel that is necessary to provide mediation services;
(vi) Education and training of participants and mediators involved in mediation;
(vii) Security systems necessary to assure confidentiality of mediation sessions and records of mediation sessions;
(viii) Costs associated with publicity and promotion of the program; and
(ix) Financial advisory and counseling services for parties requesting mediation (as reasonable and necessary to prepare parties for mediation) that are performed by a person other than a state mediation program mediator and as approved under guidelines established by the state mediation program and reported to FSA.
(2)
(i) Purchase of capital assets, real estate, or vehicles and repair, or maintenance of privately-owned property;
(ii) Political activities;
(iii) Routine administrative activities not allowable under OMB Cost Principles found in part 3015, subpart T, of this title and OMB Circular No. A-87; and
(iv) Services provided by a State mediation program that are not consistent with the features of the mediation program certified by the State, including advocacy services on behalf of a mediation participant, such as representation of a mediation client before an administrative appeals entity of the USDA or other Federal Government department or Federal or State Court proceeding.
A requirement that non-USDA parties who elect to participate in mediation pay a fee for mediation services will not preclude certification of a certified State mediation program or its eligibility for a grant; however, if participation in mediation is mandatory for a USDA agency, a certified State mediation program may not require the USDA agency to pay a fee to participate in a mediation.
(a)
(2)
(3)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(1) Demand for and use of mediation services (historical and projected);
(2) Scope of mediation services;
(3) Service record of the State program, as evidenced by:
(i) Number of inquiries;
(ii) Number of requests for and use of mediation services, historical and projected, as applicable;
(iii) Number of mediations resulting in signed mediation agreements;
(iv) Timeliness of mediation services; and
(v) Activities promoting awareness and use of mediation;
(4) Historic use of program funds (budgeted versus actual); and
(5) Material changes in the State program.
(c)
(2) Payment of grant funds will be by electronic funds transfer to the designated account of each certified State mediation program, as approved by FSA.
(d)
(1) Subject to paragraph (a) of this section and the availability of funds, the Administrator will allocate and disburse sums from the administrative reserve in the following priority order:
(i) Disbursements to cover additional, unbudgeted demands for mediation services in qualifying States eligible for grant funding as of the beginning of the fiscal year;
(ii) Grants to qualifying States whose requests for new certification or re-certification were received between August 2 and March 1. A previously qualifying State that submits a request for re-certification received after August 1 may receive a grant award effective as of the beginning of the fiscal year. A newly qualifying State that submits a request for certification received after August 1 may receive a grant award effective March 31 of the fiscal year.
(iii) Any balance remaining in the administrative reserve will be allocated pro rata to certified State mediation programs based on their initial fiscal year grant awards.
(2) All funds from the administrative reserve will be made available on or before March 31 of the fiscal year.
(e)
(2) Grant funds not spent in accordance with this part will be subject to de-obligation and must be returned to the USDA.
(a)
(1) A review of mediation services provided by the certified State mediation program during the preceding Federal fiscal year providing information concerning the following matters:
(i) A narrative review of the goals and accomplishments of the certified State mediation program in providing intake and scheduling of cases; the provision of background and selected information regarding the mediation process; financial advisory and counseling services, training, notification, public education, increasing resolution rates, and obtaining program funding from sources other than the grant under this part.
(ii) A quantitative summary for the preceding fiscal year, and for prior fiscal years, as appropriate, for comparisons of program activities and outcomes of the cases opened and closed during the reporting period; mediation services provided to clients grouped by program and subdivided by issue, USDA agency, types of covered persons and other participants; and the resolution rate for each category of issue reported for cases closed during the year;
(2) An assessment of the performance and effectiveness of the State's certified mediation program considering:
(i) Estimated average costs of mediation services per client with estimates furnished in terms of the allowable costs set forth in § 785.4(b)(1).
(ii) Estimated savings to the State as a result of having the State mediation program certified including:
(A) Projected costs of avoided USDA administrative appeals based on projections of the average costs of such appeals furnished to the State by FSA, with the assistance of the USDA National Appeals Division and other agencies as appropriate;
(B) In agricultural credit mediations that do not result from a USDA adverse program decision, projected cost savings to the various parties as a result of resolution of their dispute in mediation. Projected cost savings will be based on such reliable statistical data as may be obtained from State statistical sources including the certified State's bar association, State Department of Agriculture, State court system or Better Business Bureau, or other reliable State or Federal sources;
(iii) Recommendations for improving the delivery of mediation services to covered persons, including:
(A) Increasing responsiveness to needs for mediation services.
(B) Promoting increases in dispute resolution rates.
(C) Improving assessments of training needs.
(D) Improving delivery of training.
(E) Reducing costs per mediation.
(3) Such other matters relating to the program as the State may elect to include, or as the Administrator may require.
(b)
Notwithstanding § 3015.24 of this title, the State must maintain and provide the Government access to pertinent records regarding services delivered by the certified State mediation program for purposes of evaluation, audit and monitoring of the certified State mediation program as follows:
(a) For purposes of this section, pertinent records consist of: the names and addresses of applicants for mediation services; dates mediations opened and closed; issues mediated; dates of sessions with mediators; names of mediators; mediation services furnished to participants by the program; the sums charged to parties for each mediation service; records of delivery of services to prepare parties for mediation (including financial advisory and counseling services); and the outcome of the mediation services including formal settlement results and supporting documentation.
(b) State mediators will notify all participants in writing at the beginning of the mediation session that the USDA, including the USDA Inspector General, the Comptroller General of the United States, the Administrator, and any of their representatives will have access to pertinent records as necessary to monitor and to conduct audits, investigations, or evaluations of mediation services funded in whole or in part by the USDA.
(c) All participants in a mediation must sign and date an acknowledgment of receipt of such notice from the mediator. The certified State mediation program shall maintain originals of such acknowledgments in its mediation files for at least 5 years.
(a) The Administrator is authorized to withdraw certification of a State mediation program, terminate or suspend the grant to such program, require a return of unspent grant funds, a reimbursement of grant funds on account of expenditures that are not allowed, and may impose any other penalties or sanctions authorized by law if the Administrator determines that:
(1) The State's mediation program, at any time, does not meet the requirements for certification;
(2) The mediation program is not being operated in a manner consistent with the features of the program certified by the State, with applicable regulations, or the grant agreement;
(3) Costs that are not allowed under § 785.4(b) are being paid out of grant funds;
(4) The mediation program fails to grant access to mediation records for purposes specified in § 785.8; or
(5) Reports submitted by the State pursuant to § 785.7 are false, contain misrepresentations or material omissions, or are otherwise misleading.
(b) In the event that FSA gives notice to the State of its intent to enforce any withdrawal of certification or other penalty for non-compliance, USDA agencies will cease to participate in any mediation conducted by the State's mediation program immediately upon delivery of such notice to the State.
(a) A State mediation program may request that the Administrator reconsider any determination that a State is not a qualifying State under § 785.3 and any penalty decision made under § 785.10. The decision of the Administrator upon reconsideration shall be the final administrative decision of FSA.
(b) Nothing in this part shall preclude action to suspend or debar a State mediation program or administering
The provisions of parts 15, 15b and 1901, subpart E, of this title and part 90 of title 45 apply to activities financed by grants made under this part.
The information collection requirements in this regulation have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 0560-0165.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This rule limits the volume of small red seedless grapefruit entering the fresh market under the marketing order covering oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida (order). The Citrus Administrative Committee (Committee) administers the order locally and recommended this action. This rule limits the volume of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit shipped during the first 22 weeks of the 2002-03 season by establishing weekly percentages for each of the 22 weeks, beginning September 16, 2002. This action supplies enough small red seedless grapefruit, without saturating all markets with these small sizes. This rule should help stabilize the market and improve grower returns.
Effective September 11, 2002; comments received by October 10, 2002 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938, or E-mail:
William G. Pimental, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 799 Overlook Drive, Suite A, Winter Haven, Florida 33884-1671; telephone: (863) 324-3375, Fax: (863) 325-8793; 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:
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 84 and Marketing Order No. 905, both as amended (7 CFR part 905), regulating the handling of oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (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 the 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 limits the volume of small red seedless grapefruit entering the fresh market under the order. This rule limits the volume of sizes 48 and 56 fresh red seedless grapefruit shipped during the first 22 weeks of the 2002-03 season by establishing a weekly percentage for each of the 22 weeks, beginning September 16, 2002. This rule supplies enough small red seedless grapefruit, without saturating all markets with these small sizes. This action should help stabilize the market and improve grower returns.
Section 905.52 of the order provides authority to limit shipments of any grade or size, or both, of any variety of Florida citrus. Such limitations may restrict the shipment of a portion of a specified grade or size of a variety. Under such a limitation, the quantity of such grade or size a handler may ship during a particular week is established as a percentage of the total shipments of such variety shipped by that handler during a prior period, established by the Committee and approved by USDA.
Section 905.153 of the regulations provides procedures for limiting the volume of small red seedless grapefruit entering the fresh market. The procedures specify that the Committee may recommend that only a certain percentage of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit be made available for shipment into fresh market channels for any week or weeks during the regulatory period. The regulation period is 22 weeks long and begins the third Monday in September. Under such a limitation, the quantity of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit that may be shipped by a handler during a regulated week is calculated using the recommended percentage. By taking the recommended weekly percentage times the average weekly volume of red seedless
This rule limits the volume of sizes 48 (3 9/16 inches minimum diameter) and 56 (3 5/16 inches minimum diameter) red seedless grapefruit entering the fresh market by instituting weekly percentages for the first 22 weeks of the 2002-03 season. This rule establishes weekly percentages at 45 percent for weeks 1 and 2 (September 16 through September 29), 35 percent for weeks 3 through 19 (September 30, 2002 through January 26, 2003), and 40 percent for weeks 20, 21, and 22 (January 27 through February 16). The Committee recommended this action by a vote of 14 in favor and 2 against at a meeting on May 22, 2002.
The Committee believes the over shipment of smaller-sized red seedless grapefruit has a detrimental effect on the market. While there is a market for small-sized red seedless grapefruit, the availability of large quantities oversupplies the fresh market with these sizes and negatively impacts the market for all sizes. These smaller sizes, 48 and 56, normally return the lowest prices when compared to the other larger sizes. However, when there is too much volume of the smaller sizes available, the overabundance of small sized fruit pulls the prices down for all sizes.
For the past four seasons, the volume of small sizes available throughout the season has been considerably larger than in past seasons. The smaller sizes have represented a larger portion of the crop at the beginning of the season and this trend has continued throughout the season. The fruit has not been sizing well. This means a greater number of small sizes are available later in the season. The percentage of total available volume represented by small sizes has been higher for nearly every month of the season when compared to the same months in previous seasons. This has exacerbated the problems stemming from the oversupply of small sizes and increased the number of weeks of a season impacted.
For the last three seasons, 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02, the percentage of the remaining crop represented by small sizes in February has averaged around 53 percent. This compares to an average of 31 percent for the same month for the seasons 1995-96 through 1997-98. In fact, the last three seasons have averaged a greater percentage of smaller sizes across each month, October through February, than over the three seasons 1995-96 through 1997-98. For the last seven seasons there has been a movement toward an increased volume of small sizes as a percentage of the overall crop. This is most dramatically evidenced by the 72 percent increase in small sizes as a percentage of the overall crop from February 1996 to February 2001.
The volume of small-sized red seedless grapefruit available in December, January, and February for the 1999-2000, 2000-01, and 2001-02 seasons were comparable or exceeded the volume available in October, November, and December for the 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 seasons. The following chart shows the volume of sizes 48 and smaller red seedless grapefruit available for these months as a percentage of the total crop.
The chart shows the percentage of the crop represented by small sizes increasing fairly substantially beginning as early as the 1996-97 season. It was following the 1995-96 season that the Committee began its initial discussions regarding the need to control the volume of small-sized red seedless grapefruit entering the fresh market. Percentage of size regulation was first used to control the volume of small sizes during the first 11 weeks of the 1997-98 season.
The Committee recognized that small sizes were a problem at those volume levels for the months of October through December for the 1995-96, 1996-97, and 1997-98 seasons. Having comparable or greater volumes of small sizes available during the early and midseason also represents a problem for the industry.
For the 2002-03 season, the Committee believes there will continue to be a surplus of red seedless grapefruit. The Committee believes for the 2002-03 season fruit size will continue to follow the trend toward smaller sizes as seen in the past few years and will have an abundant number of small-sized fruit. To address the volume of small-sized red seedless grapefruit available and to prevent the over shipment of small sizes, the Committee voted to utilize the provisions of section 905.153 and establish percentage of size regulation for each of the 22 weeks of the regulatory period for the 2002-03 season.
In making its recommendation, the Committee considered the success of previous percentage of size regulations and their experience from past seasons. The Committee believes the over shipment of smaller-sized red seedless grapefruit contributes to poor returns for growers and lower prices. The Committee has successfully used the provisions of § 905.153 to address these problems, recommending percentage of size regulation during the first 11 weeks of the 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, and 2000-01 seasons, and for the first 22 weeks of the 2001-02 season. Under percentage of size regulation, prices increased and movement stabilized when compared to seasons without regulation.
For the three seasons prior to the use of percentage size regulation, 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-97, returns for red seedless grapefruit had been declining, often not returning the cost of production. On-tree prices for red seedless grapefruit had fallen steadily from $6.87 per box (1
An economic study done by the University of Florida—Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS) in May 1997, found that on-tree prices had fallen from a high near $7.00 per carton in 1991-92 to around $1.50 per carton for the 1996-97 season. The study projected that if the industry elected to make no changes, the on-tree price would remain around $1.50 per carton. The study also indicated that increasing minimum size restrictions could help raise returns.
The Committee believes percentage of size regulation has been effective in stabilizing prices, both f.o.b. and on-
The University of Florida, Citrus Research and Education Center published an estimated cost of production per acre for the 2000-2001 season. The cost to produce Florida citrus fruit for the fresh market was estimated at $882.25 per acre for the SunRidge area, or the interior of the State, $907.72 per acre for the Gulf production area, and $974.46 per acre for the Indian River area, or the Atlantic coast region. Using an average of these estimates, it cost approximately $921 per acre to cultivate citrus for the fresh market in 2000-2001. This average represents a somewhat lower cost of production than what most growers of red seedless grapefruit experience because a major share of production is in the Indian River area.
During the past five seasons, red seedless grapefruit production has averaged around 409 boxes per acre. Based on the cost of production above, and the number for the average boxes per acre, growers need to earn a total on-tree value (fruit going both to the fresh market and to processing) of approximately $2.25 per box in order to break even. For the three seasons prior to the use of percentage of size regulation, the total on-tree value averaged $1.78 per box. Comparatively, for the seasons with regulation, 1997-98 through 2000-01, the on-tree value averaged $2.36 per box.
On-tree prices for fresh red seedless grapefruit have also been higher during seasons with percentage of size regulation than for the three seasons prior to regulation. The average on-tree price for fresh red seedless grapefruit was $4.30 for the seasons 1997-98 through 2000-01 with percentage of size regulation compared to $3.08 for the three years prior to regulation. Small growers have struggled the last eight seasons to receive returns near the cost of production. For many, these higher returns mean the difference between profit and loss.
Another benefit of percentage of size regulation has been in maintaining higher prices for the larger-sized fruit. At the start of the season, larger-sized fruit command a premium price. In some cases, the f.o.b. price is $4 to $10 more a carton than for the smaller sizes. The last three seasons, the f.o.b. price for a size 27 has averaged around $13.50 per carton in October. This compares to an average f.o.b. price of around $5.80 per carton for a size 56 during the same period. In the three years before the issuance of a percentage size regulation, the f.o.b. price for large sizes dropped to within $1 or $2 of the f.o.b. price for small sizes by the middle of the season due to the oversupply of small sizes.
Percentage of size regulation has helped sustain the price differential, maintaining higher prices for the larger-sized fruit. During the three years before regulation, the average differential between the carton price for a size 27 and a size 56 was $3.47 at the end of October. However, by mid-December the price for the larger size had dropped to within $1.68 of the price for the smaller-size fruit. In the five years with percentage of size regulation, the average differential between the carton price for a size 27 and a size 56 was $5.44 at the end of October, was $3.87 in mid-December, and remained at $3.49 the first week in April.
The margins between the prices for the various sizes of red grapefruit have remained fairly constant throughout the seasons covered under percentage of size regulation. According to the Economic Analysis and Program Planning Branch (EAPP), USDA, if the domestic market becomes glutted with too many small sized grapefruit (48 and 56), these margins would be negatively impacted and total grower returns would be reduced.
The goal of this percentage of size rule is to reduce the volume of the least valuable fruit in the market and strengthen grower prices and revenues. Without this rule, the fresh grapefruit market will become glutted with small sized fruit, which will have a negative impact on prices for larger sized fruit and grower returns. Absent this rule, the price margins between sizes (23, 27, 32, 36, 40, 48, and 56) will diminish and ultimately result in lower grower returns. This rule is intended to fully supply all markets for small sizes with fresh red seedless grapefruit size 48 and 56, while avoiding oversupplying these markets to the detriment of grower revenues.
Shipments during the 22 weeks covered by this regulation account for nearly 60 percent of the total volume of red seedless grapefruit shipped to the fresh market. Considering this volume and the very limited returns from grapefruit for processing, it is important that returns from the fresh market be maximized during this period. Even a small increase in price when coupled with the volume shipped represents a significant increase in the overall return to growers.
The Committee believes percentage of size regulation has also helped stabilize the volume of small sizes entering the fresh market. During deliberations in past seasons, the Committee considered how shipments of small sizes had effected the market. Based on available statistical information, Committee members concluded that once shipments of sizes 48 and 56 reached levels above 250,000 cartons per week, prices declined on those and most other sizes of red seedless grapefruit. The Committee believed if shipments of small sizes are maintained at around or below 250,000 cartons a week, prices will stabilize and demand for larger, more profitable sizes will increase.
The last five seasons during the weeks regulated by a percentage of size regulation, the weekly shipments of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit remained near or below 250,000 cartons for 90 percent of the regulated weeks. There has also been a 43 percent reduction in the volume of small sizes entering the fresh market during the weeks regulated from the 1995-96 season to the 2000-01 season.
An economic study done by Florida Citrus Mutual (Lakeland, Florida) in April 1998, also found that weekly percentage regulation was effective. The study stated that part of the strength in early season pricing appeared to be due to the use of the weekly percentage rule to limit the volume of sizes 48 and 56. It said prices were generally higher across the size spectrum with sizes 48 and 56 having the largest gains, and larger-sized grapefruit registering modest improvements. The rule shifted the size distribution toward the higher-priced, larger-sized grapefruit, which helped raise weekly average f.o.b. prices. It further stated that sizes 48 and 56 grapefruit accounted for around 27 percent of domestic shipments during the same 11 weeks during the 1996-97 season. Comparatively, sizes 48 and 56 accounted for only 17 percent of domestic shipments during the same period in 1997-98, as small sizes were used to supply export customers with preferences for small-sized grapefruit.
In addition to the success of previous regulations, there are other surrounding circumstances that warrant the consideration of the establishment of percentage of size regulation. The production area was up until June, suffering through a period of insufficient rainfall. It is unclear how this will affect the sizing of the crop. However, it is possible that it may produce a larger volume of small-sized red seedless grapefruit, further intensifying the problem with small sizes.
Problems with the European and Asian markets could also impact the volume of small sizes available. In past seasons, these markets have shown a strong demand for the smaller-sized red seedless grapefruit. However, the reduction in shipments to these areas experienced during the last few years is expected to continue during the upcoming season. This could result in a greater amount of small sizes for remaining markets to absorb.
The condition of the market for processed grapefruit is also a consideration. Approximately 52 percent of red seedless grapefruit on average is used for processing, with the majority being squeezed for juice. However, this outlet offers limited returns and currently is not profitable. Statistics from the Florida Department of Citrus (FDOC) show there is currently a 43-week inventory of processed red seedless grapefruit juice from last season. By the start of the season, it is projected that over 32 weeks worth of juice will remain in inventory. This is expected to have an additional negative impact on returns.
For the 2000-2001 season, on-tree returns were negative for processed red seedless grapefruit. During the last five years, only 1999-2000 produced on-tree returns for processed red seedless grapefruit that exceeded one dollar per box. When on-tree returns for processed grapefruit drop below a dollar, there is pressure to shift a larger volume of the overall crop to the fresh market to benefit from the higher prices normally paid for fresh fruit. Over the period from 1977 through 2000, the differential between fresh prices and processed prices has averaged $3.55 per box. Consequently, growers prefer to ship grapefruit to the fresh market.
A fair percentage of red seedless grapefruit shipped for processing tend toward the smaller sizes. When returns for processed red grapefruit are low, an additional volume of small sizes could be shifted toward the fresh market, further aggravating problems with excessive volumes of small sizes. Due to current inventories, on-tree prices for processed red seedless grapefruit for the 2002-03 season will most likely mirror prices from past seasons and remain below a dollar. This could force an additional volume of small sizes toward the fresh market.
Further, red seedless grapefruit production continues to exceed demand. This has contributed to the low returns and led to economic abandonment of grapefruit. According to information from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the seasons of 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, and 2000-01 had an average economic abandonment of two million boxes or more of red seedless grapefruit. Data for the 2001-02 season will not be published until September. However, it is likely that some economic abandonment did occur last season. Economic abandonment and prices falling below the cost production support the use of percentage of size regulation to control the volume of small sizes. The percentage of size regulation has an impact and is intended to make the most economically viable fruit available to the fresh market without oversupplying small-sized fruit. These considerations further support the need to control the volume of small sizes during the season to prevent the volume of small sizes from overwhelming all markets.
The Committee believes the problems associated with an uncontrolled volume of small sizes entering the market will recur without regulation and that establishing weekly percentages during the last five seasons has proven successful. Consequently, the Committee recommended weekly percentages be established for all 22 weeks of the regulatory period, beginning at 45 percent for the first two weeks, 35 percent for weeks 3 through 19, and 40 percent for weeks 20, 21, and 22.
The Committee considered the percentages set last year as a basis for discussing this year's percentages. Committee members believed relaxing last season's percentages from the most restrictive level allowed of 25 percent had worked well, providing some restriction while affording volume for those markets that prefer small sizes. Also, while the Committee has in past seasons initially voted to set weekly percentages at 25 percent, the Committee has never maintained the percentages at the 25 percent level, but has always relaxed the percentages closer to the start of the season.
Drawing on this experience, the Committee decided to make its initial recommendations for each of the 22 weeks at levels higher than 25 percent. The recommended percentages closely approximate the final percentages recommended last season. The percentages are the same as last season for weeks 1, 2, 3, 19, 21, and 22, represent a 5 percent increase for weeks 4 through 10 and weeks 15 through 18 and for week 20, and represent a 5 percent decrease for weeks 11 through 14. All are within 5 percent of those recommended last season.
More information helpful in determining the appropriate weekly percentages will be available after August. At the time of the May meeting, grapefruit had just begun to size, giving little indication as to the distribution of sizes. Only the most preliminary of crop estimates was available, with the official estimate not to be issued until October. Further, the first reports on how the crop is sizing will not be available until after September. Consequently, the Committee believes it is best to set regulation at these levels, and then relax the percentages later in the season if conditions warrant.
The Committee recognized that they could meet again during the regulation period, as needed, and use the most current information to consider adjustments in the weekly percentage rates. This will help the Committee make the most informed decisions as to whether the established percentages are appropriate. Any changes to the weekly percentages set by this rule will require additional rulemaking and the approval of USDA.
During deliberations in past seasons, Committee members concluded that once shipments of sizes 48 and 56 reached levels above 250,000 cartons a week, prices declined on those and most other sizes of red seedless grapefruit. The Committee believed if shipments of small sizes are maintained at around or below 250,000 cartons a week, prices should stabilize and demand for larger, more profitable sizes should increase.
The Committee considered the 250,000-carton level when recommending the weekly percentages. The first two weeks are set high at 45 percent because it is likely there will only be a limited volume shipped. In the last four seasons, shipments of sizes 48 and 56 have never exceeded 250,000 cartons during the first two weeks. Setting weekly percentages at 35 percent for the majority of weeks provides a total available allotment of around 269,150 cartons (35 percent of the total industry base of approximately 769,000 cartons) per week. While this is slightly more than 250,000 cartons, it is unlikely all available allotment will be used each week, and this allows individual handlers some additional flexibility.
The Committee believes the volume of small red seedless grapefruit available will have a detrimental effect on the market if it is not controlled. Members believe the problems successfully addressed by percentage of size regulation the last five seasons will return without regulation. Consequently, the Committee believes weekly percentage of size regulation should be established for each of the 22 weeks of the regulatory period. Therefore, this rule establishes weekly percentages at 45 percent for the first two weeks, 35 percent for weeks 3 through 19, and at 40 percent for weeks 20 through 22. The Committee plans to meet as needed during the 22-week period to ensure that the weekly percentages are at the appropriate levels.
While the recommendation to establish percentage of size regulation was accepted by a majority of Committee members, some raised concerns about export markets and the loan and transfer system. These concerns provided the basis for the two Committee members who opposed the Committee's recommendation.
One area of concern was the impact this regulation may have on exports. One member stated that market share was being lost in Europe to Turkey and Israel. The purpose of this regulation is not to eliminate the marketing of sizes 48 and 56, but rather to prevent the over shipment of such sizes from saturating all markets.
In making its recommendations, the Committee recognized that markets exist for small sizes. That is why they recommended limiting the volume of small sizes instead of eliminating them. The Committee considered the markets available for small sizes and set a weekly percentage sufficient to address these markets. The weekly percentages are set to allow handlers enough volume of small sizes to meet the markets that prefer them, such as the export market, while preventing an oversupply that effects other markets. Also, there are provisions to handle potential allotment shortfalls an individual handler might have. These include loans and transfers, or using the allowances for over shipment.
In terms of exports of red seedless grapefruit, volume the last two seasons has averaged around 13,832,750 cartons according to the Florida Department of Agriculture (FDOA). Based on information available on sizes exported, the last two seasons sizes 48 and 56 have averaged 42 percent of the exports of red seedless grapefruit (FDOA). On average, 53 percent of exports occur after the end of the 22 week regulated period. Industry members have stated that the largest markets for small sizes do not usually start until late January or in February. This would skew the volume of small sizes exported toward the latter part of the season where there are no limitations on small sizes. Consequently, that would mean a greater percent of small sizes are shipped after regulation. Therefore, using the 42 percent figure to calculate the volume of small sizes shipped during the first 22 weeks is probably close or exceeds the actual percentage represented by small sizes for those weeks.
For the 22 weeks of regulation, when total weekly exports were multiplied by 42 percent to estimate the volume of small sizes exported each week, total allotment available during the 22 weeks as established by the percentages in this rule exceeds the calculated weekly volume of small sizes exported during each regulation week. In addition, the higher percentages recommended by the Committee for the last three weeks of the regulatory period will also help provide additional allotment as the major export period begins. Thus, the allotment of small sizes provided under this rule should be sufficient to service export demand for small sizes, allowing Florida to maintain those markets.
In regards to foreign competitors taking markets from Florida, available information indicates that this should not be a significant problem. The UF-IFAS study determined that foreign competition is minimal. It also inferred that even in cases of tightened standards, foreign competitors are not likely to take market share from Florida. Information from the Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, and the Florida Department of Citrus indicate production and fresh shipments are of limited quantities in both Israel and Turkey. Current statistics show their available volume would significantly limit their ability to consistently impact Florida's market share. Total production of grapefruit in Israel is less than 18 percent of the Florida grapefruit crop while Turkey's is less than 8 percent. Turkey and Israel may have lower transportation costs due to their closer proximity to Europe.
Another concern was the loans and transfers system. One member expressed concern about the fairness of the program and the availability of allotment for loans and transfers. The purpose of loans and transfers is to promote the movement of allotment between those who have allotment but no fruit to those with fruit but no allotment. It is an individual handler's responsibility to try to locate available allotment when they need it. Last season, there were 451 loans and transfers representing 645,386 cartons. Nearly all grapefruit handlers participated in the loan and transfer process last season.
In some weeks, there was more allotment available than in others. However, the purpose of this regulation is to limit the volume of small sizes that are entering the fresh market. The allotment available is calculated using the prior period so that when the Committee considers establishing percentage of size regulation they have a good idea of the total allotment made available each week by establishing different percentages. By allowing loans and transfers, a greater share of the total allotment available each week can be utilized. This allows the actual shipments of small sizes to closely approximate the shipments the Committee believes the market can handle when it recommends weekly percentages. Without loans and transfers there would be less volume available and the regulation would be more restrictive.
After considering the concerns expressed, and the available information, the Committee determined that this rule was needed to regulate shipments of small sized red seedless grapefruit.
Under § 905.153, the quantity of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit a handler may ship during a regulated week is calculated using the set weekly percentage. A handler's allotment of small sizes is calculated by taking the weekly percentage times the average weekly volume of red seedless grapefruit handled by such handler in the previous five seasons. The product is that handler's total allotment of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit for the given week. This average week is the base for each handler for each of the 22 weeks of the regulatory period. Handlers can fill their allotment with size 56, size 48, or a combination of the two sizes such that the total of these shipments is within the established limits. The Committee staff performs the specified calculations and provides them to each handler.
The regulatory period begins the third Monday in September, September 16, 2002. Each regulation week begins Monday at 12 a.m. and ends at 11:59 p.m. the following Sunday.
Section 905.153(d) provides the allowances for overshipments, loans, and transfers of allotment. These tolerances allow handlers the opportunity to supply their markets while limiting the impact of small sizes.
The Committee can also act on behalf of handlers wanting to arrange allotment loans or participate in the transfer of allotment. Repayment of an allotment loan is at the discretion of the handlers' party to the loan. The Committee will inform each handler of the quantity of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit they can handle during a particular week, making the necessary adjustments for overshipments and loan repayments.
Section 8e of the Act requires that whenever grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements are in effect for certain commodities under a domestic marketing order, including grapefruit, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable requirements. This rule does not change the minimum grade and size requirements under the order, only the percentages of sizes 48 and 56 red grapefruit that may be handled. Therefore, no change is necessary in the grapefruit import regulations as a result of this action.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 75 grapefruit handlers subject to regulation under the order and approximately 11,000 growers of citrus in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, including handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Based on industry and Committee data, the average annual f.o.b. price for fresh Florida red seedless grapefruit during the 2001-02 season was approximately $7.12 per
The over shipment of small-sized red seedless grapefruit contributes to poor returns and lower on-tree values. This rule limits the volume of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit shipped during the first 22 weeks of the 2002-03 season by establishing weekly percentages for each of the 22 weeks, beginning September 16, 2002. This rule sets the weekly percentages at 45 percent for weeks 1 and 2, 35 percent for week 3 through week 19, and at 40 percent for weeks 20, 21, and 22. The quantity of sizes 48 and 56 red seedless grapefruit that may be shipped by a handler during a particular week is calculated using the percentages set. This action supplies enough small red seedless grapefruit, without saturating all markets with small sizes. This action will help stabilize the market and improve grower returns. This rule uses the provisions of § 905.153. Authority for this action is provided in § 905.52 of the order. The Committee recommended this action on a vote of 14 in favor and 2 opposed at a meeting on May 22, 2002.
The Committee believes there will continue to be an oversupply of red seedless grapefruit and that the volume of small sizes available will continue to be a problem in the 2002-03 season. The Committee also believes that fruit size for the 2002-03 season will continue to follow the trend toward smaller sizes as seen in the past few years and will have an abundant number of small sized fruit. Consequently, the Committee voted to utilize the provisions of § 905.153 and establish percentage size regulation for each of the 22 weeks of the regulatory period.
While the establishment of volume regulation may necessitate additional spot picking, which could entail slightly higher harvesting costs, in most cases this is already a standard industry practice. In addition, with spot picking, the persons harvesting the fruit are more selective and pick only the desired sizes and qualities. This reduces the amount of time and effort needed in sorting fruit, because undersized fruit is not harvested. This may result in a cost savings through reduced processing and packing costs. In addition, because this regulation is only in effect for part of the season, the overall effect on costs is minimal. Consequently, this rule is not expected to appreciably increase costs to producers.
If a 25 percent restriction on small sizes had been applied during the 22-week period for the three seasons prior to the 1997-98 season, an average of 3.1 percent of overall shipments during that period would have been constrained by regulation. A large percentage of this volume most likely could have been replaced by larger sizes for which there are no volume restrictions. Under regulation, larger sizes have been substituted for smaller sizes with a nominal effect on overall shipments.
In addition, handlers can transfer, borrow or loan allotment based on their needs in a given week. Handlers also have the option of over shipping their allotment by 10 percent in a week, provided the over shipment is deducted from the following week's shipments. Approximately 451 loans and transfers were utilized last season. Statistics for 2001-02 show that, in only 2 weeks of the regulated period was the total available allotment used. Therefore, with the weekly percentages for the majority of weeks set slightly higher than for last season, the overall impact of this regulation on total shipments should be minimal.
The Committee believes establishing percentage of size regulation during the 2002-03 season will have benefits similar to those realized under past regulations. Handlers and producers have received higher returns under percentage of size regulation. In the three seasons prior to the first percentage of size regulation in 1997-98, prices of red seedless grapefruit fell from a weighted average f.o.b. price of $7.80 per carton in October to a weighted average f.o.b. price of $5.50 per carton in December. In the five seasons utilizing percentage of size regulation, red seedless grapefruit maintained higher prices throughout the season with a weighted average f.o.b. price of $8.03 per carton in October, to an average f.o.b. price of $7.01 per carton in December, and remained at around $6.70 in April. Average prices for the season have also been higher during seasons with percentage of size regulation. The average season price for red seedless grapefruit was $7.00 for the
On-tree earnings per box for fresh red seedless grapefruit have also improved under regulation, providing better returns to growers. The average on-tree price for fresh red seedless grapefruit was $4.30 for the seasons 1997-98 through 2000-01 with percentage of size regulation, compared to $3.08 for the three years prior to regulation. Small growers have struggled the last eight seasons to receive returns near the cost of production. For many, the higher returns mean the difference between profit and loss.
Shipments during the 22 weeks covered by this regulation account for nearly 60 percent of the total volume of red seedless grapefruit shipped to the fresh market. Considering this volume and the very limited returns from grapefruit for processing, it is imperative that returns from the fresh market be maximized during this period. Even a small increase in price when coupled with the volume shipped represents a significant increase in the overall return to growers.
Even if this action was only successful in raising returns by $.10 per carton, this increase in combination with the substantial number of shipments generally made during this 22-week period, would represent an increased return of nearly $1.4 million. Consequently, any increased returns generated by this action should more than offset any additional costs associated with this regulation.
The purpose of this rule is to help stabilize the market and improve grower returns. Percentage of size regulation is intended to reduce the volume of the least valuable fruit in the market, and shift it to those markets that prefer small sizes. This regulation helps the industry address marketing problems by keeping small sizes (sizes 48 and 56) more in balance with market demand without glutting the fresh market with these sizes.
This rule provides a supply of small-sized red seedless grapefruit sufficient to meet market demand, without saturating all markets with these small sizes. This action is not expected to decrease the overall consumption of red seedless grapefruit. With supply in excess of demand, this rule is not expected to impact consumer prices or demand. The benefits of this rule are expected to be available to all red seedless grapefruit growers and handlers regardless of their size of operation. This rule will likely help small under-capitalized growers who need additional weekly revenues to meet operating costs.
The Committee considered several alternatives to taking this action. One alternative was to establish the weekly percentages at 25 percent for all weeks and adjust the percentages later in the season as was done in previous seasons. This alternative was rejected as the Committee drew on past experiences and sought to provide handlers with specific shipping percentages earlier in the season to allow them greater flexibility in formulating marketing plans in a timely manner.
Another alternative discussed was to provide each handler with the equivalent of one extra week of allotment to use any time during the season and to eliminate loans and transfers. This would have allowed a handler to over-ship any quantity of small sizes up to his extra allotment in one week or divided up through the season. The Committee believed that if prices were at a premium, most handlers would take advantage of these higher prices and ship well over what the market channels could absorb. This alternative was also rejected.
Other alternatives considered centered around setting the weekly percentages at levels different than those recommended. After discussion, the Committee agreed on the percentages established in the rule. Members thought it was best to set regulation at these levels, and then relax the percentages later in the season if conditions warrant. The Committee recognized that they could meet again during the regulation period, as needed, and use the most current information to consider adjustments in the weekly percentage rates. Therefore, these alternative percentages were also rejected.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements contained in this rule have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sectors.
USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. However, red seedless grapefruit must meet the requirements as specified in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Florida Grapefruit (7 CFR 51.760 through 51.784) issued under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 through 1627).
The Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the citrus 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 22, 2002, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
This rule invites comments on limiting the volume of small red seedless grapefruit entering the fresh market during the first 22 weeks of the 2002-03 season. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim final 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 upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tangelos, Tangerines.
7 U.S.C. 601-674
This section establishes the weekly percentages to be used to calculate each handler's weekly allotment of small sizes. Handlers can fill their allotment with size 56, size 48, or a combination of the two sizes such that the total of these shipments are within the established weekly limits. The weekly percentages for size 48 (3 9/16 inches minimum diameter) and size 56 (3 5/16 inches minimum diameter) red seedless grapefruit grown in Florida, which may be handled during the specified weeks, are as follows:
Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Interim rule.
This rule implements the Commodity Credit Corporation's “Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops” program to help open, retain, and expand markets for U.S. specialty crops.
This rule is effective September 10, 2002. Comments concerning this rule should be received on or before November 12, 2002 to be assured consideration. Commodity Credit Corporation has published elsewhere in this issue a notice announcing that proposals to this program will be accepted until 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, September 18, 2002.
Comments must be submitted to Director, Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, Room 4932-S, Stop 1042, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042.
Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, Room 4932-S, Stop 1042, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042, or telephone: (202) 720-4327.
This rule is issued in conformance with Executive Order 12866. It has been determined significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
It has been determined that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not applicable to this rule because the Commodity Credit Corporation is not required by any provision of law to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with respect to the subject matter of this rule.
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule would have preemptive effect with respect to any State or local laws, regulations or policies which conflict with such provisions or which otherwise impede their full implementation; does not have retroactive effect; and does not require administrative proceedings before suit may be filed.
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which require intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. See the notice related to 7 CFR part 3014, subpart V, published at 48 FR 29115 (June 24, 1983).
This rule contains no Federal mandates under the regulatory provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
In accordance with section 3507(j) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 and to: Director, Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, Room 4932-S, Stop 1042, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, D.C. 20250-1042.
Copies of this information collection may be obtained from Kimberly Chisley, FAS Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 720-2568.
All responses to this notice will be summarized. All comments will also become a matter of public record.
It has been determined that this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on States or their political subdivisions, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
It has been determined that this rule should be issued as an interim rule, without prior comment, but subject to modification on the consideration of those comments that are timely received. The Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program is authorized by section 3205 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171), which became effective on May 13, 2002. That section provides that the Secretary of Agriculture shall establish a program to address unique barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of United States specialty crops and that the Secretary shall make available $2,000,000 of CCC funds for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007. It has been determined that to delay the implementation of the rule pending comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. That finding is based on the fact that, given the limited time remaining in this fiscal year, it is not possible for organizations to develop appropriate proposals for the new $2 million program and for the Department to adequately evaluate these new proposals through a meaningful allocation process. We do not believe that a compressed schedule that would result following adoption of a final rule after an initial proposed rule would give potential new applicants enough time to gather information and prepare a proposal. In addition, the Department would be forced to shorten its competitive review processes. In other words, the Department might not be able to allocate the resources as required by section 3205 of Public Law 107-171. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, it has been determined that the provisions of this rule should be made effective immediately.
The CCC will periodically announce that proposals may be submitted for participation in a “Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops” program (TASC), which will be administered by personnel of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). On May 13, 2002, the President signed the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. Section 3205 of that Act directs the Secretary to establish an export assistance program to address unique barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. specialty crops. The statute directs the Secretary to make available $2,000,000 of CCC resources for TASC in each of fiscal years 2002 through 2007. U.S. specialty crops, for the purpose of this rule, include all cultivated plants, or the products thereof, produced in the U.S., except wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, peanuts, sugar, and tobacco.
The TASC is designed to assist U.S. organizations by providing funding for projects that address sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical barriers that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. specialty crops. TASC proposals will be accepted from any U.S. organization, including, but not limited to: U.S. government agencies, State government agencies, non-profit trade associations, universities, agricultural cooperatives, and private companies. FAS will consider providing either grant funds as direct assistance to U.S. organizations or providing technical assistance on behalf of U.S. organizations provided that the organization submits timely and sufficient proposals. CCC has published elsewhere in this issue a notice announcing that proposals to this program for fiscal year 2002 will be accepted until 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, September 18, 2002. For fiscal year 2002, FAS will review all proposals against the evaluation criteria contained herein and make awards on a continuing, or rolling, basis.
Under the TASC program, CCC will enter into agreements with those non-Federal entities whose proposals have been approved. After implementation of a TASC project for which CCC has agreed to provide funding, participants may submit claims for reimbursement of the costs associated with completing the project, to the extent that CCC has agreed to pay such costs. A TASC participant will be reimbursed after CCC reviews its claim and determines that the claim is complete. TASC projects will be subject to verification by the FAS Compliance Review Staff. Upon request, a TASC participant shall provide to FAS the original documents that support the participant's project expenses. FAS may deny a claim for reimbursement if the claim is not supported by adequate documentation. TASC participants may request advances of funds up to 85 percent of the approved amount. In such cases, reimbursement claims will be used to offset the advanced funds. TASC participants must deposit and maintain advances in insured, interest-bearing accounts, unless such accounts are prohibited by law or custom of a host country.
Agricultural commodities, Exports, Specialty crops.
Sec. 3205 of Pub. L. 107-171.
For purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:
Under the TASC program, CCC, an agency and instrumentality of the United States within the Department of Agriculture, provides funds to eligible organizations, on a grant basis, to implement activities that are intended to address a sanitary, phytosanitary, or related technical barrier that prohibit or threaten the export of U.S. specialty crops that are currently available on a commercial basis. The TASC program is intended to benefit the represented industry rather than a specific company or brand. This program is administered by FAS.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(a)
(b)
(1) Organizational information, including:
(i) Organization's name, address, Chief Executive Officer (or designee), and Federal Tax Identification Number (TIN);
(ii) Type of organization;
(iii) Name, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address of the primary contact person;
(iv) A description of the organization and its membership; and
(v) A description of the organization's experience in technical assistance projects, including activities involved and project results.
(2) Project information, including:
(i) A brief project title;
(ii) Request for funding;
(iii) A market assessment, including a brief description of the specific export barrier to be addressed by the project;
(iv) The goals of the project, and the expected benefits to the represented industry;
(v) A description of the activities planned to address the export barrier;
(vi) An itemized list of all estimated costs associated with the project for which reimbursement will be sought; and
(vii) Information indicating all financial and in-kind support to the proposed project, and the resources to be contributed by each entity that will contribute to the project's implementation. This may include the organization that submitted the proposal, private industry entities, host governments, foreign third parties, CCC, FAS, or other Federal agencies. Support may include cash, goods, and services. Although highly encouraged, financial support from the participant is not required.
(3) Export information, including:
(i) Performance measures for three years, beginning with the year that the project would begin, which will be used to measure the effectiveness of the project;
(ii) A benchmark performance measure for the year prior to the year that the project would begin; and
(iii) The viability of long-term sales to this market.
(a)
(1) The degree to which time is essential to addressing specific export barriers;
(2) The nature of the specific export barrier and the extent to which the proposal is likely to successfully remove, resolve, or mitigate that barrier;
(3) The impact of the proposed project on market retention, market access, and market expansion;
(4) The completeness and viability of the proposal;
(5) The ability of the organization to provide an experienced staff with the requisite technical and trade experience to execute the proposal;
(6) The extent to which the proposal is targeted to a market in which the United States is generally competitive;
(7) The potential for expanding commercial sales in the targeted market; and
(8) The cost of the project and the amount of other resources dedicated to the project, including cash and goods and services of the U.S. industry and foreign third parties.
(b)
Following approval of a proposal, CCC will enter into an agreement with
CCC will publish a notice periodically in the
(a)
(b)
(c)
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This notice confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which establishes Class D Airspace at Stillwater Municipal Airport, Stillwater, OK.
The direct final rule published at 67 FR 46584 is effective 0901 UTC, October 3, 2002.
Joseph R. Yadouga, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5597.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This notice confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which establishes Class E Airspace at Scott Field Airport, Mangum, OK.
The direct final rule published at 67 FR 46585 is effective 0901 UTC, October 3, 2002.
Joseph R. Yadouga, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5597.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.
This notice confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E Airspace at Springhill Airport, Springhill, LA.
The direct final rule published at 67 FR 46586 is effective 0901 UTC, October 3, 2002.
Joseph R. Yadouga, Airspace Branch, Air Traffic Division, Southwest Region, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, TX 76193-0520, telephone: 817-222-5597.
The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting Amendment.
This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD 8925), which were published in the
January 4, 2001.
Mary Beth Collins (202) 622-3080 or Daniel Carmody (202) 622-3050 (not toll-free numbers).
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 708 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, final regulations (TD 8925) contains errors which may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805. * * *
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Final and temporary regulations.
This document contains temporary regulations that modify the existing regulations promulgated under section 7602(a) of the Internal Revenue Code relating to administrative summonses. Specifically, these temporary regulations confirm that officers and employees of the Office of Chief Counsel may be included as persons designated to receive summoned books, papers, records, or other data and to take summoned testimony under oath. The text of these temporary regulations serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the notice of proposed rulemaking on this subject in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the
Elizabeth Rawlins at (202) 622-3630 (not a toll-free number).
This document contains temporary regulations amending the Procedure and Administration Regulations (26 CFR part 301) under section 7602 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). The governing provision, section 7602(a)(2) of the Code, has not changed. The temporary regulations reflect three changes regarding the persons who may be designated to receive summoned books, papers, records, or other data or to take testimony under oath. While IRS examiners will continue to be responsible for developing and conducting examinations, these changes
The temporary regulations define an officer or employee of the IRS, for purposes of identifying those persons who may receive summoned information or take testimony under oath, to include all persons who administer and enforce the internal revenue laws or any other laws administered by the IRS, and who are appointed or employed by, or subject to the directions, instructions, or orders of the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary's delegate. This amendment confirms that officers and employees of the Office of Chief Counsel may be designated as persons authorized to take testimony under oath and to receive summoned books, papers, records, or other data.
The temporary regulations also expressly provide that more than one person may be designated to receive summoned information or to take testimony under oath during a summoned interview. Finally, the temporary regulations eliminate the language in the existing regulations suggesting that a summons document needs to designate the specific officer or employee who is authorized to take testimony under oath and to receive and examine books, papers, records, or other data. The statute does not require that such a designation appear in the summons. Moreover, at times it is necessary for a summoned interview to be conducted by an officer or employee other than the one who may be identified in the summons document.
It has been determined that this Treasury decision is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. In addition, because no prior notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do not apply. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this temporary regulation will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
The principal author of this regulation is Elizabeth Rawlins of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Collection, Bankruptcy and Summonses Division.
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(b)
(a) For further guidance, see § 301.7602-1(a).
(b)
(2)
(c) For further guidance,
(d)
Coast Guard, DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects a final rule published in the
This correction becomes effective September 10, 2002. The effective date of 33 CFR 165.167, created
Lieutenant Luis E. Martinez, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York, at (718) 354-4193, or James McLeod, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law, at 202-267-6233.
The heading of the Safety Zone; East River, Manhattan, NY, final rule published September 4, 2002, on page 56488 of the
Accordingly, the final rule published September 4, 2002, as FR Doc. 02-22494, [docket number CGD01-02-090], is corrected as follows: On page 56488, in the heading, “RIN 2115-AE84” is corrected to read “RIN 2115-AA97”.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
The EPA is taking direct final action to revise the geographical boundaries of the three Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) in the State of Louisiana, which are the Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas AQCR, the Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler AQCR, and the Monroe-El Dorado AQCR. The EPA is also taking direct final action to shorten the ozone season for the Monroe-El Dorado and Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler AQCRs, from year-round, to March 1 through October 31. EPA is taking this action in response to a June 12, 1995, letter from the Governor of Louisiana requesting that EPA revise the AQCR boundaries and ozone seasons in order to provide for more effective and efficient air quality management in the State of Louisiana.
This rule is effective on November 12, 2002 without further notice, unless we receive adverse comment by October 10, 2002. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours in advance.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, H. B. Garlock Building, 7290 Bluebonnet Blvd., Baton Rouge, LA 70810.
Joe Kordzi of the EPA Region 6 Air Planning Section at (214) 665-7186 and at the address above.
Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
In this rulemaking, we are approving a June 12, 1995, request from the Governor of Louisiana to:
1. Revise the geographical boundaries of the three AQCRs in the State, and;
2. Shorten the ozone season, for the Louisiana parishes located in two of these AQCRs, from year-round to March 1 through October 31.
The Governor requested these revisions to the AQCR boundaries and ozone ambient air monitoring seasons in order to maximize the staff resources dedicated to providing air quality control services to the citizens of the State.
The ozone monitoring season is currently year-round for all three AQCRs.
In this rulemaking, we are taking direct final action to:
1. Transfer Avoyelles, Rapides and Vernon Parishes from the Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas AQCR to the Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler AQCR;
2. Transfer Grant Parish from the Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas AQCR to the Monroe-El Dorado AQCR; and
3. Shorten the ozone season, for the Monroe-El Dorado and Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler AQCRs, from year-long (January 1 through December 31) to March 1 through October 31.
The EPA designates boundaries of AQCRs under section 107 of the Federal Clean Air Act (Act), and codifies them at 40 CFR part 81, subpart B (Designation of Air Quality Control Regions). A Governor may request, under section 107(e) of the Act, a realignment of the AQCRs in the State if the realignment will provide for more efficient and effective air quality management.
40 CFR 58.13(a)(3) allows EPA Regional Administrators to exempt particular periods or seasons from the requirements to collect ambient air quality data at State and Local Ambient
Moving four parishes from the Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas AQCR to the northern Louisiana AQCRs will change the overall boundaries for all three interstate AQCRs (019, 022, and 106). However, these changes do not affect to which AQCRs the counties in Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas are assigned. Revising the ozone monitoring season for those Louisiana parishes assigned to AQCRs 019 and 022 does not alter the official monitoring seasons for the States of Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma.
A State must obtain permission from the Governor of a neighboring State to revise an AQCR if EPA determines that the realignment will significantly affect the air pollution concentrations in the neighboring State. (See section 107(e) of the Act.) We have determined that the Louisiana AQCR realignments will not significantly impact air quality in the neighboring States because:
1. The four Louisiana parishes being moved are currently in compliance with the one-hour ozone NAAQS, and;
2. The affected parishes' inventories of anthropogenic, or man-made, precursor emissions (
Thus, we believe that coordination with the neighboring States is not required in order to approve this revision to the Louisiana AQCR boundaries.
As stated above in part IV of this rulemaking, either a State, EPA Regional Office, or EPA Headquarters may request a revision to a State's ozone season. Coordination among States is not required in order for Regional Administrators to grant such requests for exemption or waiver from the requirements to collect ambient ozone air quality data. We have determined that the revision to the ozone monitoring season for the northern Louisiana parishes (in AQCRs 019, 022) is appropriate because historical one- and 8-hour ozone data indicate that ozone exceedences are extremely unlikely to occur outside the months of March through October.
The State's request to shorten the ozone season, for AQCRs 019 and 022, included an analysis of historical (1987-1993) one-hour ozone data collected at both SLAMS and NAMS monitoring sites in Louisiana. As recommended by EPA's “Guideline on Modification to Monitoring Seasons for Ozone (March 1990),” we reviewed the monitoring data submitted to determine the potential for one-hour ozone exceedences throughout the year, and concluded that modification to the ozone season, from year-round to March 1 through October 31, was appropriate. We also reviewed more recent (1994-2001) one-hour ozone data to ensure that the monitors in northern Louisiana had not exceeded the 1-hour NAAQS outside the months of March through October since the State had submitted its request.
On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated the 8-hour ozone standard (62 FR 38856)
Therefore, we are agreeing with Louisiana's conclusions that shortening the ambient ozone monitoring season for AQCRs 019 and 022, from year-round to March 1 through October 31, will provide significant cost savings for the State without reducing the effectiveness of the ozone monitoring program. Since this action affects two NAMS sites located in these AQCRs, we have coordinated our approval of the revised ozone season with EPA Headquarters.
As recommended in the new ozone season guidance, we will periodically review the historical 8-hour ozone data following this change to the ozone season to determine whether the March 1 through October 31 monitoring season is still appropriate.
We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's
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
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 November 12, 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. (
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
1. The authority citation for part 58 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
2. Part 58, Appendix D, section 2.5: the table entitled “Ozone Monitoring Season By State” is amended by revising the entry for Louisiana to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
In the State of Louisiana: Acadia Parish, Allen Parish, Ascension Parish, Assumption Parish, Beauregard Parish, Calcasieu Parish, Cameron Parish, East Baton Rouge Parish, East Feliciana Parish, Evangeline Parish, Iberia Parish, Iberville Parish, Jefferson Davis Parish, Jefferson Parish, Lafayette Parish, Lafourche Parish, Livingston Parish, Orleans Parish, Plaquemines Parish, Pointe Coupee Parish, St. Bernard Parish, St. Charles Parish, St. Helena Parish, St. James Parish, St. John the Baptist Parish, St. Landry Parish, St. Martin Parish, St. Mary Parish, St. Tammany Parish, Tangipahoa Parish, Terrebonne Parish, Vermilion Parish, Washington Parish, West Baton Rouge Parish, West Feliciana Parish.
3. Section 81.92 is amended by revising the entry for Louisiana to read as follows:
In the State of Louisiana: Caldwell Parish, Catahoula Parish, Concordia Parish, East Carroll Parish, Franklin Parish, Grant Parish, La Salle Parish, Madison Parish, Morehouse Parish, Ouachita Parish, Richland Parish, Tensas Parish, Union Parish, West Carroll Parish.
4. Section 81.94 is amended by revising the entry for Louisiana to read as follows:
In the State of Louisiana: Avoyelles Parish, Bienville Parish, Bossier Parish, Caddo Parish, Claiborne Parish, De Soto Parish, Jackson Parish, Lincoln Parish, Natchitoches Parish, Rapides Parish, Red River Parish, Sabine Parish, Vernon Parish, Webster Parish, Winn Parish.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The EPA is granting Oregon final authorization for revisions to the Oregon hazardous waste program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended. The Agency published a proposed rule on June 17, 2002 at 67 FR 41207 proposing to authorize revisions to the Oregon hazardous waste program and provided for public comment. The public comment period ended on July 17, 2002. We received comments, addressed below. After reviewing the comments, we hereby determine that Oregon's hazardous waste program revisions satisfy all requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. EPA is authorizing the State's changes through this final action. No further opportunity for public comment will be provided.
Final authorization for the revisions to Oregon's hazardous waste management program shall be effective on September 10, 2002.
Lynn Williams, U.S. EPA Region 10, Office of Waste and Chemicals Management, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop WCM-122, Seattle, WA, 98101; (206) 553-2121. For general information available on the authorization process, see EPA's Web site at:
States which have received final authorization from EPA under RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous waste program that is equivalent to and consistent with the Federal program. States are required to have enforcement authority which is adequate to enforce compliance with the requirements of the authorized State hazardous waste program. Under RCRA section 3009, States are not allowed to impose any requirements which are less stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes, States must change their programs and ask EPA to authorize the changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs because of changes to EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.
Commenters from the State of Washington and the State of Oregon submitted a joint comment alleging that EPA: (1) should have provided a public hearing for the proposed authorization of revisions to the Oregon hazardous waste program; (2) may be sanctioning activities by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ), specifically provisions under 40 CFR 266.20, for which ODEQ lacks statutory authority; and (3) may be granting authority for Oregon to implement regulations and/or statutes that are less stringent than federal rules with respect to waste-derived fertilizers. EPA's responses to these comments are provided below.
EPA is authorizing a revision of the Oregon hazardous waste program, and is not required to hold a hearing when a revision to the authorized state hazardous waste program is proposed in the
Commenters alleged that ODEQ lacks statutory authority to implement regulations, in particular 40 CFR 266.20, arguing that the State's definition of waste-derived fertilizers at ORS 633.311 exempts waste-derived fertilizers from the definition of solid waste and therefore from RCRA regulation. ORS 633.311(28) defines “waste-derived product” to mean “any fertilizer, agricultural mineral, agricultural amendment or lime product derived in whole or in part from hazardous waste as defined in ORS 466.005(7) or in rules adopted thereunder, solid waste as defined in ORS 459.005(24) or in rules adopted thereunder, or industrial waste as defined in ORS 468B.005(2) or in rules adopted thereunder.” The definition excludes biosolids and reclaimed water or treated effluent.
The Oregon hazardous waste program was authorized for 40 CFR 266.20, which the State incorporated by reference into its hazardous waste regulations, in the 1994 revision to the authorized program. This provision, 40 CFR 266.20, was not the subject of the revision authorization in EPA's proposed rule at 67 FR 41207 (June 17, 2002), except that EPA proposed to authorize a change to the State program analog to 40 CFR 266.20(c), OAR 340-100-0002 and 340-101-0001, regarding anti-skid, deicing use of slags from high temperature metals recovery processing of certain hazardous wastes. EPA reviewed the State's statutory authority prior to proposing the revision to the authorized hazardous waste program and did not find any lack of authority relative to the State's ability to implement the State regulation. With respect to the impact of ORS 633.311 on the State regulations for hazardous wastes “used in a manner constituting disposal,” commenters assume that State fertilizer registration requirements altered the State's jurisdiction over waste-derived fertilizer. This is not the case. ORS 633 adds certain fertilizer and other soil-enhancing product registration and labeling requirements to Oregon's agricultural requirements but does not alter the definition of solid or hazardous waste in ORS 466.005(7) and the implementing State regulations. The State hazardous waste regulations and the federal RCRA regulations, including 40 CFR 266.20, incorporated by reference in the State regulations pursuant to State statutory authority at ORS 466, are not displaced by State statutory provisions concerning fertilizers and other soil-enhancing products.
Commenters allege that ORS 633.311(28), Oregon's statutory definition of waste-derived fertilizer, is less stringent than federal rules because the definition exempts waste-derived fertilizer products from the definition of solid waste. Commenters point to State statutory provisions at ORS 466.067 in support of their allegation. ORS 466.067 pertains to the modification of PCB or hazardous waste permits to allow for recycling operations. The statute allows ODEQ to issue a permit modification authorizing a recycling operation at a hazardous waste or PCB treatment or disposal facility located off the site of waste generation at which ORS 466.055 (definitions for ORS 453.635 and 466.005 to 466.385) and ORS 466.060 (criteria to be met by owner and operator before issuance of permit) will not apply at these facilities provided the owner or operator obtains a determination from ODEQ that, in accordance with federal RCRA, as amended, “the recycling operation is legitimate and will produce material that is exempt from the definition of solid waste.” Neither ORS 466.067 nor 633.311(28) expressly exempt waste-derived fertilizer products from the definition of solid waste. The associated rules in ORS Chapter 633 set out licensing and labeling requirements for fertilizer, agricultural mineral, agricultural amendment and lime products. ORS 466.067 requires that ODEQ's determination of legitimate recycling operations which will be exempt from the definition of solid waste be made in accordance with federal RCRA. EPA's RCRA authorities regulate fertilizers made from recycled hazardous wastes and EPA's rules classifying hazardous secondary materials used in a manner constituting disposal, including use as fertilizers, allow EPA to classify such materials as solid waste. EPA's rules, specifically 40 CFR 261.3(e)(2)(i), define materials used in a manner constituting disposal, or used to produce products that are applied to the land, as solid wastes, even if the recycling involves use, reuse, or return of the material to the original process. Consequently, because ODEQ's determination that a legitimate recycling operation is exempted from the definition of solid waste is bounded by the statutory requirement to make that determination in accordance with federal RCRA, ODEQ would not have statutory authority to exempt solid waste used in a manner constituting disposal which are applied to the land from the definition of solid wastes. EPA, by the statutory definition of solid waste and by regulation based on the statutory definition, identifies such materials as solid waste and ODEQ would also have to identify such materials as solid waste. Oregon's statutory definition does not per se exempt waste-derived fertilizer products from the definition of solid waste and Oregon's statutory definition of waste-derived fertilizer is not less stringent than the federal rules.
We conclude that Oregon's application to revise its authorized hazardous waste program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements established by RCRA. Therefore, we are granting Oregon final authorization to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in the authorization application and as described in this final rule. Regulatory revisions which are less stringent than Federal program requirements and those regulatory revisions which are broader in scope than Federal program requirements are not authorized.
Oregon will be responsible for carrying out the aspects of Oregon's authorized hazardous waste program described in Oregon's revised program application, subject to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) and the limitations of this authorization. Oregon's authorized program does not extend to Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction and authority to implement RCRA over Indian country and over trust lands.
New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal regulations that EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA are implementable and enforceable by EPA and take effect in States with authorized programs before such programs are authorized for the requirements. Thus, EPA will implement and enforce those
The effect of this decision is that a facility in Oregon subject to RCRA must comply with the authorized State program requirements and with the federal HSWA provisions for which the State is not authorized and RCRA requirements that are not supplanted by authorized state-issued requirements, in order to comply with RCRA. Oregon continues to have enforcement responsibilities under its State hazardous waste program for violations of its authorized program. EPA retains and continues to have independent enforcement authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003, which include, among others, authority to:
• Do inspections and require monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports;
• Enforce RCRA requirements, including State program requirements that are authorized by EPA and any applicable Federally-issued statutes and regulations, and suspend or revoke permits; and
• Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State has taken its own actions.
This final action approving these revisions does not impose additional requirements on the regulated community because the regulations for which Oregon's program is being authorized by today's action are already effective under State law.
Oregon initially received final authorization on January 30, 1986, effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3779), to implement the State's hazardous waste management program. Oregon received authorizations for revisions to its program on March 30, 1990, effective on May 29, 1990 (55 FR 11909); August 5, 1994, effective October 4, 1994 (59 FR 39967); June 16, 1995, effective August 15, 1995 (60 FR 31642); and October 10, 1995, effective December 7, 1995 (60 FR 52629).
EPA is granting final authorization for the revisions to Oregon's federally authorized program described in Oregon's official program revision application submitted to EPA in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21 on February 4, 2002, and deemed complete by EPA on March 7, 2002. We now make a final determination that Oregon's hazardous waste program revisions, as described in this rule, satisfy the requirements necessary to qualify for final authorization. Regulatory revisions which are less stringent than Federal program requirements and those regulatory revisions which are broader in scope than Federal program requirements are not authorized.
The Oregon Hazardous Waste Management Program, which was administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), Waste Prevention and Management Division, reorganized effective October 1, 2001 and is now administered by the DEQ Land Quality Division. This rule authorizes this reorganization.
The following table, Table 1, identifies equivalent and more stringent State regulatory analogues to the Federal regulations for those regulatory revisions Oregon is being authorized for today. All of the referenced analogous State authorities were legally adopted and effective as of July 21, 2000.
This section discusses some of the differences between the revisions EPA is authorizing in Oregon's hazardous waste program and the Federal regulations. Not all program differences are discussed in this section because, although Oregon incorporates many Federal rules by reference, the State also writes its own version of many of the federal hazardous waste rules. This section discusses certain rules where EPA makes a determination that the State program is more stringent and rules where the State program is broader in scope. The State is not authorized for less stringent rules or broader in scope rules. Less stringent State rules and broader in scope rules do not supplant federal regulations. Persons should consult the table referenced above for the specific State regulations which EPA proposes to authorize.
Certain portions of the federal program are not delegable/authorizable to the States because of the Federal government's special role in foreign policy matters and because of national concerns that arise with certain decisions. One such matter pertains to import/export functions. EPA does not delegate/authorize import/export functions. Under the RCRA regulations found in 40 CFR Part 262, Standards for Generators, EPA will continue to implement requirements for import/export functions. EPA does not delegate/authorize certain of the Federal Land Disposal Restriction requirements, 40 CFR Part 268, because of the national concerns that must be examined when decisions are made under the following federal regulations; these include: 40 CFR 268.5—Procedures for case-by-case effective date extensions; 40 CFR 268.6—“No migration” petitions; 40 CFR 268.42(b)—applications for alternate treatment methods; and 40 CFR 268.44(a)-(g)—general treatment standard variances. Oregon's program does not include these requirements. EPA will continue to implement these requirements under EPA's HSWA authority.
States are allowed to seek authorization for State requirements that are more stringent than federal requirements. EPA has authority to authorize and enforce those parts of a State's program EPA finds to be more stringent than the federal program. This section does not discuss each more stringent preliminary finding made by EPA, but persons can locate such sections by consulting the Table, referenced above, as well as by reviewing the authorization application.
Oregon has enacted several requirements under its hazardous waste management program for which EPA has determined the requirements are more stringent than the standards of the Federal RCRA program set forth in 40 CFR parts 260-279.
States sometimes make changes to their previously authorized programs for which they need to seek reauthorization. Oregon made such a change to its rules for availability of information. The State program requirement at OAR 340-100-0003,
The State program regulation at OAR 340-101-0004(3) is determined to be more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 261.4(g), Dredged Materials, in that the State program deletes 40 CFR 261.4(g) from its incorporation of the federal regulations by reference. Consequently, the State program does not exclude dredged material from regulation as a solid waste subject to a hazardous waste determination. Because the dredged materials exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(g) replaced existing regulations that subjected such materials to a hazardous waste determinations, State programs were allowed the option of choosing to change their regulations to include the dredged materials exclusion or not. Those that selected not to include the exclusion are more stringent than the federal program once authorized because EPA promulgated the dredged materials exclusion as a less stringent requirement.
The State program regulation at OAR 340-102-0011(3) is determined to be more stringent than the federal program regulation at 40 CFR 262.11 because generators of hazardous waste in Oregon must keep documentation of “knowledge of process” hazardous waste determinations for at least three years.
The State program at OAR 340-102-0034(2) is determined to be more stringent than the federal regulation at 40 CFR 262.34 as it adds additional requirements, which does not replace or supercede the requirement to have a permit in the event a generator has not met the conditions under 40 CFR 262.34 to allow the generator to operate without a permit.
The State program at OAR 340-102-0040, replacing the requirements of 40 CFR 262.40(b), is determined to be more stringent than the federal program because the State program requires small quantity generators both to report waste generated (OAR 340-102-0041) and to maintain copies of all reports on waste generated for three years.
The State program is determined to be more stringent at OAR 340-104-0001(6) than the federal program with respect to facilities receiving hazardous waste from offsite because the State program requires that facilities receive a final waste permit before managing offsite hazardous wastes. The federal program allows facilities with interim status to receive offsite hazardous waste.
The State program is determined to be more stringent than the federal program with respect to the federal HWIR media rule because the State regulations do not allow for the use of Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) as found in the federal requirements at 40 CFR part 270, subpart H. The State regulations at OAR 340-105-0003 delete from their incorporation by reference of the federal regulations those regulations allowing for RAPs. Oregon inadvertently incorporated 40 CFR 270.230(e)(1) by reference but did not seek and is not authorized for the provision.
The State program is determined to be more stringent than the federal program with respect to the federal Post Closure (PC) rule (63 FR 56710) because the State program specifically excluded the PC rule from its incorporation by reference of the federal regulations at OAR 340-100-0002.
The State program is determined to be more stringent in certain places than the federal regulations promulgated in EPA's Military Munitions Rule (62 FR 6622). With respect to the hazardous waste management system in Oregon, the State hazardous waste program added definitions for “demilitarization” and “demilitarization residue” at OAR 340-100-0010(2)(f) and (g) in Oregon's analog to 40 CFR 260.10. These definitions are specific to the processes and activities at the Umatilla Chemical Depot and are determined to be more stringent than the federal program.
With respect to chemical agent munitions and chemical agent bulk items in storage, the State program identifies such chemical agent munitions and chemical agent bulk items in storage as characteristic and/or listed hazardous waste at OAR 340-101-0030, referencing listings for blister agents and nerve agents at OAR 340-102-0011(c)(A) and (B). In the Military Munitions Rule, at 62 FR 6633, EPA said that States could be more stringent than the federal program for chemical agents and munitions.
Oregon's analog to 40 CFR 264.1201, OAR 340-104-1201, design and operating standards for munitions storage, is determined to be more stringent than the federal program because OAR 340-104-1201 adds additional requirements to munitions storage, including requirements for: storage unit operations and management plans; vapor containment mechanisms for nerve agent storage units; a requirement to not allow storage of munitions in an open area; and the State definition of “no migration” to mean no detectable concentration of chemical agent outside the storage unit. EPA's regulations defer the “no migration” criteria to Army management procedures which allow some detectable migration.
The State is determined to be more stringent than the federal program because the State program defines, for purposes of reportable quantities, chemical agents (such as, for example, nerve agents GB, VX, and blister agent HD) to be hazardous materials at OAR 340-108-0002(9)(c), and at OAR 340-108-0010(1)(e) reportable quantity is defined to mean any quantity of chemical agent.
The State is determined to be more stringent than the federal program in its incorporation by reference of the federal regulations at OAR 340-105-0041(3) because the State program deleted a cross-reference to the federal regulation at 40 CFR 270.42(h) and replaced the cross-reference with a citation to OAR 340-105-0041(4) which for the Umatilla Chemical Depot does not allow the acceptance of off-site shipments of munitions. The federal program does not restrict acceptance of such off-site shipments at the Umatilla Chemical Depot.
EPA has made the determination that certain of the State program regulations for universal waste are more stringent than the federal regulations.
The State regulations at OAR 340-113-0040(2)(b), (2)(b)(B), (3)(a) and (b), are determined to be more stringent than the federal regulations at 40 CFR 273.12 and 273.32(b)(5), because the State requires owners or operators of off-site universal waste collection sites accumulating more than 1,000 kg of universal waste and non-pesticide universal waste to meet the notification requirements for large quantity generators and to submit additional information with the notification. The more stringent requirements of OAR 340-113-0040(2) and (3) are not applicable under the State regulation at OAR 340-113-0040(1)(b) to persons who collect, store or transport universal waste batteries.
The State regulations at OAR 340-113-0040(3)(a) and (b) are determined to be more stringent than the federal regulations at 40 CFR 273.15(a) and (b) and 273.35(a) and (b), because the State regulations require owners and operators of off-site collection sites accumulating more than 1,000 kg of universal waste to limit the accumulation time to a six month period or to receive written approval
The State regulation at OAR 340-113-0040(4) is determined to be more stringent than the federal regulation at 40 CFR 273.19 for tracking universal waste shipments because the State regulation applies to small quantity handlers accumulating more than 1,000 kg of universal waste.
The State regulation at OAR 340-113-0040(4)(b) is determined to be more stringent than the federal regulation at 40 CFR 273.39(a) because the State regulation requires an off-site collection site to record the date the off-site universal waste was received.
The State regulation at OAR 340-113-0050(2) is determined to be more stringent than the federal regulation at 40 CFR 273.60 because the State requires annual reporting of universal waste for all destination facilities.
The State regulation at OAR 340-113-0060(2)(b) is determined to be more stringent than the federal regulation at 40 CFR 273.81(c) in listing additional factors to be considered when reviewing a petition to remove a universal waste from the universal waste rule. However, the use of such factors in the implementation of the authorized hazardous waste program cannot result in the universal waste not remaining subject to the hazardous waste regulations.
The State program is determined to be more stringent than the federal requirements at 40 CFR 279.22, Used Oil Storage, because the State regulation OAR 340-111-0032 requires generators to store used oil in accordance with applicable State and local Fire Marshal regulations and to keep rainwater from coming in contact with used oil during storage. The State program is determined to be more stringent than the federal program at 40 CFR 279.45(h), 279.54(g), and 279.64(g), because the State program at OAR 340-111-0050 requires handlers to respond to spills and releases according to more specific State requirements of OAR 340 Division 108 and requires used oil handlers to take immediate action to mitigate, report and clean up threatened spills and releases of used oil as required in OAR 340 Division 108.
States are not allowed to seek authorization for State requirements that are broader in scope than the federal requirements. EPA does not have authority to authorize and enforce those parts of a State's program which are broader in scope than the federal program. Because the State program at OAR 340-101-0004 deleted from its incorporation by reference of the federal regulations the provisions of 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7)(ii), a list of 20 wastes from the extraction, beneficiation and processing of ores and minerals (Bevill wastes) which under the federal program are solid wastes that are not hazardous wastes, EPA has made the determination that the State program is broader in scope than the federal program with respect to these solid wastes.
The State program incorporated by reference rules that classified mineral processing characteristic sludges and byproducts being stored prior to being reclaimed as solid wastes and subjected manufactured gas plant waste to characterization under the toxicity characteristic regulations. The Federal regulations, 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3) second parenthetical, 40 CFR 261.4(a)(17) as it referenced secondary materials rather than spent materials, and 40 CFR 261.24 as it applied to manufactured gas plant waste, were subsequently revised (67 FR 11251, March 13, 2002) because of a court vacatur of certain provisions of the regulations. Because of the vacatur, EPA cannot authorize the rules; thus EPA has made the determination that the State is broader in scope because the State program regulations at OAR 340-100-0002 incorporated the federal rules by reference as those rules existed before the vacatur.
The State incorporated by reference at OAR 340-224-0220 the federal regulation at 40 CFR 63.1210(b) which was vacated on July 24, 2001. EPA has made the determination that the State hazardous waste program is broader in scope to the extent, if at all, the State hazardous waste regulations reference or cross-reference the vacated federal rule.
The State regulations define “pesticide residue” at OAR 340-100-0010. The State interprets “pesticide residue” to include state-only pesticides which are state-only hazardous wastes and outside the scope of the federal regulations. A generator of state-only pesticide residues may designate such residues as “waste pesticide” and manage the residues in a manner consistent with the universal waste management standards of OAR Division 113, under a state water pollution control facility permit, at a Subpart C facility as allowed by OAR 340-109-0010(4)(a) or in a Subpart D facility provided land disposal restrictions were met. Portions of the State definition for universal waste, OAR 340-113-0020(4) are determined to be broader in scope than the federal regulations at 40 CFR 260.10 and 273.9 by the addition of “waste pesticides,” which as defined by the State at OAR 340-109-0001(2)(a), are those not subject to regulation as hazardous waste under the federal regulations at 40 CFR parts 260 to 270. Portions of the State definition of “universal waste,” OAR 340-113-0020(4), are also determined to be broader in scope where the definition includes “pesticide residues” that are not part of the federal program.
The State regulation at OAR 340-113-0010(1)(a), in addition to wastes covered by 40 CFR 273.3, adds waste pesticides and pesticide residues to the applicability section of the universal waste rules. This addition is determined to be broader in scope where such waste pesticides or pesticide residues would not be part of the federal program.
Oregon will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is authorized and will administer the permits it issues. All permits, or portions of permits, issued by EPA Region 10 prior to final authorization of this revision will continue to be administered by EPA Region 10 until the issuance or re-issuance after modification of a State RCRA permit and until EPA takes action on its permit or portion of permit. HSWA provisions for which the State is not authorized will continue in effect under the EPA-issued permit or portion of permit. EPA will continue to issue permits, or portions of permits, for HSWA requirements for which the State program in Oregon is not yet authorized.
EPA's decision to authorize the hazardous waste program does not include any land that is, or becomes after the date of this authorization, “Indian Country,” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes: (1) All lands within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within or abutting the State of Oregon; (2) Any land held in trust by the U.S. for an Indian tribe; and (3) Any other land, whether on or off an Indian reservation that qualifies as Indian country. Therefore, this action has no effect on Indian country. EPA retains jurisdiction over “Indian Country” as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151 and will continue to implement and administer the RCRA program in Indian country.
Codification is the process of placing the State's rules that comprise the
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and therefore, a decision to authorize Oregon's hazardous waste program for these revisions is not subject to review by OMB. This action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Authorization will not impose any new burdens on small entities. Accordingly, I certify that these revisions 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 action will 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), because it merely authorizes State requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without altering the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on environmental health or safety risks. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply Distribution or Use” (66 FR 28344, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. The final rule does not include environmental justice issues that require consideration under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Under RCRA 3006(b), EPA grants a State's application for authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. This final rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste transportation, Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This action is issued under the authority of sections 2002(a), 3006 and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
The Commission adopted a Report and Order amending several of the Commission's rules regarding the provision of international telecommunications services. Because an error was made in the publication of the final rule, this document contains a correction to the final rule document which was published in the
Effective September 10, 2002.
Peggy Reitzel, Telecommunications Division, International Bureau, (202) 418-1499.
On July 9, 2002, the
11. Section 63.21 is amended by removing paragraph (h), redesignating paragraphs (i) and (j) as paragraphs (h) and (i), and by revising newly redesignated paragraph (i) to read as follows:
(i) An authorized carrier, or a subsidiary operating pursuant to paragraph (h) of this section, that changes its name (including the name under which it is doing business) shall notify the Commission by letter filed with the Secretary in duplicate within
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure; request for comments.
NMFS announces that the commercial fishery for all salmon except coho in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border was closed at midnight on July 26, 2002. The Northwest Regional Administrator, NMFS (Regional Administrator), determined that the quota of 1,500 chinook salmon had been reached. This action was necessary to conform to the 2002 management goals.
Closure in the area from Humbug Mountain to the Oregon-California border, effective 2359 hours local time (l.t.), July 26, 2002, until 0001 hours l.t., August 1, 2002. Comments will be accepted through September 25, 2002.
Comments on these actions must be mailed or faxed to D. Robert Lohn, Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Bldg. 1, Seattle, WA 98115-0070, facsimile 206-526-6376; or
Rod McInnis, Acting Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, NOAA, 501 W. Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4132, facsimile 562-980-4018.
Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or the Internet. Information relevant to this document is available for public review during business hours at the Office of the Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NMFS.
Christopher Wright, 206-526-6140.
The Regional Administrator closed the commercial fishery in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border effective at midnight on Friday, July 26, 2002. Information provided on July 26, 2002, estimated that the quota of 1,500 chinook salmon had been reached. Automatic season closures based on quotas are authorized by regulations at 50 CFR 660.409(a)(1).
In the 2002 annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (67 FR 30616, May 7, 2002), NMFS announced that the commercial fishery for all salmon except coho in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border would open July 1, 2002, through the earlier of July 30, 2002, or a 1,500-chinook quota. The fishery would then reopen on August 1, 2002, through the earlier of August 29, 2002, or a 3,000-chinook quota; and September 1, 2002, through the earlier of September 30, 2002, or a 2,000-chinook quota.
On July 26, 2002, the Regional Administrator consulted with representatives of the Pacific Fishery Management Council and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) by conference call. Information related to catch to date, the chinook catch rate, and effort data indicated that it was likely that the quota had been reached. As a result, the State of Oregon recommended, and the Regional Administrator concurred, that the commercial fishery in the area from Humbug Mountain, OR to the Oregon-California Border close effective at midnight on Friday, July 26, 2002. All other regulations that apply to this fishery remain in effect as announced in the 2002 annual management measures and subsequent inseason actions.
The Regional Administrator determined that the best available information indicated that the catch and effort data, and projections, supported the above inseason action recommended by the ODFW. The states manage the fisheries in state waters adjacent to the areas of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in accordance with this Federal action. As provided by the inseason notice procedures of 50 CFR 660.411, actual notice to fishers of the above described action was given prior to the effective date by telephone hotline number 206-526-6667 and 800-662-9825, and by U.S. Coast Guard Notice to Mariners broadcasts on Channel 16 VHF-FM and 2182 kHz.
This action does not apply to other fisheries that may be operating in other areas.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds that good cause exists for this notification to be issued without affording prior notice and opportunity for public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), or delaying the effectiveness of this rule for 30 days under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), because such notification and delay would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As previously noted, actual notice of this action was provided to fishers through telephone hotline and radio notification. This action complies with the requirements of the annual management measures for ocean salmon fisheries (67 FR 30616, May 7, 2002) and the West Coast Salmon Plan. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment is impracticable because NMFS and the state agencies have insufficient time to allow for prior notice and the opportunity for public comment between the time the fishery catch and effort data are collected to determine the extent of the fisheries, and the time the fishery closure must be implemented to avoid exceeding the quota. Moreover, such prior notice and the opportunity for public comment is contrary to the public interest because not closing the fishery upon attainment of the quota would allow the quota to be exceeded, resulting in fewer spawning fish and reduced yield of the stocks. The 30-day delay in effectiveness required under U.S.C. 553(d)(3) is also hereby waived due to the immediate need to stop a fishery upon attainment of a quota.
This action is authorized by 50 CFR 660.409 and 660.411 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Announcement of effectiveness of a collection-of-information requirement.
NMFS announces the effectiveness of a collection-of-information requirement for participants in the Hawaii-based longline limited access fishery, whereby in the event an endangered short-tailed albatross is accidentally hooked or entangled during fishing operations, NMFS or the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be notified immediately. Recovery information on short-tailed albatross, which is retrieved from the ocean by a Hawaii-based longline vessel, must be recorded on a data form provided by NMFS. If the retrieved short-tailed albatross is dead or dies on board the vessel, information tags must be attached to the carcass and specimen bag.
Paragraphs 660.35(b)(4)(i), 660.35(b)(6), and 660.35(b)(8) of the final rule published May 14, 2002 (67 FR 34408), are effective October 10, 2002.
Alvin Z. Katekaru, Pacific Islands Area Office, NMFS, 808-973-2937.
On May 14, 2002 (67 FR 34408), NMFS published a final rule that promulgated a regulatory amendment, under the Fishery Management Plan for the Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region, permanently codifying seabird take mitigation measures in the Hawaii-based longline fishery. Section 660.35 (Pelagic longline seabird mitigation measures) of that final rule contains a collection-of-information requirement for any vessel registered for use under a Hawaii longline limited access permit. Immediate notification must be provided to NMFS, the USCG, or the USFWS of any hooking or entanglement of an endangered short-tailed albatross during longline fishing operations. If the albatross is retrieved dead or dies on board the vessel, an identification tag must be attached directly to the carcass listing the species, location, and date of mortality, and band number if the bird has a leg band. A duplicate identification tag must be attached to the specimen bag or container holding the carcass. If the retrieved short-tailed albatross is alive, the condition of the bird must be recorded on a recovery data form provided by NMFS. The information may be used by a veterinarian in providing advice to the vessel operator and crew on the care and recovery of an injured short-tailed albatross.
In the final rule, NMFS requested comments on the reporting burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection-of-information requirements that are in this final rule. No comments were received on the collection-of-information requirements.
Because the notification and reporting activities constitute a collection-of-information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, it could not be enforced prior to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Delayed enforcement of §§660.35(b)(4)(i), 660.35(b)(6), and 660.35(b)(8) was announced in the May 14, 2002, final rule pending OMB approval of short-tailed albatross interaction notification and reporting procedures. OMB has approved the collection-of-information requirement under OMB control number 0648-0456. Sections 660.35(b)(4)(i), 660.35(b)(6), and 660.35(b)(8) are effective September 30, 2002, and will be enforced from that date on.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of public workshop, document availability, and opportunity for comment.
The Department of Energy (DOE) announces a public workshop to discuss whether Fischer-Tropsch diesel (FTD) fuels meet the energy security and environmental criteria of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) and to resolve a number of technical and EPAct implementation issues relating to this fuel. DOE has prepared an analysis, “Discussion of Issues Pertinent to Rulemaking to Designate FTD Fuels as Alternative Fuel Under Section 301(2) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992,” that summarizes the various issues related to evaluation of FTD fuels against the EPAct criteria. DOE encourages interested parties to respond to these questions and submit related analysis and data as requested in the document in the form of written comments, which will be discussed at the workshop. The discussion paper finds that there is a basis for designating certain FTD fuels as alternative fuels, but identifies a number of outstanding questions and data gaps.
To be considered at the workshop, comments must be received by October 10, 2002. The public workshop will be held in Washington, DC, beginning at 9:30 a.m. on October 16, 2002.
Requests to speak at the workshop and a copy of your statement must be received no later than 4 p.m., October 1, 2002. We request that you also provide an e-mail of your statement by October 8, 2002.
All comments on the discussion paper and workshop must be received by November 15, 2002.
The workshop will begin at 9:30 a.m., on October 16, 2002, in Room 1E-245 at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Submit written comments, oral statements, and requests to speak at the workshop to Linda Bluestein, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, Docket No. EE-RM-02-200, EE-2G, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. You may send e-mail to:
Copies of the discussion paper and related DOE laboratory analyses, petitions, and any public comments can be found at the at the website address
Linda Bluestein on (202) 586-9171, or
Title III, section 301(2) of EPAct includes the definition of “alternative fuel.” That definition states: “Alternative fuel” means methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures containing 85 percent or more (or such other percentage, but not less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary, by rule, to provide for requirements related to cold start, safety, or vehicle functions) by volume of methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels; natural gas, including liquid fuels domestically produced from natural gas; liquefied petroleum gas; hydrogen; coal-derived liquid fuels; fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biological materials; electricity (including electricity from solar energy); and
DOE has conducted technical analyses to help make a determination as to whether certain non-domestically produced FTD fuels meet the requirements as an “alternative fuel” under EPAct, and to resolve a number of technical issues relating to DOE's understanding of how these fuels might satisfy EPAct requirements. This notice of DOE's discussion paper and upcoming workshop constitutes the next step in the technical review which will lead to making that determination by way of a notice of proposed rulemaking.
The action DOE is undertaking is partly in response to three petitions DOE has received for a rulemaking to consider adding FTD fuels to the definition of “alternative fuels” under the Alternative Fuel Transportation Program (Program) regulations (10 CFR part 490). These petitions have been submitted by Mossgas (PTY) Limited, Syntroleum Corporation, and Rentech, Inc. Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel is diesel fuel made from natural gas or other carbon-bearing feedstocks using the Fischer-Tropsch process. The three petitioners are proposing that their FTD
DOE has had national laboratory contractors conduct a technical review of pertinent issues regarding FTD fuel, including review of the three petitions. This technical review involved independent verification and findings related to the claims made in these petitions about FTD fuel in the following areas: (1) Whether the fuel is substantially not petroleum; (2) whether the fuel would yield substantial energy security benefits; and (3) whether the fuel would yield substantial environmental benefits. In addition to the FTD discussion paper, technical support documents by DOE laboratories and contractors are available in the docket for review and comment.
DOE is interested inpromulgating a non-company specific, or generic, designation for FTD fuels. Therefore, information and data from the individual petitions are being viewed in aggregate, along with other industry data, engineering analyses, and other analysis. After completion of its technical review, if it is determined FTD fuels meet the EPAct section 301(2) criteria, DOE by rule would add any non-domestically produced FTD fuels to the list of “alternative fuels” under the Program. Should non-domestic FTD fuels fail to meet the criteria, they would not be considered as “alternative fuels” under the Program.
FTD fuels are made from carbon-bearing feedstocks (such as natural gas or coal) using the Fischer-Tropsch process. The resulting diesel fuel is essentially sulfur-free and can be used in any diesel vehicle without modification.
The Fischer-Tropsch process for producing diesel fuel can be separated into three main parts: the production of synthesis gas from the main feedstock; the catalytic reaction which converts the synthesis gas into hydrocarbon components; and the refining of these hydrocarbon components into diesel fuel. Production of synthesis gas is accomplished by reforming the feedstock through partial oxidation reforming, autothermal reforming, or steam reforming. Autothermal reforming can be done with the use of ambient air, enriched air, or pure oxygen.
The catalytic reaction converting synthesis gas into liquid hydrocarbons is performed by reacting the synthesis gas in the presence of an iron or cobalt catalyst. The end products of the catalytic reaction are long-chain hydrocarbons, which can then be refined using conventional refinery techniques into FTD fuels.
The main chemical processes of the Fischer-Tropsch method are exothermic and produce waste heat. This waste heat can be radiated to the surrounding environment or can be used to produce steam, either for resale to local electricity generation plants or for the direct generation of electricity at the Fischer-Tropsch plant.
All three of the petitioning companies use (or plan to use) natural gas as the main feedstock for the production of Fischer-Tropsch diesel. Rentech is also examining the possibility of using coal as an alternate feedstock, and states that petroleum refinery bottoms can also be used. The Syntroleum autothermal reformer uses ambient air to produce synthesis gas, while the Mossgas process uses a combination of steam reforming and oxygen-fired secondary reforming to produce synthesis gas. Rentech calls for either partial oxidation reforming or autothermal reforming, depending on the feedstock used (coal would require the use of partial oxidation reforming), and use of pure oxygen. Both Rentech and Mossgas use iron catalysts in producing the heavy hydrocarbons from synthesis gas, while Syntroleum is using a proprietary cobalt-based catalyst. For the purposes of determining whether to designate FTD fuels, DOE is looking specifically at natural gas as the feedstock to be used in production of the fuels.
Issues related to production, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions from processing FTD fuels are included in the discussion paper at the website address listed above. DOE believes that FTD fuels have potential to offer substantial environmental benefits if greenhouse gas emissions are not increased substantially and some other environmental issues are addressed.
DOE seeks comment on the following issues that may be relevant to any future DOE decision to propose the designation of non-domestically produced Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel made from natural gas as an alternative fuel under the Alternative Fuel Transportation Program. (These questions are posed in the context of the FTD discussion paper. It is recommended that interested parties intending to submit comments or participate in the workshop read the FTD discussion paper at the website address
1. How should DOE define natural gas-based diesel fuels, and particularly FTD fuels, if designation is ultimately limited to that process?
2. DOE requests comments on analysis provided by the Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), which will be used for making a determination regarding designation of FTD fuels. DOE also requests that interested parties submit any additional emissions data not cited in the NREL report.
3. Should DOE set process energy use limits in its EPAct designation process to ensure that qualifying FTD fuels provide substantial energy security benefits? If so, which levels are appropriate?
4. How should DOE balance its determinations about designating fuels if the fuels provide substantial benefits in some areas with regard to section 301(2) criteria, while being a slight detriment to others (
5. DOE requests comments on findings in NREL's report about NO
6. DOE is seeking additional data on actual test and control fuels for FTD when used in later-model diesel engines to gauge how fuel composition affects emissions from these engines.
7. What parameters should be set for aromatics, cetane, sulfur, and other standards to assure emissions reductions based on NREL's findings or other sources of information? Also, will FTD fuels in the lower end of the aromatics range result in materials compatibility problems and should polyaromatic content be included in addition to, or in lieu of, a limit on total aromatics? Should paraffin content be used to assure emissions reductions, and if so, do both normal- and iso-paraffin content need to be specified?
8. There are various ways DOE might designate fuels with relation to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The discussion paper located at the website address listed above suggests three such ways to view this question. DOE requests comments on which option would be most appropriate, and what levels of GHG emissions should be set if a particular option is chosen.
9. DOE seeks any information and data collected about toxicity issues and ecotoxicity/biodegradability issues related to FTD.
10. DOE requests comments on limiting oxygenated compounds in FTD fuels or suggestions on alternative approaches. Possibilities are outlined in the discussion paper.
11. Are any of FTD fuels' characteristics sufficiently unique to justify inclusion of specific additives to assure that inherent environmental benefits are not degraded or negated due to negative impacts on engine components or emission control systems?
12. Are there other issues that DOE should consider related to Fischer-Tropsch diesel fuel production and use relative to its possible designation as an alternative fuel?
The Department invites interested persons to participate in DOE's technical review of FTD fuels by submitting data, comments, or information with respect to the proposed issues set forth in the FTD discussion paper and subsequent workshop to Linda Bluestein, at the address indicated at the beginning of this notice. We will consider all submissions received by the date specified at the beginning of this notice.
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1004.11, anyone submitting information or data that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit one complete copy of the document, as well as two copies, if possible, from which the information has been deleted. The DOE will make its determination as to the confidentiality of the information and treat it accordingly.
You will find the time and place of the public workshop listed at the beginning of this notice. If you would like to attend the public workshop, please notify Linda Bluestein at (202) 586-9171. Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to advance security screening procedures. If you are a foreign national and wish to participate in the workshop, please inform DOE of this fact as soon as possible by contacting Linda Bluestein at (202) 586-9171 so that the necessary procedures can be completed.
The Department invites any person who has an interest in FTD fuels, or who is a representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, to make a request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation. The person making the request should state why he or she, either individually or as a representative of a group or class of persons, is an appropriate spokesperson. Please also briefly describe the nature of the interest in the rulemaking and provide a telephone number and e-mail address for contact. You may hand-deliver speaking requests to the address indicated at the beginning of this notice between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also send requests by mail or e-mail to
The Department requests that each person wishing to speak submit an advance copy of his or her statement no later than 4 p.m., October 1, 2002. DOE requests that a copy of your statement also be e-mailed by October 8, 2002. The Department, at its discretion, may permit any person wishing to speak who cannot meet this requirement to participate if that person has made alternative arrangements with the Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies in advance. The letter making a request to give an oral presentation must ask for such alternative arrangements. DOE's panel will read statements in advance of the hearing. Speakers should limit their oral presentations to 10 minutes and should specifically address DOE's technical questions (in this notice and the discussion paper) and other issues included in the rulemaking discussion paper.
The workshop will be conducted in an informal, conference style. The Department may use a professional facilitator to facilitate discussion, and a court reporter will be present to record the transcript of the meeting. We will present at the workshop information about DOE's review process, technical analyses to date, and summaries of comments received before the workshop. DOE will also allow time for presentations by workshop participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting DOE's potential determination to designate the candidate fuel. Attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions. Following the workshop, interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on the proceedings at the workshop and the FTD discussion paper. All comments must be received by November 15, 2002.
The Department will make the entire record of this notice available on the website at
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC) Model R22 helicopters. The AD would require inspecting the pitch control assembly for roughness or binding of the pitch control bearings (bearings) by hand-rotating the pitch control bearing housing (housing). If the housing does not rotate freely, the proposed AD would require replacing the unairworthy pitch control assembly with an airworthy unit. This proposal is prompted by reports of failure of the tail rotor assembly due to improperly lubricated bearings on the RHC Model R22 and R44 helicopters. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect corrosion of the bearings and prevent bearing failure, breakup of the tail rotor assembly, tail
Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-SW-44-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address:
Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone (562) 627-5232, fax (562) 627-5210.
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 should 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 will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2001-SW-44-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
This document proposes adopting an AD for RHC Model R22 helicopters. The AD would require inspecting the pitch control assembly to determine roughness or binding of the bearings by hand-rotating the housing. If the housing does not rotate freely, the proposed AD would require replacing each unairworthy pitch control assembly with an airworthy unit. This proposal is prompted by reports of failure of the tail rotor assembly due to improperly lubricated bearings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in bearing failure, breakup of the tail rotor assembly, tail rotor contact with the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
The FAA has reviewed RHC Service Bulletin SB-90A, Revision A, dated June 10, 2002, which describes procedures for inspecting the pitch control assembly to determine roughness or binding of the bearings by hand-rotating the housing. If the housing does not rotate freely, the service bulletin specifies replacing each unairworthy pitch control assembly, part number (P/N) A031-1, with an airworthy unit in accordance with the maintenance manual.
This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other RHC Model R22 helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, the proposed AD would require, within a certain time and at specified intervals, inspecting the pitch control assembly for roughness or binding of the bearings by hand-rotating the housing. If the housing does not rotate freely, the proposed AD would require, before further flight, replacing each unairworthy pitch control assembly with an airworthy unit. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates this proposed AD would affect 1300 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that it would take approximately 2.3 work hours per helicopter to inspect and replace each pitch control assembly at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $800 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $1,219,400, assuming the pitch control assembly is replaced on the entire fleet.
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 a new airworthiness directive to read as follows:
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To detect corrosion of the bearings and prevent bearing failure, breakup of the tail rotor assembly, tail rotor contact with the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 20 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the pitch control assembly for roughness or binding of the pitch control bearings by hand-rotating the pitch control bearing housing (housing) in accordance with Robinson Helicopter Company Service Bulletin SB-90A, Revision A, dated June 10, 2002. If the housing does not rotate freely, before further flight, replace the unairworthy pitch control assembly with an airworthy unit.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (LAACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, LAACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the LAACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Robinson Helicopter Company (RHC) Model R44 helicopters. The AD would require inspecting the pitch control assembly for roughness or binding of the pitch control bearings (bearings) by hand-rotating the pitch control bearing housing (housing). If the housing does not rotate freely, the proposed AD would require replacing the unairworthy pitch control assembly with an airworthy unit. This proposal is prompted by reports of failure of the tail rotor assembly due to improperly lubricated bearings on the RHC Model R22 and R44 helicopters. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to detect corrosion of the bearings and prevent bearing failure, breakup of the tail rotor assembly, tail rotor contact with the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comments must be received on or before November 12, 2002.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001-SW-45-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address:
Fred Guerin, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Airframe Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712, telephone (562) 627-5232, fax (562) 627-5210.
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 should 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 will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received.
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 mailed comments submitted in response to this proposal must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2001-SW-45-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
This document proposes adopting an AD for RHC Model R44 helicopters. The AD would require inspecting the pitch control assembly for roughness or binding of the bearings by hand-rotating the housing. If the housing does not rotate freely, this AD would require replacing each unairworthy pitch control assembly with an airworthy unit. This proposal is prompted by reports of failure of the tail rotor assembly due to improperly lubricated bearings. This condition, if not corrected, could result in bearing failure, breakup of the tail rotor assembly, tail rotor contact with the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
The FAA has reviewed RHC Service Bulletin SB-43A, Revision A, dated June 10, 2002, which describes procedures for inspecting the pitch control assembly for roughness or binding of the bearings by hand-rotating the housing. If the housing does not rotate freely, this service bulletin specifies replacing each unairworthy pitch control assembly, part number (P/N) C031-1, with an airworthy unit in accordance with the maintenance manual.
This unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other RHC Model R44 helicopters of the same type design. Therefore, the proposed AD would require, within a certain time and at specified intervals, inspecting the pitch control assembly for roughness or binding of the bearings by hand rotating the housing. If the housing does not rotate freely, this AD would require, before further flight, replacing any unairworthy pitch control assembly with an airworthy unit. The actions would be required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 440 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates that it would take approximately 2.3 work hours per helicopter to inspect and replace a pitch control assembly at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
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 a new airworthiness directive to read as follows:
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To detect corrosion of the bearings and prevent bearing failure, breakup of the tail rotor assembly, tail rotor contact with the tailboom, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 20 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS or 12 months, whichever occurs first, inspect the pitch control assembly for roughness or binding of the pitch control bearings by hand rotating the pitch control bearing housing (housing) in accordance with Robinson Helicopter Company Service Bulletin SB-43A, Revision A, dated June 10, 2002. If the housing does not rotate freely, before further flight, replace the unairworthy pitch control assembly with an airworthy unit.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (LAACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, LAACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the LAACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal and disposition of comments.
The FAA is withdrawing a portion of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 97-10 which proposed to upgrade fire safety standards for cargo or baggage compartments in certain transport category aircraft and remove Class D compartments as an alternative for future type certification. The FAA published a final rule that adopted the NPRM's proposed amendments to parts 25 and 121, but requested further comments on the issues relating to part 135. We are withdrawing the part 135 proposal based on the existing safety record and the cost/benefit analysis revised in the light of comments received.
Gary Davis, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone 202-497-4857.
Between 1946 and 1958, the FAA created five categories of baggage or cargo compartments, assigned letters A through E. In recent years there have been a number of fires in the baggage or cargo compartments of transport category airplanes, especially in Class D compartments. Both Class C and Class D compartments are airtight compartments with protective liners. Unlike Class C compartments, Class D compartments do not have fire detection or suppression capabilities. On some occasions, fires in these compartments have caused accidents and loss of life. In May 1996, a fire that originated in a Class D compartment of a McDonnell Douglas DC-9 operated by Valujet Airlines caused the aircraft to crash. As a result, 110 passengers and crewmembers lost their lives.
Class D compartments have a higher risk of an unknown fire developing and burning out of control because they
To address Class D compartment issues, the FAA established successively more restrictive standards for Class C and D compartments (51 FR 18236, May 16, 1986 and 54 FR 7384, February 17, 1989). The increase in fires in Class D compartments caused the FAA to further amend portions of 14 CFR parts 25 and 121 by requiring Class D compartments to meet the fire detection and suppression standards for Class C compartments (63 FR 8032, February 17, 1998).
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking No. 97-10 (63 FR 32412, June 13, 1997) proposed amendments to parts 25, 121, and 135 of title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations that would have eliminated Class D compartments or converted them to Class C compartments by requiring detection and suppression capability. The final rule adopted only those amendments affecting parts 25 and 121. In response to Notice No. 97-10, several commenters recommended that the FAA exclude airplanes operated under part 135 from the proposed rulemaking because of the anticipated high cost of implementation. Based on comments received to the notice, the FAA deferred the proposed amendment to part 135 pending receipt of additional information. The 1998 final rule requested responses to 13 questions related to the impact of the rulemaking on part 135 operators. The comment period closed on June 17, 1998.
The FAA received eight comments on the final rule. Generally, most of these comments are critical of the FAA's action. Some commenters suggest changes to the final rule. Others mention safety issues, such as the size of the compartments and the amount of ventilation in cargo or baggage compartments. Additional issues addressed include inadequacy of the regulatory flexibility analysis and the length of the compliance period.
The primary aim of the final rule was to prevent future fires in the baggage or cargo compartments of airplanes. The FAA noted that the size of compartments, particularly Class D compartments, was a vital factor in the spreading of fires throughout airplanes. Although the FAA originally placed limits on the size of Class D compartments, the subsequent widespread transportation of flammable aerosols in cargo compartments led to this final rule eliminating Class D compartments and converting current Class D compartments to Class C compartments by requiring detection and suppression capability.
Two commenters, including the National Air Transportation Association (NATA), discuss various aspects of compartment size. One commenter suggests that Class D compartments should be kept, but only with certain modifications. One suggests placing a more stringent limit on the size of Class D compartments compared to the limits formerly imposed by the FAA. Specifically, a maximum size of 200 cubic feet is suggested, while the former limit placed by the FAA was 1,000 cubic feet. NATA asserts that previous actions made by the FAA demonstrate that fires in cargo or baggage compartments correlate with the compartment's size. They state that transport airplane manufacturers generally limit the size of Class D compartments to only 200 cubic feet, and executive airplanes normally have a size of twenty to forty cubic feet. They assert that on-demand passenger carriers maintain closer control of the contents of baggage in Class D compartments.
NATA states that a precedent exists to exclude part 135 airplanes. They cite a 1991 amendment, Amendment 135-31, which allowed Class D compartments only if they were less than 200 cubic feet. They note that most airplanes with compartments of over 200 cubic feet would be complying under part 121. Thus, the final rule becomes repetitive and unnecessary, according to NATA.
NATA states that the FAA's regulatory flexibility analysis indicates the final rule is expected to impact only a few operators in a negligible manner. NATA contends that FAA's analysis is incomplete and insufficient. The FAA estimates that there will be only 35 unscheduled operators that will be adversely affected by this measure; however, NATA believes that there will be more than 1,500 operators adversely affected by the final rule.
Our original analysis considered factors related to all three regulatory parts of the proposal—parts 25, 121, and 135. In subsequent analysis on only part 135 factors, we determined that the cost of installation of detection and suppression equipment is not insignificant. There is no record of incident to support the need for the part 135 proposal. Based on the existing safety record and the cost/benefit analysis revised in the light of these comments, the FAA has concluded the cost of requiring part 135 operators to comply with new cargo compartment
One commenter proposes that Class D compartments should be allowed in specific areas of the airplane. He believes that they should be permitted to be located outside of the cabin pressure vessel. Such a measure, along with the installation of a fire detection system, would help avoid the spreading of fires, according to the commenter. Such compartments would be relatively small, have carefully controlled ventilation, and be located outside the cabin pressure vessel.
Based on the existing safety record and the cost/benefit analysis revised in the light of these comments, the FAA has concluded the cost of requiring part 135 operators to comply with new cargo compartment standards would not result in an increase in safety that would justify the cost. The FAA has determined that no further rulemaking action is appropriate, and is not adopting the amendment to part 135 proposed in Notice No. 97-10. Therefore, the FAA withdraws the amendment to part 135 proposed in Notice No. 97-10 published June 13, 1997 at 62 FR 32412. The amendments to 14 CFR parts 25 and 121 remain in effect as adopted in the final rule.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross reference to temporary regulations.
In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
Written comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by December 9, 2002.
Send submissions to: CC:ITA:RU (REG-134026-02), Room 5226, Internal Revenue Service, POB 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Alternatively, submissions may be hand delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to: CC:ITA:RU (REG-134026-02), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. Comments may also be submitted electronically to the IRS Internet site at
Elizabeth Rawlins at 202-622-3630 (not a toll-free number).
The temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the
It has been determined that this notice of proposed rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a regulatory assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. In addition, because this notice of proposed rulemaking does not impose a collection of information obligation on small entities, it is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6). Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the temporary regulation will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.
Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written comments (preferably a signed original and eight (8) copies) that are submitted timely to the IRS or electronically generated comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The IRS generally requests any comments on the clarity of the proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing may be scheduled if requested in writing by a person who timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the hearing will be published in the
The principal author of this regulation is Elizabeth Rawlins of the Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), Collection, Bankruptcy and Summonses Division.
Employment taxes, Estate taxes, Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read in part as follows:
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
2. Section 301.7602-1 is revised to read as follows:
[The text of this proposed section is the same as the text of § 301.7602-1T published elsewhere in this issue of the
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the drawbridge operating regulations governing the operation of the Route 82 Bridge, at mile 16.8, across the Connecticut River at East Haddam, Connecticut. This temporary rule will allow the bridge to operate on a fixed opening schedule for recreational vessels and a notice schedule for commercial vessels, from 6 a.m. on October 15, 2002 through 6 p.m. on April 30, 2004. This action is necessary to facilitate major rehabilitation of the bridge.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before October 10, 2002.
You may mail comments to Commander (obr), First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, at 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02110-3350, or deliver them to the same address between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch, maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Joseph Schmied, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, (212) 668-7165.
The Coast Guard has determined that good cause exists under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) for a shortened comment period of thirty days instead of a sixty-day comment period and for making this rule effective in less than thirty days after publication in the
The Coast Guard believes that any delay encountered in this regulation's effective date would be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest because the repairs scheduled to be performed under this temporary rule were originally scheduled to be performed in 2001, but were cancelled due to a funding shortage. Subsequent to that, the bridge has continued to deteriorate, making it necessary to perform these repairs to the bridge with all due speed to ensure the safe, reliable, and continued operation of the bridge.
The Coast Guard and the bridge owner coordinated this temporary operating schedule with the mariners that normally transit this bridge. No objections were received. A similar operating schedule was established several years ago to facilitate bridge repairs at the Route 82 Bridge with satisfactory results.
The Coast Guard believes the shortened comment period is reasonable as a result of all the above stated reasons.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments or related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-02-100), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch, at the address under
The Route 82 Bridge has a vertical clearance of 22 feet at mean high water, and 25 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.205(c), and require the bridge to open on signal at all times; except that, from May 15 to October 31, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., the bridge shall open for recreational vessels on the hour and half hour only and for commercial vessels on signal.
The Route 82 Bridge was scheduled for major repairs in the summer of 2001, but due to a funding short fall the work was delayed. Subsequent to that, the bridge has continued to deteriorate. Funding has now been made available and the necessary repairs should be performed with due speed to ensure safe, reliable, and continued operation of the bridge.
The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, has requested a temporary rule to allow the bridge to open for recreational and commercial vessels at specific times; however, commercial vessels may obtain unscheduled openings at any time provided they give a twenty-four hour notice with a two-hour confirmation to the bridge tender.
The bridge owner has also requested one seven day bridge closure, two eight-hour closures and one twenty-four hour bridge closure required to facilitate the bridge repairs. The exact dates for the above closures are not known at this time and will be determined as construction progresses. The Coast Guard plans to publish additional rulemaking once the exact times and dates of the above closures are known.
The proposed operating schedule that would be in effect at the Route 82 Bridge from 6 a.m. on October 15, 2002 through 6 p.m. on April 30, 2004, is as follows:
From November 1 through July 6, the draw would open on signal at 5:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 8 p.m., daily.
From July 7 through October 31, the draw would open on signal Monday through Thursday at 6:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 8 p.m., with one additional opening on Friday at 11:30 p.m.; three additional openings on Saturday at 9:30 a.m., 4 p.m., and 11:30 p.m.; and two
The draw shall open on signal at any time for commercial vessels provided a twenty-four hour notice with a two-hour confirmation is given.
The Coast Guard and the bridge owner have successfully coordinated the above temporary operating schedule with the mariners. The Coast Guard believes this temporary rule is reasonable as a result of the above information.
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, Feb. 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation, under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT, is unnecessary. This conclusion is based on the fact that vessels that require the bridge to open will not be prevented from transiting the bridge but will simply be required to plan their transits according to the temporary operating schedule. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under section 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This conclusion is based upon the fact that vessels that require bridge openings will not be prevented from transiting the bridge but will simply be required to plan their transits according to the temporary operating schedule. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may do so at all times.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would 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.
To help the Coast Guard establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian and Alaskan Native tribes, we published a notice in the
We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.
We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1d, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because promulgation of drawbridge regulations have been found not to have a significant effect on the environment. A written “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is not required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106 Stat. 5039.
2. From October 15, 2002, through April 30, 2004, § 117.205 is temporarily amended by suspending paragraph (c) and adding a new paragraph (d) to read as follows:
(d) The draw of the Route 82 Bridge, mile 16.8, shall operate as follows:
(1) From November 1 through July 6, the draw shall open on signal at 5:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 8 p.m., daily.
(2) From July 7 through October 31 Monday through Thursday, the draw shall open on signal at 6:30 a.m., 1:30 p.m., and 8 p.m., with one additional opening on Friday at 11:30 p.m., three additional openings on Saturday at 9:30 a.m., 4 p.m., and 11:30 p.m., and two additional openings on Sunday at 9:30 a.m., and 4 p.m.
(3) The draw shall open on signal for commercial vessels at all times provided a twenty-four hour advance notice with a two-hour confirmation is given.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of change in meeting dates.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770, 5 U.S.C. App1, Section 10), of meetings of the Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee for Off-Road Driving Regulations at Fire Island National Seashore (36 CFR 7.20).
The Committee meeting scheduled for September 13-14, 2002, published in the
Barry Sullivan, Acting Superintendent, Fire Island National Seashore, 120 Laurel Street, Patchogue, NY 11772. Telephone (631) 289-4810, extension 221.
Due to unintentional mis-routing of this notice during a National Park Service move, the notice could not be published at least 15 days prior to the meeting dates. The National Park Service regrets this error, but is compelled to cancel the meetings since attempting to reconvene the meetings would cause undue hardship and scheduling conflicts for committee members. Since the cancellation has received prior widespread publicity in area news media and among the parties most affected, the National Park Service believes that the public interest will not be adversely affected by the less-than-15-days advance notice in the
The Committee was established pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 (5 U.S.C. 561-570). The purpose of the Committee is to advise the National Park Service with regard to proposed rulemaking governing off-road vehicle use at Fire Island National Seashore. Notice of intent to establish this committee was published in 65 FR 70674, November 27, 2000.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
On July 3, 2002, the Governor of Utah submitted a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for the Utah County nonattainment area for particulates of 10 microns in size or smaller (PM
Written comments must be received on or before October 10, 2002.
Written comments may be mailed to Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, Mailcode 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air and Radiation Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 80202-2466. Copies of the State documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection at the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality, 150 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4820.
Libby Faulk, EPA, Region VIII, (303) 312-6083.
Throughout this document, wherever “we”, “us”, or “our” are used, we mean the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
We are proposing to approve the Governor of Utah's submittal of July 3, 2002, that requests our approval of the Utah County PM
Section 110(k) of the CAA addresses our actions on submissions of revisions to a SIP. The Act also requires States to observe certain procedural requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission. Section 110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing. Section 110(l) of the Act similarly provides that each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the Act must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.
We also must determine whether a submittal is complete and therefore warrants further review and action [see section 110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565, April 16, 1992]. Our completeness criteria for SIP submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. We attempt to make completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law under section 110(k)(1)(B) if a completeness determination is not made within six months after receipt of the submission.
On March 13, 2002 the Utah Air Quality Board agreed to propose the Utah County PM
This SIP revision establishes motor vehicle emission budgets and includes an analysis of those budgets. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 93, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required to determine conformity of transportation plans and projects to the motor vehicle emission budgets as approved in the PM
Utah County has been in a conformity lapse since August 2000 because transportation plans for the area could not meet the PM
This SIP revision establishes new motor vehicle emission budgets for PM
The values for 2003 reflect the inventory values for motor vehicles that were used in the CMB modeling. The CMB modeling, based on these inventory values, and inventory values for other source categories, demonstrates attainment in 2003. For 2010 and 2020, inventory values for all source categories were projected forward. The 2010 and 2020 motor vehicle emissions budgets reflect the motor vehicle inventory values in 2010 and 2020, except that “road dust” and “brake wear” portions of the 2020 motor vehicle inventory for PM
If we approve them, the emissions budgets must be used for conformity determinations per 40 CFR 93.118. Specifically, the 2003 budgets will apply for years 2003 through 2009, the 2010 budgets will apply for years 2010 through 2019, and the 2020 budgets will apply for years 2020 and beyond. In addition, after our final approval of the motor vehicle emission budgets and upon the Federal Highway Administration's approval of a positive conformity determination, the present conformity lapse in Utah County will end.
On March 2, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision in
Because they extend beyond the time-frame of the previously approved Utah County PM
The emissions inventory for the Utah County PM
Utah updated the existing attainment demonstration from the original PM
Utah's revised attainment demonstration for Utah County projects attainment for 2002 and 2003 for SIP purposes, and for 2010 and 2020 for conformity purposes only. In this revised SIP, the CMB analysis is based on 1988 and 1989 recorded monitoring data, which is the same data used in the original SIP. Table II below shows the results of the CMB analysis on the projected attainment years using only the highest concentration site for each year. Please refer to the Utah County SIP revision and technical support document (TSD) for more detailed information. Utah used three monitoring sites to demonstrate attainment on numerous high concentration days, although a demonstration of attainment is only required for the design day. In the table below, we only present results from the established design day (this is the same design day as in the original SIP revision).
In the original SIP as well as in this SIP revision, Utah uses three monitoring sites to demonstrate attainment: Lindon, North Provo and West Orem. The West Orem monitoring site has been shut down since December 31, 1997.
The original Utah County PM
Table IV below provides the proposed 24-hour emission limits for the major emitting units at Geneva Steel for September through May, and Table V below provides the proposed 24-hour emission limits for the major emitting units at Geneva Steel for June through August. Table VI below provides the proposed annual emission limits for Geneva Steel's major emitting units.
It is important to note here that Geneva Steel is in the process of banking a significant amount of its emissions from the coke plant, sinter plant, Q-BOP, and sources in the “Geneva Other” category. This is due to the shutting down or reduction in emissions for the coke plant (some fugitive emissions remain from the coke piles), sinter plant, foundry and rolling mill scarfer facility. Emissions reductions are also due to fuel switching. Table VII below shows the banked emissions per process in tons per year of PM
The EPA-approved PM
At the very least, these provisions have led to uncertainty regarding the content of the federally enforceable SIP. In order to address these concerns, Utah has inserted the following language into the SIP: “Notwithstanding any other provision in the Utah SIP, no change to this SIP revision shall be effective to change the federal enforceability of the emission limits or other requirements of the Utah County PM
With an April 18, 2002 letter from Richard Sprott, Director of Utah's Division of Air Quality to Richard Long, Director of the Air and Radiation Program in EPA Region 8, UDAQ committed to work with us to address remaining issues with the PM
(1) State authority as it relates to the discretion granted to the Executive Secretary of the Utah Air Quality Board (EPA uses the term “director's discretion” for these provisions);
(2) Variance provisions as provided in Utah law, Air Quality regulations and the SIP;
(3) UAM-AERO based modeling and analysis to address pollutants of concern in the SIP or maintenance plan;
(4) Stationary source modeling for major sources and appropriate non-major sources to determine predicted impacts of emission limits established in the SIP or maintenance plan;
(5) Enforceable emission limits for sources in the SIP or maintenance plan, including enforceable 24-hour emission limits for major sources in both Salt Lake and Utah Counties and emission
(6) Emissions inventory and modeling analysis for the nonattainment areas in Salt Lake and Utah Counties;
(7) New source review, emissions banking, and interpollutant trading (EPA's issues with these programs were explained in a May 10, 2001 letter from Region 8 to UDAQ);
(8) Unavoidable breakdown rules and consistency with the EPA September 20, 1999 policy regarding such breakdowns;
(9) Inclusion of annual growth rates in the SIP or maintenance plans;
(10) Justification for credits and growth rates for wood and coal burning in Utah County;
(11) Backhalf emissions measuring for PM
(12) General language clean up in the PM
(13) Diesel I/M revision or program withdrawal;
(14) Emission budgets for PM
(15) Emission inventory and modeling analysis for automobile emission inspection and maintenance program changes, if any such changes are made in the SIP or maintenance plan.
The above issues aren't addressed in this SIP revision for Utah County and therefore, these issues will continue after our potential final approval of this SIP revision.
On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new NAAQS for PM
The original Utah County and Salt Lake County nonattainment area PM
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 proposed 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, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
We, the EPA, are proposing to take direct final action to approve a request from the State of Louisiana to revise the geographical boundaries of the three Air Quality Control Regions (AQCRs) in the State of Louisiana, which are the Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas AQCR, the Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler AQCR, and the Monroe-El Dorado AQCR. The EPA is also taking direct final action to shorten the ozone season for the Monroe-El Dorado and Shreveport-Texarkana-Tyler AQCRs, from year-round, to March 1 through October 31.
In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Written comments must be received by October 10, 2002.
Written comments should be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours in advance.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, H. B. Garlock Building, 7290 Bluebonnet Blvd., Baton Rouge, LA 70810.
Joe Kordzi of the EPA Region 6 Air Planning Section, at (214) 665-7186 and at the Region 6 address above.
This document concerns a modification to the geographical boundaries of the three AQCRs located in the State of Louisiana, and a revision to the ozone monitoring season for two of these AQCRs. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401
Commodity Credit Corporation, USDA.
Notice.
Commodity Credit Corporation has published elsewhere in this issue an interim rule establishing a new “Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops” program to help open, retain, and expand markets for U.S. specialty crops.
Proposals will be accepted until 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, September 18, 2002. Proposals will be reviewed, and funding decisions will be made, as proposals are received.
Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, Room 4932-S Stop 1042, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042, or telephone: (202) 720-4327.
To be considered for participation in the TASC, interested parties should submit, via a commercial delivery service (including FedEx, DHL, etc.), proposals to: Director, Marketing Operations Staff, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 4932-S, Stop 1042, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1042. All proposals must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, September 18, 2002. Although entities interested in participating in the TASC are not required to submit proposals in any specific format, all proposals must contain complete information about the proposed projects as described in the interim rule, published elsewhere in this issue, that establishes the program.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), USDA.
Notice of request for applications and request for input.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) announces the availability of grant funds for a new activity, Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems (IPACCP). This notice requests applications for the IPACCP for fiscal year (FY) 2002 to support a grant to a non-governmental organization (NGO) to establish and operate a national information clearinghouse on innovative means for addressing common community problems. CSREES additionally requests stakeholder input from any interested party for use in the development of the next Request for Applications (RFA) for this program.
The amount available for the support of IPACCP activities in FY 2002 is $200,000.
This notice identifies the objectives of the IPACCP project, eligibility criteria for the project and applicants, and the application forms and associated instructions needed to apply for a IPACCP grant.
Applications must be received by close of business (COB) on September 20, 2002. Applications received after this deadline will not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this RFA are requested within six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
The address for hand-delivered applications or applications submitted using express mail (U. S. Postal Service) or overnight courier service is: Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 1420, Waterfront Centre; 800 9th Street, SW.; Washington, DC 20024; Telephone: (202) 401-5048.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed applications via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by USDA.
Written stakeholder comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW.; Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via e-mail to:
Applicants and other interested parties are encouraged to contact Elizabeth Tuckermanty, Program Director, Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 2241, Washington, DC 20250-2241; telephone: (202) 205-0241; fax: (202) 401-6488; email:
CSREES is requesting comments regarding this RFA from any interested party. In your comments please include the name of the program and the fiscal year solicitation for applications to which you are responding. These comments will be considered in the development of any future RFA for the program. CSREES has determined that this program is not an agricultural research, extension, or education program for the purpose of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2). Therefore, CSREES is not required by the statute to solicit stakeholder input regarding this RFA. CSREES, however, always welcomes constructive comments from interested parties regarding a RFA or particular program. Comments should be submitted as provided in the
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.225, Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems.
Section 25 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2034), as amended by section 4125 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-171), authorizes the provision of a competitive grant to one non-governmental organization (NGO) to coordinate with Federal agencies, States, political subdivisions, and other non-governmental organizations (collectively referred to in this notice as “targeted entities”) to gather information on Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems, and recommend such programs to targeted entities.
The purpose of the Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems (IPACCP) is to provide Federal funds to support coordination with targeted entities to gather information, and recommend to targeted entities: innovative programs for addressing common community problems. Common community problems refer to the underlying causes of hunger and poverty, including the loss of farms and ranches, rural poverty, welfare dependency, hunger, the need for job training, and the need for self-sufficiency by individuals and communities.
The IPACCP grantee will: operate a national information clearinghouse on innovative means, including Community Food Projects, for addressing common community problems in the areas outlined above; provide information and guidance to other targeted entities on innovative programs that offer constructive, community-based or grassroots solutions to hunger, community food insecurity, and poverty; and contribute in-kind resources toward implementation of the grant.
The amount of funds available in FY 2002 for support of a grant award under the IPACCP is $200,000.
Only non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are eligible to receive an IPACCP grant. Eligible NGOs must be:
(1) Experienced in working with targeted entities— Federal agencies, States, political subdivisions, and other non-governmental organizations—and in organizing workshops that demonstrate programs to targeted entities;
(2) Experienced in identifying programs that effectively address community problems, including loss of farms and ranches, rural poverty, welfare dependency, hunger, the need for job training, and the need for self-sufficiency by individuals and communities, that can be implemented by other targeted entities;
(3) Experienced in, and capable of receiving information from and communicating with targeted entities throughout the United States; and
(4) Experienced in operating a national information clearinghouse that addresses one or more of the community problems described in paragraph (2) above.
The legislation establishing the IPACCP requires that as a condition to receiving a grant from CSREES, the NGO must “contribute in-kind resources toward the implementation of the grant.” To comply with this provision, CSREES has determined that applicants must provide at least 25 percent of total project resources on an in-kind basis during the term of the grant award. The Federal share of IPACCP costs can be no more than 75 percent of total project costs.
IPACCP grantees may provide matching resources through in-kind contributions from their own organization or from third-party in-kind contributions, fairly evaluated, including facilities. The non-Federal share of the resources may come from State government, local government, other non-profit entities, or private sources. Examples of qualifying matching contributions may include direct costs such as: rent for office space used exclusively for the funded project; duplication or postage costs; and staff time from an entity other than the applicant for IPACCP activities.
Applicants should ensure their proposed work fully justifies the $200,000 that is available.
The award will be made based on the merit of the proposed project with budgets considered only after the merits of the project have been determined. USDA reserves the right to negotiate final budgets with the successful applicant. The grantee shall perform a substantive portion of the project. No more than one-half of an IPACCP award, as determined by budget expenditures, may be subawarded or subcontracted to other organizations. For additional knowledge or expertise that is not available within the applicant organization, funds for expert consultation may be included in the “All Other Direct Costs” section of the proposed budget.
In FY 2002, applications should be submitted to the IPACCP as a New Application. This is a project application that has not been previously submitted to the Program. All New Applications will be reviewed
In FY 2002 $200,000 is available for a single, standard grant to establish and operate a national information clearinghouse for innovative approaches to common community problems and to provide information and guidance to other targeted entities on innovative programs. Applicants may request funding for up to three years in duration with a budget of not more than $200,000.
The purpose of the Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems is to gather and disseminate among local, community, state, and Federal organizations and agencies information about innovative programs that address or ameliorate common community problems in the general subject areas of food, nutrition, and agriculture, including the loss of farms and ranches, rural poverty, welfare dependency, hunger, community food insecurity, the need for job training, and the need for self-sufficiency by individuals and communities. The grantee should also receive and distribute information on Community Food Projects supported by CSREES.
In addition to operating a national information clearinghouse on innovative means to address community problems, the grantee will also provide information and guidance on innovative programs through other means, for example, workshops, printed or copied materials, and electronic means. Clearinghouse information should be readily available to and easily accessible by Federal, state, and local government agencies, local community leaders, non-governmental organizations, and the public.
Program application materials (application kit) are available at the CSREES Funding Opportunities Web site (
The application should be prepared following the guidelines and the instructions below. Each application must contain the following elements in the order indicated:
Use the following guidelines to prepare an application. Proper preparation of applications will assist reviewers in evaluating the merits of each application in a systematic, consistent fashion:
(a) Prepare the application on only one side of the page using standard size (8
(b) Number each page of the application sequentially, starting with the Project Description, including the budget pages, required forms, and any appendices.
(c) Staple the application in the upper left-hand corner. Do not bind. An original and four copies (five total) must be submitted in one package.
(d) Include original illustrations (photographs, color prints, etc.) in all copies of the application to prevent loss of meaning through poor quality reproduction.
(e) The contents of the application should be assembled in the following order:
(1) Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002, Page A)
(2) Table of Contents
(3) Project Summary (Form CSREES-2003)
(4) Project Description
(5) References
(6) Appendices to Project Description
(7) Key Personnel
(8) Collaborative Arrangements (including Letters of Support)
(9) Budget (Form CSREES-2004)
(10) Budget Narrative
(11) Matching
(12) Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-2005)
(13) Assurance Statement(s) (Form CSREES-2008)
(14) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form CSREES-2006)
(15) Page B, Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002), Personal Data on Project Director
Please note that Form CSREES-2002 is comprised of two parts—Page A which is the “Proposal Cover Page” and Page B which is the “Personal Data on Project Director.”
Each copy of each grant application must contain a “Proposal Cover Page,” Form CSREES-2002. One copy of the application, preferably the original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing Project Directors (PD's) and the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR), the individual who possesses the necessary authority to commit the organization's time and other relevant resources to the project. If there are more than three co-PD's for an application, please list additional co-PD's on a separate sheet of paper (with appropriate information and signatures) and attach to the Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002). Any proposed PD or co-PD whose signature does not appear on Form CSREES-2002 or attached additional sheets will not be listed on any resulting grant award. Complete both signature blocks located at the bottom of the “Proposal Cover Page” form.
Form CSREES-2002 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant database; it is therefore important that it be accurately completed in its entirety, especially the e-mail addresses requested in blocks 4.c. and 18.c. However, the following items are highlighted as having a high potential for errors or misinterpretations:
(a) Type of Performing Organization (Blocks 6A and 6B). For block 6A, a check should be placed in the appropriate box to identify the non-profit or non-governmental organization which is the legal applicant named in block 1. Only one box should be checked. For block 6B, please check as many boxes that apply to the affiliation of the PD listed in block 16.
(b) Title of Proposed Project (Block 7). The title of the project must be brief (140-character maximum, including spaces), yet represent the major thrust of the effort being proposed.
(c) Program to Which You Are Applying (Block 8). Enter Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems or IPACCP.
(d) Type of Request (Block 14). Check the block for “New.”
(e) Project Director (PD) (Blocks 16-19). Blocks 16-18 are used to identify the PD and Block 19 to identify co-PD's. If needed, additional co-PD's may be listed on a separate sheet of paper and attached to Form CSREES-2002, the Proposal Cover Page, with the applicable co-PD information and signatures. Listing multiple co-PD's, beyond those required for genuine collaboration, is discouraged.
Page B should be submitted only with the original signature copy of the application and should be placed as the last page of the original copy of the application. This page contains personal data on the PD(s). CSREES requests this information in order to monitor the operation of its review and awards processes. This page will not be duplicated or used during the review process. Please note that failure to submit this information will in no way affect consideration of your application.
For consistency and ease in locating information, each application must contain a detailed Table of Contents immediately following the proposal cover page. The Table of Contents should contain page numbers for each component of the application. Page numbering should begin with the first page of the Project Description.
The application must contain a “Project Summary,” Form CSREES-2003. The summary should be no more than 250 words, contained within the box, placed immediately after the Table of Contents, and not be numbered. The names and affiliated organizations of all PD's and co-PD's should be listed on this form, in addition to the title of the project. The summary should be a self-contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on: overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives; plans to accomplish project goal(s); and relevance of the project to the goals of the program. The importance of a concise, informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized. If there are more than four co-PD's for an application, please list additional co-PD's on a separate sheet of paper (with appropriate information) and attach to the Project Summary (Form CSREES-2003).
A narrative Project Description must repeat and respond to the points in (a) through (d) below:
(a)
Information on CSREES supported Community Food Projects (CFP) must also be gathered, and the applicant should describe how, in coordination with CSREES and the Community Food Security Coalition, CFP information will be gathered and disseminated.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
All references to works cited should be completed, including titles and all co-authors, and should conform to an acceptable journal format. References are not considered in the page-limitation for the Project Description.
Appendices to the Project Description are allowed if they are directly germane to the proposed project. The addition of appendices should not be used to circumvent the text and/or figures and tables page limitations.
The following should be included as appropriate:
(a) The roles and responsibilities of each PD and/or collaborator should be clearly described; and
(b) The vitae of the PD and each co-PD, senior associate, and other professional personnel. This section should include the vitae of all key persons who are expected to work on the project, whether or not CSREES funds are sought for their support. The vitae should be limited to two (2) pages each in length, excluding publications listings. The vitae should include a presentation of academic and research credentials, as applicable,
If it will be necessary to enter into formal consulting or collaborative arrangements with others, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified. If the consultant(s) or collaborator(s) are known at the time of application, a vitae or resume should be provided. In addition, evidence (
Prepare the Budget, Form CSREES-2004, in accordance with instructions provided with the application forms. A budget form is required for each year of requested support. In addition, a cumulative budget is required detailing the requested total support for the overall project period. The budget form may be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or service for which support is requested is allowable under the authorizing legislation, the applicable statutes, regulations, and Federal cost principles, and these program guidelines, and can be justified as necessary for the successful conduct of the proposed project. Applicants also must include a budget narrative to justify their budget requests (see section 11 below.)
If available, the current rate negotiated with the cognizant Federal negotiating agency should be used. Indirect costs may not exceed the negotiated rate. If a negotiated rate is used, the percentage and base should be indicated in the space allotted under item L. on the Budget Form. If no rate has been negotiated, a reasonable dollar amount for indirect costs may be requested, which will be subject to approval by USDA. In the latter case, if a proposal is recommended for funding, an indirect cost rate proposal must be submitted prior to award to support the amount of indirect costs requested. CSREES will request an indirect cost rate proposal and provide instructions, as necessary. An applicant may elect not to charge indirect costs and, instead, use all grant funds for direct costs. If indirect costs are not charged, the phrase “None requested” should be written in this space.
All budget categories, with the exception of Indirect Costs, for which support is requested, must be individually listed (with costs) in the same order as the budget and justified on a separate sheet of paper and placed immediately behind the Budget form.
As stated in above, in-kind matching resources are mandatory for all IPACCP projects. All of the applicant's matching support should be shown on the original budget in the appropriate categories (salary, materials and supplies, equipment, etc.) A budget narrative for these items must also be included. Proposals should include written verification of commitments of matching support of in-kind contributions from third parties.
Written verification means that for any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the third party in-kind contribution; and (5) a statement that the donor will make the contribution during the grant period.
The sources and amounts of all matching support from outside the applicant institution should be summarized on a separate page and placed in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal immediately following the summary of matching support. The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be established in accordance with applicable cost principles.
All applications must contain Form CSREES-2005 listing other current public or private support (including in-house support) to which personnel (i.e., individuals submitting a vitae in response to item 8.(b) of this part) identified in the application have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for person(s) involved is included in the budget. Please follow the instructions provided on this form. Concurrent submission of identical or similar applications to possible sponsors will not prejudice application review or evaluation by CSREES. However, an application that duplicates or overlaps substantially with an application already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. Please note that the project being proposed should be included in the pending section of the form.
A number of situations encountered in the conduct of projects require special assurances, supporting documentation, etc., before funding can be approved for the project. In addition to any other situation that may exist with regard to a particular project, applications involving any of the following elements must comply with the additional requirements as applicable.
Note that by signing Form CSREES-2002 the applicant is providing the certifications required by 7 CFR part 3017, regarding Debarment and Suspension and Drug-Free Workplace, and 7 CFR part 3018, regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are included in the application package for informational purposes only. These forms should not be submitted with the application since by signing Form CSREES-2002 your organization is providing the required certifications. If the project will involve a subcontractor or consultant, the subcontractor/consultant should submit a Form AD-1048, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion—Lower Tier Covered Transactions, to the grantee organization for retention in their records. This form should not be submitted to USDA.
As outlined in 7 CFR part 3407 (the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service regulations implementing NEPA), the environmental data for any proposed project is to be provided to CSREES so that CSREES may determine whether any further action is needed. In some cases, however, the preparation of environmental data may not be required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the requirements of NEPA.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is needed with respect to NEPA, pertinent information regarding the possible environmental impacts of a particular project is necessary; therefore, Form CSREES-2006, “NEPA Exclusions Form,” must be included in the application indicating whether the applicant is of the opinion that the project falls within a categorical exclusion and the reasons therefore. If it is the applicant's opinion that the proposed project falls within the categorical exclusions, the specific exclusion(s) must be identified.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions, CSREES may determine that an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for an activity, if substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or if other extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may cause such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
Applications must be received by COB on September 20, 2002 (5 p.m. Eastern Time). Applications received after this deadline will not be considered for funding.
An original and four copies (a total of five copies) of the application must be submitted in one package.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed applications via overnight mail, U.S. Postal Service express mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the USDA. The address for hand-delivered applications or applications submitted using express mail (U. S. Postal Service) or overnight courier service is:
Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems, c/o Proposal Services Unit, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 1420, Waterfront Centre, 800 9th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
Applications sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address:
Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems, c/o Proposal Services Unit, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 2245, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2245.
The receipt of all applications will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, applicants are strongly encouraged to provide accurate e-mail addresses, where designated, on the Form CSREES-2002. If the applicant's e-mail address is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of the application by letter.
If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission deadline, please contact the program director. Once the application has been assigned an application number, please cite that number on all future correspondence.
Each application will be evaluated in a two-part process. First, each application will be screened to ensure that it meets the administrative requirements as set forth in this RFA. Second, applications that meet these requirements will be technically evaluated by CSREES staff.
Since the award process must be completed by September 30, 2002, applicants should submit fully developed applications that meet all the requirements set forth in this RFA and have fully developed budgets as well. However, USDA does retain the right to conduct discussions with applicants to resolve technical and/or budget issues as it deems necessary.
At least three members of the CSREES staff will conduct the merit review based on the evaluation criteria. Evaluated applications will be ranked based on merit. Final approval for the application recommended for an award will be made by the Administrator.
The evaluation of Innovative Programs for Addressing Common Community Problems applications by CSREES reviewers will be based on the following criteria, weighted relative to each other, and assigned a point value, as noted in the parentheses following each criteria discussion:
During the evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to prevent any actual or perceived conflicts of interest that may impact review or evaluation. Evaluations will be confidential to USDA staff members, expert reviewers, and the project director(s), to the extent permitted by law.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as application content and peer and staff evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent permitted by law. In addition, the identities of reviewers will remain confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names of the reviewers will not be released to applicants.
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of CSREES shall make grant to the
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFA, if such information has not been provided previously under this or another CSREES program. CSREES will provide copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling these requirements as part of the pre-award process. Although an applicant may be eligible based on its status as one of these entities, there are factors which may exclude an applicant from receiving Federal financial and non-financial assistance and benefits under this program (
The grant award document will provide pertinent instructions and information, including at a minimum, the following:
(1) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to whom the Administrator has awarded a grant under the terms of this request for applications;
(2) Title of project;
(3) Name(s) and institution(s) of PD's chosen to direct and control approved activities;
(4) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
(5) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department intends to support the project without requiring re-competition for funds;
(6) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by the Administrator during the project period;
(7) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
(8) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
(9) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to carry out its respective granting activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular grant.
Copies of reviews, not including the identity of reviewers, and a summary of the expert reviewers' comments will be sent to the applicant PD after the review process has been completed.
Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of IPACCP funds.
a. The permissible changes by the grantee, PD(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other similar aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the PD(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination. The ADO is the signatory of the award document, not the program contact.
b. Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
c. Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such changes.
d. Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
e. Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended by CSREES without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project. Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
f. Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or grant award.
Upon the award of a grant, applicants will be requested to finalize goals and objectives against which progress will be measured on an annual basis. Grantees must submit an annual report narrative and budget summary detailing activities and expenditures on the project. A format for these reports will be provided on an annual basis by CSREES.
Several Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant applications considered for review and to project grants awarded under this program. These include, but are not limited to:
7 CFR part 1, Subpart A—USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR part 3—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 regarding debt collection.
7 CFR part 15, subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
7 CFR part 3015—USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, implementing OMB directives (
7 CFR part 3016—USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
7 CFR part 3017—USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).
7 CFR part 3018—USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying. Imposes prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying on recipients of Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and loans.
7 CFR part 3019—USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR part 3052—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-profit Organizations.
7 CFR part 3407—CSREES procedures to implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR part 15b (USDA implementation of statute)—prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200
When an application results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record of CSREES transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within the application. The original copy of an application that does not result in a grant will be retained by the Agency for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such an application will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. An application may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.
For the reasons set forth in the final Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29114, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0039.
For the purpose of this program, the following definitions are applicable:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
(19)
Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee, Boise, ID, USDA, Forest Service.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Boise and Payette National Forests' Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will meet Thursday, September 26, 2002 in Cascade, Idaho for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public.
The business meeting on September 26th, begins at 10:30 AM, at the American Legion Hall, Cascade, Idaho. Agenda topics will include review and approval or project proposals, a forum with District Rangers, and an open public forum.
Randy Swick, Designated Federal Officer, at (435) 865-3701.
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 Rules (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 rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure VIII-D in the Chippewa Creek Watershed.
Kevin Brown; State Conservationist; Natural Resources Conservation Service; 200 North High Street, Room 522, Columbus, Ohio 43215; telephone 614-255-2500.
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national effects on the human environment. As a result of these findings, Kevin Brown, 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. The action includes the rehabilitation of one floodwater-retarding dam. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency; 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 is on file and may be reviewed by contacting Kevin Brown.
No administrative action on implementation of the preferred alternative will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
This undertaking is being planned and will be implemented under the authority of the emergency Watershed Protection Program (7 CFR 624). This program was enacted by Section 216 of Public Law 81-516, Section 403 of Public Law 95-334 (Title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978), and Section 382 of Public Law 104-127 (Title III of the 1996 Farm Bill). This action is being planned in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The rehabilitation of the Chippewa Creek Watershed Structure VIII-D is a federally assisted action. An environmental assessment was completed for the action and was conducted in consultation with local, state, and federal agencies, as well as other interested organizations and individuals. Data developed during the assessment is available for public review at the following location: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 200 North High St., Rm. 522, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2478.
The sponsors preferred alternative for the rehabilitation of Structure VIII-D would be to rehabilitate the dam and also meet state dam safety criteria for a medium hazard dam (NRCS Class B and ODNR Class II). Rehabilitation would include removing accumulated sediment and debris to restore sediment storage capacity and clearing dead trees from the sediment pool area. There would be no change to the dam itself. Improvements are also planned for the riser to improve the long term functioning of the principal spillway. Total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $175,000.00.
This alternative would fully meet the needs and desires of the sponsors and the public, and would addresses the orders by ODNR to complete repairs to the structure to protect health and public safety while also meeting applicable safety and performance standards. This dry dam impounds no water and currently satisfies the state dam safety criteria for a medium hazard dam. This alternative would require control on the development in the downstream breach inundation area of the structure.
Sediment storage capacity would be restored. Restoring sediment storage capacity also would restore the temporary flood storage volume available behind the dam. Additionally, removal of debris and dead trees would allow the principal spillway to function freely, as designed. Controls on development of the inundation area would assure that no future development occurs within the downstream breach inundation area that results in an increase in the hazard classification for the life of the structure. Rehabilitating the structure will extending its life for at least 50 more years.
The stream segment through the sediment pool area would be temporarily affected by construction activities. Total suspended solids could increase during construction. The water quality in the stream below the structure would stabilize and reach a new equilibrium condition after construction.
No significant changes in land use would occur with the rehabilitation project. About 10 acres would be temporarily disturbed due to construction activities to remove sediment from the pool area. All disturbed areas above the elevation of the sediment pool would be seeded to an erosion controlling grass.
There would be temporary impacts to the aquatic, wetland, or wildlife habitat within the work area. The trees planned for removal do not provide appropriate nursery or roosting habitat for Indiana bats. Therefore, there would be no impact to this species. In the long term, use of the area by wildlife and aquatic species should return to pre-construction levels. The water quality use designations would also remain the same.
An environmental assessment was completed as part of the planning process. An inventory for cultural resources was completed as part of the environmental assessment. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office has submitted written notification, in
The preferred alternative is the most practical alternative to meet the purpose and needs of this action. Three alternatives were considered: (1) No Action, (2) Decommission the Structure, and (3) Structure Rehabilitation.
Meetings were held with the project sponsors from March, August, October of 2001, and February, April, May, June, and July in 2002. On June 3, 2002 the sponsors held a public scoping meeting. In addition, letter requests for concerns and issues were sent to federal and state agencies, and organizations. Site reviews and tours for public officials and agency representatives were also conducted. All concerns and issues were addressed in the environmental assessment.
The environmental assessment summarized above indicates that this Federal action will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the human environment. Therefore, based on the above findings, I have determined that an environmental impact statement is not required for the rehabilitation of Chippewa Creek Watershed, Structure VIII-D.
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 Rules (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 rehabilitation of Floodwater Retarding Structure No. 6 (Wolf Run Lake Dam) in the West Fork Duck Creek Watershed, Noble County, Ohio.
Kevin Brown; State Conservationist; Natural Resources Conservation Service; 200 North High Street, Room 522, Columbus, Ohio 43215; telephone 614-255-2500.
The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national effects on the human environment. As a result of these findings, Kevin Brown, 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. The action includes the rehabilitation of one flood protection, water supply, and recreation dam. The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency; 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 is on file and may be reviewed by contacting Kevin Brown.
No administrative action on implementation of the preferred alternative will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the
This undertaking is being planned and will be implemented under the authority of the emergency Watershed Protection Program (7CFR 624). This program was enacted by Section 216 of Public Law 81-516, Section 403 of Public Law 95-334 (Title IV of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978), and Section 382 of Public Law 104-127 (Title III of the 1996 Farm Bill). This action is being planned in accordance with Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The rehabilitation of the W. Fork Duck Creek Watershed Structure 6 (Wolf Run Dam) is a federally assisted action. An environmental assessment was completed for the action and was conducted in consultation with local, state, and federal agencies, as well as other interested organizations and individuals. Data developed during the assessment is available for public review at the following location: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 200 North High St., Rm. 522, Columbus, Ohio 43215-2478.
The sponsors preferred alternative for the rehabilitation of Wolf Run Dam would be to upgrade the dam to meet state dam safety criteria for a high hazard dam (NRCS Class C and ODNR Class I). Rehabilitation would include widening of the auxiliary spillway to increase the storage-discharge capacity of the dam to safely pass the probable maximum precipitation event without overtopping the embankment. Accumulated sediment would be removed in one 3-acre section of the upper pool area
This alternative would fully meet the needs and desires of the sponsors and the public, and would greatly diminish the potential for dam failure and loss of life. The requirements to upgrade the dam to satisfy high hazard criteria would be met. This alternative would also include removal of accumulated sediment that would restore sediment storage capacity, restore fish and wildlife habitat, and improve recreational opportunities. Total cost of this alternative is estimated to be $370,000.00.
The 215 acre lake is owned and operated by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources and is located within the Wolf Run State Park. The rehabilitated structure will continue to provide flood control protection for approximately 300 people downstream in the villages of Belle Valley and Caldwell, Ohio. Numerous homes, businesses, roads, bridges, utilities, and 400 acres of cropland are located in the valley downstream. The lake also provides vital water supply for the surrounding communities and recreational opportunities for the region. It is expected that the lake water level would be temporarily lowered only in the 3-acre area planned sediment removal area above County Road 14. This would allow removal of sediment in a de-watered state. Temporary displacement of wildlife and aquatic species may occur during construction. Some loss of fish and less mobile species may occur during construction, when the water level is lowered to remove the sediment. The water level would be lowered very slowly to minimize impacts to the wildlife and aquatic species. In the long term, use of the area by wildlife and aquatic species should return to pre-construction levels. After the project is completed, the lake would be enhanced for both recreational users and fish and wildlife.
About 13 acres would be temporarily disturbed due to the construction of this
The water quality use designations would remain the same. This action will have little or no effect on wetlands, rare, or threatened and endangered species, and prime or unique farmland. Air quality in the watershed will be essentially unaffected by the rehabilitation project. There will be brief, temporary increases in noise levels and pollution of air from dust and exhaust emissions, which are inherent in earth moving construction processes.
An environmental assessment was completed as part of the planning process. An inventory for cultural resources was completed as part of the environmental assessment. The Ohio Historic Preservation Office has submitted written notification, in accordance with the provisions of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and the Act's implementing regulations, 36CFR 800, that there is little likelihood the project will encounter significant archaeological sites or buildings. It is of their opinion that the proposed work will not affect historic properties. Concerns have been addressed from contacted tribes. If there is a significant cultural resource discovery during construction, appropriate notice will be made by NRCS to the state Historic Preservation Officer. NRCS will take action as prescribed in NRCS General Manual 420, Part 401, to protect or recover any significant cultural resource during construction.
The preferred alternative is the most practical alternative to meet the purpose and needs of this action. Three alternatives were considered: (1) No Action, (2) Decommission the Structure, and (3) Structure Rehabilitation.
Meetings were held with the project sponsors in April, May, and September of 2001, and February, April, and May 2002. On May 14, 2001, and May 13, 2002, the sponsors held public meetings. In addition, letter requests for concerns and issues were sent to federal and state agencies, and organizations. All concerns and issues were addressed in the environmental assessment.
The environmental assessment summarized above indicates that this Federal action will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the human environment. Therefore, based on the above findings, I have determined that an environmental impact statement is not required for the rehabilitation of the W. Fork Duck Creek Watershed Structure 6 (Wolf Run Dam)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Department of Agriculture.
Notice of availability of proposed changes in Section IV of the California State Technical Guides. NRCS is seeking review and comments to proposed changes.
Pursuant to Section 343 of Subtitle E of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA) that requires the Secretary of Agriculture to provide public notice and comment under Section 553 of Title 5, United States Code, with regard to any future revisions to the provisions of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) State Technical Guides that are used to carry out Subtitles A, B, and C of Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.3801
These proposed revisions are subject to these provisions since one or more practices are used, or could be used, as a part of a conservation management system to comply with the Highly Erodible Land Conservation or Wetland Conservation requirements of the Food Security Act of 1985. These practice standards are also used to plan, design and implement conservation practices cost shared under USDA programs.
Revisions are being proposed for the following practice standards: Closure of Waste Impoundment (360); Conservation Crop Rotation (328); Conservation Cover (327); Contour Farming (330); Contour Stripcropping (585); Cover Crop (340); Grassed Waterway (412); Irrigation System, microirrigation (441); Alley Cropping (311); Constructed Wetland (656); Firebreak (394); Forest Site Preparation (490); Forest Stand Improvement (666); Forest Trails and Landings (655); Heavy Use Area Protection (561); Irrigation System, Tailwater Recovery (447); Pipeline (516); Prescribed Burning (338); Riparian Forest Buffer (391); Spring Development (574); Tree/Shrub Establishment (612); Tree/Shrub Pruning (660); Use Exclusion (472); Watering Facility (614); Windbreak/Shelterbelt Establishment (380); Windbreak/Shelterbelt Renovation (650); PAM Erosion Control (450); Composting Facility (317); Deep Tillage (324); Fish Passage (396); Land Reconstruction, Abandoned Mined Land (543); Land Reconstruction, Currently Mined Land (544); Stream Habitat Improvement and Management (395); Underground Outlet (620); Vegetative Barrier (601); Access Road (560); Diversion (362); Drainage Water Management (554); Fish Pond Management (399); Herbaceous Wind Barriers (603); Irrigation Land Leveling (464); Pond Sealing or Lining-Bentonite Sealant (521C); Pond Sealing or Lining-Soil Dispersant (521B); Roof Runoff Structure (558); Surface Roughening (609); Waste Utilization (633); Dam, Diversion (348); Hedgerow Planting (422); Obstruction Removal (500); Prescribed Grazing (528A); Wastewater Treatment Strip (635); Water and Sediment Control Basin (638); Nutrient Management (590); Mulching (484); Recreation Area Improvement (562); Restoration and Management of Declining Habitats (643); Brush Management (314); and Runoff Management System (570).
Comments will be received for a period of 30 days following the publication date of this notice.
Diane B. Holcomb, State Resource Conservationist, USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 430 G Street, Davis, California 95616-4164. Telephone: (530) 792-5667, FAX: (530) 792-5793, or e-mail
Copies of these proposed standards can be obtained on the Web at
In California, “State Technical Guides” refers to the State Office Technical Guide maintained by the NRCS State Resource Conservationist in Davis, California, to the Area Technical Guides maintained at each NRCS Area Office in Red Bluff, Salinas, Fresno and Riverside, California, and to the Field Office Technical Guides maintained at each NRCS Field Office in California.
Practice standards establish the minimum level of acceptable quality for planning, designing, installing,
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in Michigan, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Notice of availability of proposed changes in Michigan NRCS FOTG, Section IV for review and comment.
It is the intention of NRCS in Michigan to issue revised conservation practice standards in Section IV of the FOTG. The revised standards include:
Comments will be received for a 30-day period commencing with this date of publication.
Inquire in writing to Kevin Wickey, Assistant State Conservationist for Technology, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 250, E. Lansing, MI 48823. Copies of these standards will be made available upon written request. You may submit electronic requests and comments to
Kevin Wickey 517-324-5279.
Section 393 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after enactment of the law, to NRCS state technical guides used to carry out highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law, shall be made available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days, the NRCS in Michigan will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that period, a determination will be made by the NRCS in Michigan regarding disposition of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.
Notice of meeting.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) established a Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee (Committee) to assist the Board in developing a proposed rule on accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered public rights-of-way covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. This document announces the next meeting of the technical assistance sub-committee of that Committee, which will be open to the public.
The meeting of the sub-committee is scheduled for October 7, 2002 beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 5 p.m..
The meeting will be held at the Hilton Portland, 921 SW., Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon.
Scott Windley, Office of Technical and Information Services, Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
On October 20, 1999, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) published a notice appointing members to a Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee (Committee). 64 FR 56482 (October 20, 1999). The objectives of the Committee include providing recommendations for developing a proposed rule addressing accessibility guidelines for newly constructed and altered public rights-of-way covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, recommendations regarding technical assistance issues, and guidance for best practices for alterations in the public rights-of-way.
On January 10, 2001, the Committee presented its recommendations on accessible public rights-of-way in a report entitled “Building a True Community”. The report is available on the Access Board's website at
At its October meeting, the technical assistance sub-committee will continue to address the development and format of technical assistance materials relating to public rights-of-way. The sub-committee meeting will be open to the public and interested persons can attend the meeting and participate on subcommittees of the Committee. All interested persons will have the opportunity to comment when the proposed accessibility guidelines for public rights-of-way are issued in the
Individuals who require sign language interpreters or real-time captioning systems should contact Scott Windley by September 20, 2002. Notices of future meetings will be published in the
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the North Carolina Global TransPark Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 214, requesting authority to expand its zone to include an additional site in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, adjacent to the Durham Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on September 3, 2002.
FTZ 214 was approved on May 7, 1996 (Board Order 815, 61 FR 27048, 5/30/96). The zone currently consists of a site at the Kinston Regional Jetport complex (1,170 acres) in Lenoir County, North Carolina.
The applicant is now requesting authority to expand the general-purpose zone to include an additional site in Rocky Mount:
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the addresses below:
1.
2.
The closing period for their receipt is November 12, 2002. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to November 25, 2002).
A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at the first address listed above, and at the office of the Carolinas Gateway Partnership, 427 Falls Road, Rocky Mount, NC 27804-4808.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department Commerce.
In response to requests by the respondent, Ausimont SpA and Ausimont USA (Ausimont), and the petitioner, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company (DuPont), the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) resin from Italy. The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess antidumping duties based on the difference between the constructed export price and NV.
September 10, 2002.
Vicki Schepker or Constance Handley, at (202) 482-1756 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.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless
On August 30, 1988, the Department published in the
We issued an antidumping questionnaire to Ausimont on October 17, 2001, followed by a supplemental questionnaire on August 8, 2002. Included in that questionnaire was a reiteration of the Department's previous request that Ausimont report its production costs on a POR-basis. It also included instructions regarding the reporting of what Ausimont claims are sales of “off-spec” merchandise. We received timely responses to the antidumping questionnaire and section C of the supplemental questionnaire.
The product covered by this order is granular PTFE resin, filled or unfilled. This order also covers PTFE wet raw polymer exported from Italy to the United States.
We compared the constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the
We first attempted to compare contemporaneous sales of products sold in the United States and the comparison market that were identical with respect to the following characteristics: type, filler, percentage of filler, and grade. Where we were unable to compare sales of identical merchandise, we compared U.S. sales with comparison market sales of the most similar merchandise.
For all sales to the United States, we calculated CEP, as defined in section 772(b) of the Act, because all sales to unaffiliated parties were made after importation of the subject merchandise into the United States through the respondent's affiliate, Ausimont USA. We based CEP on the packed, delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States, net of billing adjustments. We adjusted these prices for movement expenses, including international freight, marine insurance, brokerage and handling in the United States, U.S. inland freight, and U.S. customs duties, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we deducted selling expenses incurred by the affiliated seller in connection with economic activity in the United States. These expenses include credit, inventory carrying costs, and indirect expenses incurred by Ausimont USA.
With respect to sales involving imported wet raw polymer that was further manufactured into finished PTFE resin in the United States, we deducted the cost of such further manufacturing in accordance with section 772(d)(2) of the Act.
Finally, we made an adjustment for the profit allocated to the above-referenced selling and further manufacturing expenses, in accordance with section 772(d)(3) of the Act.
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales of granular PTFE resin in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, we compared Ausimont's volume of home market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance with section 773(a) of the Act. Because the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of the respective aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market provided a viable basis for calculating NV. Therefore, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV on the prices at which the foreign like product was first sold for consumption in the exporting country, in the usual commercial quantities and in the ordinary course of trade.
Because we disregarded below-cost sales in the calculation of the final results of the 12th administrative review, we had reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that home market sales of the foreign like product by Ausimont had been made at prices below the cost of production (COP) during the period of this review. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation regarding home market sales.
Initially, Ausimont calculated its model-specific costs of production on a calendar year basis. On August 8, 2002, we issued a supplemental questionnaire requesting that Ausimont report its costs on a POR basis.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the model-
We compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home market sales of the foreign like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether these sales had been made at prices below the COP within an extended period of time (
On a model-specific basis, we compared the COP to home market prices, less any rebates, discounts, applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling expenses (which were also deducted from COP).
We disregarded below-cost sales where 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a given product were made at prices below the COP. We determined such sales were made within an extended period of time in substantial quantities in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act and at prices which would not permit recovery of all costs within a reasonable time period, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
We determined home market prices net of price adjustments (
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales at the same level of trade in the comparison market as the level of trade of the U.S. sales. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the comparison market. For CEP sales, such as those made by Ausimont in this review, the U.S. level of trade is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to the importer.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than that of the U.S. sales, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
In implementing these principles in this review, we obtained information from Ausimont about the marketing involved in the reported U.S. sales and in the home market sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by Ausimont for each channel of distribution. In identifying levels of trade for CEP and for home market sales, we considered the selling functions reflected in the CEP, after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act, and those reflected in the home market starting price before making any adjustments. We expect that, if claimed levels of trade are the same, the functions and activities of the seller should be similar. Conversely, if a party claims that levels of trade are different for different groups of sales, the functions and activities of the seller should be dissimilar.
The record evidence in this review indicates that the home market and the CEP levels of trade have not changed from the 1999-00 review,
In the home market, Ausimont sold directly to fabricators. These sales primarily entailed selling activities such as technical assistance, engineering services, research and development, technical programs, and delivery services. Given this fact pattern, we found that all home market sales were made at a single level of trade. In determining the level of trade for the U.S. sales, we only considered the selling activities reflected in the price after making the appropriate adjustments under section 772(d) of the Act.
Based on a comparison of the home market level of trade and this CEP level of trade, we find the home market sales to be at a different level of trade from, and more remote from the factory than, the CEP sales. Section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act directs us to make an adjustment for difference in levels of trade where such differences affect price comparability. However, we were
We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with section 773A of the Act, based on exchange rates in effect on the date of the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001:
The Department will disclose calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to the parties of this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). An interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of granular PTFE resin from Italy entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for Ausimont will be the rate established in the final results of administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the original less than fair value (LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will continue to be the most recent rate published in the final determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a previous review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 46.46 percent, the “all others” rate established in the LTFV investigation.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of preliminary results and rescission in part of antidumping duty administrative review.
September 10, 2002.
In response to requests from interested parties, the Department of Commerce is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on gray portland cement and clinker from Mexico. The review covers exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001, and one firm, CEMEX, S.A. de C.V., and its affiliate, GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. We have preliminarily determined that sales were made below normal value during the period of review. With respect to Apasco, S.A. de C.V., we are rescinding the antidumping duty administrative review of this company.
We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument (1) a statement of the issues, and (2) a brief summary of the argument.
Hermes Pinilla or Brian Ellman, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement 3, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3477, (202) 482-4852, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (the Department's) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (April 2001).
On August 1, 2001, the Department published in the
The products covered by this review include gray portland cement and clinker. Gray portland cement is a hydraulic cement and the primary component of concrete. Clinker, an intermediate material product produced when manufacturing cement, has no use other than of being ground into finished cement. Gray portland cement is currently classifiable under
As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we verified sales information provided by CEMEX using standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and financial records, and selection of original documentation containing relevant information. Our verification results are outlined in public versions of the verification reports.
Section 771(33) of the Act defines when two or more parties will be considered affiliated for purposes of an antidumping analysis. Moreover, 19 CFR 351.401(f) describes when the Department will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity (
The regulations state that we will treat two or more affiliated producers as a single entity where those producers have production facilities for similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities and we conclude that there is a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production. In identifying a significant potential for the manipulation of price or production, the factors we may consider include the following: (i) The level of common ownership; (ii) the extent to which managerial employees or board members of one firm sit on the board of directors of an affiliated firm; and (iii) whether operations are intertwined, such as through the sharing of sales information, involvement in production and pricing decisions, the sharing of facilities or employees, or significant transactions between the affiliated producers.
Having reviewed the current record, we find that the factual information underlying our decision to collapse these two entities has not changed from previous administrative reviews. CEMEX's indirect ownership of GCCC exceeds five percent; therefore, these two companies are affiliated pursuant to section 771(33)(E) of the Act. In addition, both CEMEX and GCCC satisfy the criteria for treatment of affiliated parties as a single entity described at 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1): both producers have production facilities for similar and identical products such that substantial retooling of their production facilities would not be necessary to restructure manufacturing priorities. Consequently, any minor retooling required could be accomplished swiftly and with relative ease.
We also find that there exists a significant potential for manipulation of prices and production as outlined under 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2). CEMEX indirectly owns a substantial percentage of GCCC. Also, CEMEX's managers or directors sit on the board of directors of GCCC and its affiliated companies. Accordingly, the percentage of ownership and interlocking boards of directors give rise to a significant potential for affecting GCCC's pricing and production decisions. See the Department's memorandum from Analyst to File, Collapsing CEMEX, S.A. de C.V. and GCC Cemento, S.A. de C.V. for the Current Administrative Review, dated July 31, 2002.
Both CEMEX and GCCC reported constructed export price (CEP) sales. We calculated CEP based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to the starting price for discounts and billing adjustments. In accordance with section 772(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses, including inventory carrying costs, that were associated with commercial activities in the United States and relate to the sale to an unaffiliated purchaser. We also made deductions for foreign brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, U.S. inland freight and insurance, U.S. warehousing expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. duties, pursuant to section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we made an adjustment for CEP profit in accordance
With respect to subject merchandise to which value was added in the United States prior to sale to unaffiliated U.S. customers (
Section 772(e) of the Act provides that, where the subject merchandise is imported by a person affiliated with the exporter or producer and the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we will determine the CEP for such merchandise using the price of identical or other subject merchandise if there is a sufficient quantity of sales to provide a reasonable basis for comparison and we determine that the use of such sales is appropriate. The regulations at 19 CFR 351.402(c)(2) provide that normally we will determine that the value added in the United States by the affiliated person is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise if we estimate the value added to be at least 65 percent of the price charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States. Normally we will estimate the value added based on the difference between the price charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States and the price paid for the subject merchandise by the affiliated person. We will base this determination normally on averages of the prices and the value added to the subject merchandise. If there is not a sufficient quantity of such sales or if we determine that using the price of identical or other subject merchandise is not appropriate, we may use any other reasonable basis to determine the CEP.
During the course of this administrative review, the respondent submitted information which allowed us to determine whether, in accordance with section 772(e) of the Act, the value added in the United States by its U.S. affiliates is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. To determine whether the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise, we estimated the value added based on the difference between the averages of the prices charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States and the averages of the prices paid for subject merchandise by the affiliate. Based on this analysis, we estimate that the value added was at least 65 percent of the price the respondent charged to the first unaffiliated purchaser for the merchandise as sold in the United States. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that the value added is likely to exceed substantially the value of the subject merchandise. Also, the record indicates that there is a sufficient quantity of subject merchandise to provide a reasonable and appropriate basis for comparison. Accordingly, for purposes of determining dumping margins for the further-manufactured sales, we will apply the preliminary weighted-average margin reflecting the rate calculated for sales of identical or other subject merchandise sold to unaffiliated purchasers.
In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating normal value (NV), we compared the respondent's volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Since the respondent's aggregate volume of home-market sales of the foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that the home market was viable. Therefore, we have based NV on home-market sales.
During the period of review, the respondent sold Type II LA and Type V LA cement in the United States. The statute expresses a preference for matching U.S. sales to identical merchandise in the home market. The respondent sold cement produced as Type III, CPC 30 R, CPC 40, and CPO 40 cement in the home market. We have attempted to match the subject merchandise to identical merchandise in the home market. In situations where identical product types cannot be matched, we have attempted to match the subject merchandise to sales of similar merchandise in the home market. See sections 773(a)(1)(B) and 771(16) of the Act.
We were able to find identical and similar models to which we could match sales of Type II LA and Type V LA cement sold in the U.S. market. In the 1999/2000 administrative review of this proceeding, we determined that CPO 40 cement produced and sold in the home market is the identical match to Type V LA cement sold in the United States.
If we could not find an identical match to the cement types sold in the United States in the same month in which the U.S. sale was made or during the contemporaneous period, we based NV on similar merchandise. During the review period, GCCC had sales of Type II LA in the United States but did not have any sales of this type in the home market. Based on information on the record, we find that the chemical and physical characteristics of type CPO 40 cement produced and sold in Mexico are most similar to Type II LA cement sold in the United States.
Furthermore, in accordance with section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we find that both bulk and bagged cement are produced in the same country and by the same producer as the types sold in the United States, both bulk and bagged cement are like the types sold in the United States in component materials and in the purposes for which used, and both bulk and bagged cement are approximately equal in commercial value to the types sold in the United States. The questionnaire responses submitted by the respondent indicate that, with the exception of packaging, cement sold in bulk and cement sold in bags are physically identical and both are used in the production of concrete. Also, since there is no difference in the cost of production between cement sold in bulk or in bagged form (again with the exception of packaging), both are approximately equal in commercial value.
Section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires the Department to base NV on “the price at which the foreign like product is first sold (or in the absence
In this review, we analyzed home-market sales of cement produced as Type III cement. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based our examination on the totality of circumstances surrounding the respondent's sales in Mexico that are produced as Type III cement and, as in previous reviews of this order, we continue to find that the respondent's home-market sales of Type III cement are outside the ordinary course of trade.
To test whether sales to affiliated customers were made at arm's length, we compared the prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, discounts, and packing. Where the price to the affiliated party was on average 99.5 percent or more of the price to the unaffiliated parties, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. Consistent with 19 CFR 351.403, we included these sales in our analysis.
The petitioner alleged on January 9, 2002, that the respondent sold gray portland cement and clinker in the home market at prices below the cost of production (COP). After examining the allegation, we determined that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the respondent had sold the subject merchandise in the home market at prices below the COP. Therefore, pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, we initiated a COP investigation in order to determine whether the respondent made home-market sales during the period of review at below-cost prices.
In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the COP based on the sum of the costs of materials and fabrication employed in producing the foreign like product, plus amounts for home-market selling, and general and administrative (SG&A) expenses. We used the home-market sales data and COP information provided by the respondent in its questionnaire response.
After calculating a weighted-average COP, in accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we tested whether the home-market sales of the respondent were made at prices below COP within an extended period of time in substantial quantities and whether such prices permitted recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. We compared type-specific COPs to the reported home-market prices less any applicable direct selling expenses, movement charges, discounts and rebates, indirect selling expenses, and commissions.
Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the Act, if less than 20 percent of the respondent's sales of a certain type were at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because the below-cost sales were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time. If 20 percent or more of the respondent's sales of a certain type during the period of review were at prices less than the COP, such below-cost sales were made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time pursuant to sections 773(b)(2) (B) and (C) of the Act. Based on comparisons of home-market prices to weighted-average COPs for the period of review, we determined that below-cost sales of all types of cement were not made in substantial quantities within an extended period of time, and, therefore, we did not disregard any below-cost sales.
Where appropriate, we adjusted home-market prices for discounts, rebates, packing, handling, interest revenue, and billing adjustments to the invoice price. In addition, we adjusted the starting price for inland freight, inland insurance, and warehousing expenses. We also deducted home-market direct selling expenses from the home-market price and home-market indirect selling expenses as a CEP-offset adjustment (
Section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act directs us to make an adjustment to NV to account for differences in the physical characteristics of merchandise where similar products are compared. The regulations at 19 CFR 351.411(b) direct us to consider differences in variable costs associated with the physical differences in the merchandise. Where we matched U.S. sales of subject merchandise to similar models in the home market, we adjusted for differences in merchandise.
In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, to the extent practicable, we determine NV based on sales in the home market at the same level of trade as the CEP. The NV level of trade is that of the starting-price sales in the home market or, when NV is based on constructed value (CV), that of sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. For CEP, it is the level of the constructed sale from the exporter to an affiliated importer after the deductions required under section 772(d) of the Act.
To determine whether NV sales are at a different level of trade than CEP, we examine stages in the marketing process and selling functions along the chain of distribution between the producer and the unaffiliated customer. If the comparison-market sales are at a different level of trade and the difference affects price comparability, as manifested in a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and comparison-market sales at the level of trade of the export transaction, we make a level-of-trade adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales, if the NV level is more remote from the factory than the CEP level and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in the levels between NV and CEP affects price comparability, we adjust NV under section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act (the CEP-offset provision).
With respect to U.S. sales, we conclude that CEMEX's and GCCC's sales constituted two separate levels of trade, one CEMEX U.S. level of trade and one GCCC U.S. level of trade. We based our conclusion on our analysis of each company's reported selling functions and sales channels after making deductions for selling expenses under section 772(d) of the Act. We found that CEMEX and GCCC performed different sales functions for sales to their respective U.S. affiliates. For
Based on our analysis of the respondent's reported selling functions and sales channels, we conclude that the respondent's home-market sales to various classes of customers which purchase both bulk and bagged cement constitute one level of trade. We found that, with some minor exceptions, CEMEX and GCCC performed the same selling functions to varying degrees in similar channels of distribution. We also concluded that the variations in the intensities of selling functions performed were not substantial when all selling expenses were considered as a whole.
Furthermore, the respondent's home-market sales occur at a different and more advanced stage of distribution than its sales to the United States. For example, the CEMEX U.S. level of trade does not include activities such as market research, after-sales service/warranties, advertising, and packing whereas the home-market level of trade includes these activities. Similarly, the GCCC U.S. level of trade does not include activities such as market research, technical advice, advertising, customer approval, solicitation of orders, computer/legal/accounting/business systems, sales promotion, sales forecasting, strategic and economic planning, personnel training/exchange, and procurement and sourcing services whereas the home-market level of trade includes these activities.
As a result of our level-of-trade analysis, we could not match U.S. sales at either of the two U.S. levels of trade to sales at the same level of trade in the home market because there are no home-market sales at the same level of trade. In addition, because we found only one home-market level of trade, we could not determine a level-of-trade adjustment based on the collapsed entity's home-market sales of merchandise under review. Therefore, we have determined that the data available do not provide an appropriate basis on which to calculate a level-of-trade adjustment. However, we determined that the level of trade of the home-market sales is more advanced than the levels of the U.S. sales. Thus, we made a CEP-offset adjustment in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act for the respondent's CEP sales. In accordance with section 773(a)(7) of the Act, we calculated the CEP offset as the smaller of the following: (1) the indirect selling expenses on the home-market sale, or (2) the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP. See the Level-of-Trade Analysis memorandum.
Pursuant to section 773A(a) of the Act, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the dumping margin for the collapsed parties, CEMEX and GCCC, for the period August 1, 2000, through July 31, 2001, to be 74.78 percent.
We will disclose calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results to parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice.
Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the respective case and rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be filed no later than 30 days after publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to the issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs.
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included.
Upon completion of this review, the Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash-deposit rate for the respondent will be the rate determined in the final results of review; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not mentioned above, the cash-deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or in the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash-deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 61.35 percent, the all-others rate from the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
September 10, 2002.
Salim Bhabhrawala or Christopher Smith, Office 5, Group II, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1784, or (202) 482-1442, respectively.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is postponing the deadline for issuance of the preliminary determination in the antidumping duty investigation of lawn and garden steel fence posts from the People's Republic of China until November 27, 2002.
On May 21, 2002, the Department initiated an antidumping investigation of lawn and garden steel fence posts from the People's Republic of China.
On August 26, 2002, the petitioner, Steel City Corporation, made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day postponement. Therefore, in accordance with section 733 (c)(1)(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, the Department is postponing the date of the preliminary determination until November 27, 2002, which is 190 days from the date on which the Department initiated this investigation. We will issue our final determination no later than 75 days from the date on which the Department issues its preliminary determination in this proceeding.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on petroleum wax candles from the People's Republic of China (PRC) in response to a request from Dongguan Fay Candle Co., Ltd. (Fay), a PRC producer and exporter of subject merchandise, and its U.S. importers, TIJID, Inc. (TIJID) (d/b/a DIJIT Inc.), and Palm Beach Home Accents, Inc., (Palm Beach), (collectively, “respondents”). The review covers the period August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001.
We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (NV). The preliminary results are listed below in the section titled “Preliminary Results of Review.” If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to assess antidumping duties on imports into the United States of subject merchandise exported by Fay. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. (
September 10, 2002.
Sally C. Gannon or Mark Hoadley, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0162 or (202) 482-3148, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations are to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).
The Department published in the
The products covered by this order are certain scented or unscented petroleum wax candles made from petroleum wax and having fiber or paper-cored wicks. They are sold in the following shapes: tapers, spirals, and straight-sided dinner candles; rounds, columns, pillars, votives; and various wax-filled containers. The products were classified under the Tariff Schedules of the United States (TSUS) item 755.25, Candles and Tapers. The products are currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item 3406.00.00. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of this proceeding remains dispositive.
The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001.
The Department conducted verification at Fay's factory in China from July 22 through 26, 2002. On July 22, 2002, respondents presented corrections to their questionnaire responses. The corrections included a previously unreported production order, which amounted to a significant increase in the production for the POR. The verification team proceeded with verification of the questionnaire responses, but indicated that it would
The next week, the Department informed respondents that it would proceed with the U.S. portion of the verification, and the Department and respondents agreed on August 12 through 15, 2002 as the dates for this verification.
We find that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the use of facts available for respondents is appropriate for these preliminary results of review. Respondents' decision not to allow the Department to conduct an on-site U.S. verification prevented necessary information from being verified as provided in section 782(i), a condition specifically listed in section 776(a)(2)(D) as mandating the use of facts available. Once the Department determines that the use of facts available is warranted, section 776(b) of the Act further permits the Department to apply an adverse inference if it makes the additional finding that “an interested party has failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for information.” As stated above, the Department set a date for the U.S. portion of the verification that respondents agreed was acceptable. The respondents decided not to proceed with verification. The respondents did not ask that the verification be rescheduled, but simply stated that they would not proceed with the verification. Since the respondents cancelled the U.S. sales verification, the Department cannot rely on respondents' questionnaire responses to calculate a dumping margin for Fay. The U.S. sales verification is integral to our calculation because, without performing the U.S. sales verification, we were unable to complete the sales reconciliation as well as verification of total quantity and value, which are principle elements of the over all verification of respondents' questionnaire responses.
Furthermore, while the Department was able to verify parts of the questionnaire responses in China, that information is inextricably linked with the information unverified in the United States.
Therefore, we determine that the respondents did not cooperate to the best of their ability and that the use of adverse facts available is appropriate under section 776(b). Accordingly, as adverse facts available, we have applied the calculated margin of 95.22 percent as published in
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The
Accordingly, we determine that the new shipper rate is in accord with section 776(c)'s requirement that secondary information be corroborated,
Fay requested a separate, company-specific rate. In its questionnaire responses, Fay stated that it is an independent legal entity. To establish whether a company operating in an NME country is sufficiently independent to be eligible for a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in
With respect to the absence of
The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this review, indicate a lack of
With respect to the absence of
As a result of our review, we preliminarily determine the antidumping margin for Fay, for the period of August 1, 2000 through July 31, 2001, to be as follows:
If these preliminary results are not modified in the final results of this review, the following deposit rates will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of petroleum wax candles from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be the rate established in the final results of this review; (2) for previously reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters with separate rates, the cash deposit rate will be the company-specific rate established for the most recent period; (3) for all other PRC exporters, the rate will be the PRC-wide rate, which is currently 54.21 percent; and (4) for all other non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.310(c) of the Department's regulations. Any hearing would normally be held 37 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter, at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230. Individuals who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the
Unless otherwise notified by the Department, interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with section 351.309(c)(ii) of the Department's regulations. As part of the case brief, parties are encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days after the case brief is filed. If a hearing is held, an interested party may make an affirmative presentation only on arguments included in that party's case brief and may make a rebuttal presentation only on arguments included in that party's rebuttal brief. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of the hearing 48 hours before the scheduled time. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the briefs, within 120 days from the date of publication of these preliminary results, unless the time limit is extended.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to Customs within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct Customs to assess the resulting assessment rates, where appropriate, against the entered Customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 351.402(f)(2) of the Department's regulations to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777 (i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of rescission of the antidumping duty administrative review.
On July 24, 2002, in response to requests by Hyosung Corporation (Hyosung), the Department of Commerce (the Department) published a notice of initiation of antidumping duty administrative review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip from Korea, for the period June 1, 2001 through May 31, 2002.
September 10, 2002.
Michael J. Heaney or Robert James, Enforcement Group III, Office 8, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone (202) 482-4475 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).
On June 5, 1991 the Department published the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip from Korea.
The Department's regulations provide that the Department will rescind an administrative review “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.”
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
In response to a request by S.C. Silcotub S.A. (Silcotub), a producer/exporter of subject merchandise, the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (seamless pipe) from Romania. The period of review (POR) is February 4, 2000, through July 31, 2001.
We preliminarily find that sales have not been made below normal value (NV). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to assess no antidumping duties on the subject merchandise exported by Silcotub and entered during the POR.
The Department also is now conducting an inquiry into Romania's status as a nonmarket economy country under section 771(18)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
September 10, 2002.
Magd Zalok, Tisha Loeper-Viti, or Martin Claessens, Group II, Office 5, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162, (202) 482-07425, or (202) 482-5451, respectively.
For further information regarding the analysis of Romania's nonmarket economy country status under the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, contact George Smolik or Lawrence Norton at (202) 482-1843 and (202) 482-1579, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce (the Department) regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (2001).
On August 10, 2000, the Department published an antidumping duty order on certain small diameter carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe from Romania.
On October 18, 2001, we issued an antidumping questionnaire to Silcotub. We received the questionnaire responses from Silcotub on November 15 and December 7, 2001. We issued supplemental questionnaires on December 13, 2001, January 10 and April 5, 2002, to which we received responses on January 10, January 31, and April 19, 2002, respectively.
On May 8, 2002, the Department extended the time limit for completion of these preliminary results until no later than May 24, 2002.
On May 28, 2002, the Department determined that additional time was necessary to consider the proper surrogate valuation of the factors of production and also to consider a request from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, submitted to the
The products covered by the order are seamless carbon and alloy (other than stainless) steel standard, line, and pressure pipes and redraw hollows produced, or equivalent, to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and the API 5L specifications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of application. The scope of the order also includes all products used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications and meeting the physical parameters described below, regardless of specification. Specifically included within the scope of the order is seamless pipes and redraw hollows, less than or equal to 4.5 inches (114.3 mm) in outside diameter, regardless of wall-thickness, manufacturing process (hot finished or cold-drawn), end finish (plain end, beveled end, upset end, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or surface finish.
The seamless pipes subject to the order is currently classifiable under the subheadings 7304.10.10.20, 7304.10.50.20, 7304.31.30.00, 7304.31.60.50, 7304.39.00.16, 7304.39.00.20, 7304.39.00.24, 7304.39.00.28, 7304.39.00.32, 7304.51.50.05, 7304.51.50.60, 7304.59.60.00, 7304.59.80.10, 7304.59.80.15, 7304.59.80.20, and 7304.59.80.25 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
Specifications, Characteristics, and Uses: Seamless pressure pipes are intended for the conveyance of water, steam, petrochemicals, chemicals, oil products, natural gas and other liquids and gasses in industrial piping systems. They may carry these substances at elevated pressures and temperatures and may be subject to the application of external heat. Seamless carbon steel pressure pipe meeting the ASTM A-106 standard may be used in temperatures of up to 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, at various ASME code stress levels. Alloy pipes made to ASTM A-335 standard must be used if temperatures and stress levels exceed those allowed for ASTM A-106. Seamless pressure pipes sold in the United States are commonly produced to the ASTM A-106 standard.
Seamless standard pipes are most commonly produced to the ASTM A-53 specification and generally are not intended for high temperature service. They are intended for the low temperature and pressure conveyance of water, steam, natural gas, air and other liquids and gasses in plumbing and heating systems, air conditioning units, automatic sprinkler systems, and other related uses. Standard pipes (depending on type and code) may carry liquids at elevated temperatures but must not exceed relevant ASME code requirements. If exceptionally low temperature uses or conditions are anticipated, standard pipe may be manufactured to ASTM A-333 or ASTM A-334 specifications.
Seamless line pipes are intended for the conveyance of oil and natural gas or other fluids in pipe lines. Seamless line pipes are produced to the API 5L specification.
Seamless water well pipe (ASTM A-589) and seamless galvanized pipe for fire protection uses (ASTM A-795) are used for the conveyance of water.
Seamless pipes are commonly produced and certified to meet ASTM A-106, ASTM A-53, API 5L-B, and API 5L-X42 specifications. To avoid maintaining separate production runs and separate inventories, manufacturers typically triple or quadruple certify the pipes by meeting the metallurgical requirements and performing the required tests pursuant to the respective specifications. Since distributors sell the vast majority of this product, they can thereby maintain a single inventory to service all customers.
The primary application of ASTM A-106 pressure pipes and triple or quadruple certified pipes is in pressure piping systems by refineries, petrochemical plants, and chemical plants. Other applications are in power generation plants (electrical-fossil fuel or nuclear), and in some oil field uses (on shore and off shore) such as for separator lines, gathering lines and metering runs. A minor application of this product is for use as oil and gas distribution lines for commercial applications. These applications constitute the majority of the market for the subject seamless pipes. However, ASTM A-106 pipes may be used in some boiler applications.
Redraw hollows are any unfinished pipe or “hollow profiles” of carbon or alloy steel transformed by hot rolling or cold drawing/hydrostatic testing or other methods to enable the material to be sold under ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications.
The scope of the order includes all seamless pipe meeting the physical parameters described above and produced to one of the specifications listed above, regardless of application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, and whether or not also certified to a non-covered specification. Standard, line, and pressure applications and the above-listed specifications are defining characteristics of the scope of the order. Therefore, seamless pipes meeting the physical description above, but not produced to the ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications shall be covered if used in a standard, line, or pressure application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below.
For example, there are certain other ASTM specifications of pipe which, because of overlapping characteristics, could potentially be used in ASTM A-106 applications. These specifications generally include ASTM A-161, ASTM A-192, ASTM A-210, ASTM A-252, ASTM A-501, ASTM A-523, ASTM A-524, and ASTM A-618. When such pipes are used in a standard, line, or pressure pipe application, with the exception of the specific exclusions discussed below, such products are covered by the scope of the order.
Specifically excluded from the scope of the order is boiler tubing and mechanical tubing, if such products are not produced to ASTM A-53, ASTM A-106, ASTM A-333, ASTM A-334, ASTM A-335, ASTM A-589, ASTM A-795, and API 5L specifications and are not used in standard, line, or pressure pipe applications. In addition, finished and unfinished OCTG are excluded from the scope of the order, if covered by the scope of another antidumping duty order from the same country. If not covered by such an OCTG order, finished and unfinished OCTG are included in this scope when used in standard, line or pressure applications.
With regard to the excluded products listed above, the Department will not instruct Customs to require end-use certification until such time as petitioner or other interested parties provide to the Department a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that the products are being used in a covered application. If such information is provided, we will require end-use certification only for the product(s) (or
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the merchandise subject to this scope is dispositive.
As indicated above, on May 10, 2002, the Department received a letter from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting a review of the status of Romania as a nonmarket economy (NME) country, either as a free-standing investigation or in the context of this administrative review. In response to this request, the Department is conducting an inquiry into Romania's status as an NME country in the context of the instant review. See section 771(18)(C)(ii) of the Act.
The Department has treated Romania as a NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews.
As part of its review of Romania's NME status, the Department invites public comment with respect to Romania on the factors listed in section 771(18)(B) of the Act, which the Department must take into account in making a market economy/NME determination: (i) The extent to which the currency of the foreign country is convertible into the currency of other countries; (ii) the extent to which wage rates in the foreign country are determined by free bargaining between labor and management; (iii) the extent to which joint ventures or other investments by firms of other foreign countries are permitted in the foreign country; (iv) the extent of government ownership or control of the means of production; (v) the extent of government control over allocation of resources and over price and output decisions of enterprises; and (vi) such other factors as the administering authority considers appropriate.
The deadline for submission of comments regarding Romania's NME status will be 45 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
After reviewing all comments and rebuttal comments, the Department will determine if a public hearing on the NME country issue is warranted, if one is requested in the initial or rebuttal comments on this issue, and, if so, the Department will announce a place and time for that hearing.
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of subject merchandise subject to review in an NME country a single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports. To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes the exporter in light of the criteria established in the
Evidence supporting, though not requiring, a finding of
A
We have determined, according to the criteria identified in
For certain sales made by Silcotub to the United States, we used constructed export price (CEP) in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the first sale to an unaffiliated purchaser occurred after importation of the merchandise into the United States. For Silcotub's remaining sales to the United States, we used export price (EP), in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the United States and because the CEP methodology was not indicated by other circumstances.
We calculated EP based on the C&F prices to unaffiliated purchasers, as appropriate. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we deducted amounts, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, and international freight. We valued the deductions for foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling using surrogate data based on Egyptian values. (The selection of the surrogate country and surrogate values is explained in the “Normal Value” section of this notice, below.) Since ocean freight for U.S. sales was provided by an unaffiliated carrier from a market economy country and was paid for in a market economy currency, we valued ocean freight using the actual charges from the market economy country.
We calculated CEP based on the packed, ex-warehouse or delivered prices from Silcotub's U.S. subsidiary to unaffiliated customers. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, we made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for CEP for foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling, international freight, marine insurance, customs duties, U.S. brokerage and handling, and other U.S. transportation expenses such as wharfage, stevedoring, and surveying. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we made further deductions for the following selling expenses that related to economic activity in the United States: credit expenses, direct selling expenses (
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if: (1) The merchandise is exported from an NME country; and (2) the information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value (CV) under section 773(a) of the Act.
The Department has treated Romania as an NME country in all previous antidumping cases. Furthermore, available information does not permit the calculation of NV using home market prices, third country prices, or CV under section 773(a) of the Act. In accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. As discussed in the “Nonmarket Economy Status” section above, since Romania's designation as a NME country remains in effect until it is revoked by the Department, we treated Romania as an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV by valuing the factors of production in a surrogate country.
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value the NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more market economy countries that: (1) Are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME, and (2) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. We chose Egypt as the surrogate country on the basis of the criteria set out in 19 CFR 351.408(b). For a further discussion of our surrogate selection,
We used publicly available information from Egypt to value the various factors of production. Because some of the Egyptian import data were not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the data, expressed in U.S. dollars, to the POR using the U.S. producer price index published by the International Monetary Fund.
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we valued Silcotub's reported factors of production by multiplying them by publicly available Egyptian values. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices to make them delivered prices. We added to Egyptian surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the reported distance from the supplier to the factory because this distance was shorter than the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in
We valued material inputs and packing material (
To value electricity, we used the 2001 electricity rates for Egypt reported on the website of the International Trade Administration of the Department under “Trade Information Center.”
We based our calculation of factory overhead and selling, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, as well as profit, on 1998/99 financial statements of El-Naser Steel Pipes & Fittings Co., an Egyptian producer of products comparable to the subject merchandise.
To value truck freight rates, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for inflation) provided by a trucking company located in Egypt. For rail transportation, we valued rail rates using information used in
For brokerage and handling, we used a 1999 rate (adjusted for inflation) provided by a trucking and shipping company located in Alexandria, Egypt. For further details, see Valuation Memorandum.
We made currency conversions in accordance with Section 773(A)(a) of the Act. For currency conversions involving the Egyptian pound, we used exchange rates published by the International Monetary Fund in
We preliminarily determine that the following dumping margin exists for the period February 4, 2000, through July 31, 2001.
Within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224, the Department will disclose its calculations. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Any hearing, if requested, will be held approximately 42 days after the publication of this notice, or the first workday thereafter. Issues raised in hearings will be limited to those raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Interested parties may submit case briefs within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which must be limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument with an electronic version included. Parties who submit arguments in this proceeding are requested to provide the Department copies of the public versions on diskette.
The Department has determined that it is not practicable to complete the final results of this review within the original time limit because of the need to evaluate Romania's NME status. Therefore, the Department is fully extending the due date for the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs or hearing. Accordingly, the final results will be issued no later than 180 days after the date of publication of this Notice in the
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we have calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct the Customs Service to assess no antidumping duties on the merchandise subject to review pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For the final results, if any importer-specific assessment rate is above
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of seamless pipe from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(c) of the Act: (1) For Silcotub, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be zero if Silcotub's rate in the final results of review continues to be less than 0.5 percent and, therefore,
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are issued and published in accordance
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of initiation and request for comments.
September 10, 2002.
George Smolik, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1843.
The Department of Commerce is initiating an inquiry into the status of Lithuania as a non-market economy country for purposes of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws under a changed circumstances review of the solid urea order against Lithuania.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“Department”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2002).
On May 15, 2002, the Department received a letter from the Embassy of Lithuania requesting a review of Lithuania's status as a non-market economy (“NME”) country. On June 5, 2002, the Government of Lithuania submitted a document supporting its request for market economy status. On August 20, 2002, the Department received a letter from the Embassy of Lithuania requesting that the Department review this issue under a changed circumstances review of the solid urea order against Lithuania. In response to this latter request, the Department is initiating an inquiry into Lithuania's status as an NME in the context of a changed circumstances review of the solid urea order against Lithuania pursuant to sections 751(b) and 771(18)(C)(ii) of the Act.
The Department has treated Lithuania as a NME country in all past antidumping duty investigations and administrative reviews.
As part of this inquiry to determine whether to revoke Lithuania's NME status, the Department is interested in receiving public comment with respect to Lithuania on the factors listed in section 771(18)(B) of the Act, which the Department must take into account in making a market/non-market economy determination: (i) The extent to which the currency of the foreign country is convertible into the currency of other countries; (ii) the extent to which wage rates in the foreign country are determined by free bargaining between labor and management; (iii) the extent to which joint ventures or other investments by firms of other foreign countries are permitted in the foreign country; (iv) the extent of government ownership or control of the means of production; (v) the extent of government control over allocation of resources and over price and output decisions of enterprises; and, (vi) such other factors as the administering authority considers appropriate.
The deadline for submission of comments will be 45 days after the date of publication of this notice in the
After reviewing all comments and rebuttal comments, the Department will determine if a public hearing on the NME country issue is warranted, if one is requested in the initial or rebuttal comments on this issue, and, if so, will announce a place and time for that hearing.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(b) and 771(18)(C)(ii).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of countervailing duty administrative reviews.
On May 8, 2002, the Department of Commerce published in the
September 10, 2002.
Sally Hastings, AD/CVD Enforcement, Group I, Office 1, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3464.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”), effective January 1, 1995 (“the Act”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department of Commerce's (“the Department's”) regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (2001).
On August 31, 1992, the Department published in the
The Magnesium Corporation of America (“Magcorp”), the petitioner in these reviews, requested reviews of Norsk Hydro Canada, Inc. (“NHCI”), and Magnola Metallurgy Inc. (“Magnola”). As stated in the
On June 24, 2002, we received notification from U.S. Magnesium, LLC (“U.S. Magnesium”) that it had purchased all of the assets of Magcorp and its ongoing magnesium business. In response to U.S. Magnesium's request, we are treating that company as a successor-in-interest to Magcorp for the purpose of these countervailing duty reviews.
The products covered by these orders are pure and alloy magnesium from Canada. Pure magnesium contains at least 99.8 percent magnesium by weight and is sold in various slab and ingot forms and sizes. Magnesium alloys contain less than 99.8 percent magnesium by weight with magnesium being the largest metallic element in the alloy by weight, and are sold in various ingot and billet forms and sizes.
The pure and alloy magnesium are currently classifiable under items 8104.11.0000 and 8104.19.0000, respectively, of the
Secondary and granular magnesium are not included in the scope of these orders. Our reasons for excluding granular magnesium are summarized in
The period of review for which we are measuring subsidies is from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000.
As stated above, there were no comments submitted to the Department with respect to the
SDI (Société de Développement Industriel du Québec) administers development programs on behalf of the Government of Quebec (“GOQ”). SDI provides assistance under Article 7 of the SDI Act in the form of loans, loan guarantees, grants, assumptions of costs associated with loans, and equity investments. This assistance involves projects capable of having a major impact upon the economy of Québec. Article 7 assistance greater than 2.5 million dollars must be approved by the Council of Ministers and assistance over 5 million dollars becomes a separate budget item under Article 7. Assistance provided in such amounts must be of “special economic importance and value to the province.” (
In 1988, NHCI was awarded a grant under Article 7 to cover a large percentage of the cost of certain environmental protection equipment. In the
In the
We examined the following programs and determine that NHCI did not apply for or receive benefits under these programs during the POR:
• St. Lawrence River Environment Technology Development Program
• Program for Export Market Development
• The Export Development Corporation
• Canada-Québec Subsidiary Agreement on the Economic Development of the Regions of Québec
• Opportunities to Stimulate Technology Programs
• Development Assistance Program
• Industrial Feasibility Study Assistance Program
• Export Promotion Assistance Program
• Creation of Scientific Jobs in Industries
• Business Investment Assistance Program
• Business Financing Program
• Research and Innovation Activities Program
• Export Assistance Program
• Energy Technologies Development Program
• Transportation Research and Development Assistance Program
• Exemption from Payment of Water Bills
In the administrative reviews covering calendar year 1997 the Department found that NHCI's benefits from this program had been exhausted and NHCI's participation in this program had ended. We also found that no residual benefits were being provided or received and no substitute program had been implemented. In our final results, we stated that therefore, we did not intend to continue to examine this program in the future (
In these final results, we have determined that no changes to our analysis in the
The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service (“
The Department will also instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the above percentage on the f.o.b. invoice price on all shipments of the subject merchandise from NHCI entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of these reviews.
Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named (
Accordingly, we will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Except for Timminco Limited, which was excluded from the orders in the original investigations, these rates were established in the first administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA.
In addition, for the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, the assessment rates applicable to all non-reviewed companies covered by these orders are the cash deposit rates in effect at the time of entry, except for Timminco Limited (which was excluded from the orders in the original investigations).
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These administrative reviews and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of preliminary results, intent to partially rescind and postponement of final results of countervailing duty administrative review.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on
September 10, 2002.
Tipten Troidl or Carrie Farley, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Group II, Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4012, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2786.
On August 6, 1999, the Department published in the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), this review covers only those producers or exporters for which a review was specifically requested. The companies subject to this review are Inchon and Sammi. This review covers 17 programs.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) effective January 1, 1995 (the Act). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the regulations are references to the provisions codified at 19 CFR part 351 (2001).
Under 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), the Department finds that it is not practicable to complete the review within the normal time period allocated under 19 CFR 351.213(h)(1); therefore, we are extending the final results from 120 days to 180 days after the publication of the preliminary results. The reason for this extension is due to extenuating circumstances related to the complexity of this case. Specifically, the additional time will be needed to examine the change of fixed-rate loan methodology, the issue of cross-ownership of Inchon and Sammi, and Inchon's purchase of POSCO's inputs for less than adequate remuneration. As we cannot fully resolve these issues until after verifying the submitted information and examining comments submitted by interested parties, we will be unable to complete the final results by December 29, 2002. Therefore, the Department will issue its final results no later than 180 days after the publication of the preliminary results of this review.
For purposes of this review, the products covered are certain stainless steel sheet and strip in coils. Stainless steel is an alloy steel containing, by weight, 1.2 percent or less of carbon and 10.5 percent or more of chromium, with or without other elements. The subject sheet and strip is a flat-rolled product in coils that is greater than 9.5 mm in width and less than 4.75 mm in thickness, and that is annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled. The subject sheet and strip may also be further processed (
The merchandise subject to this review is classified in the
Excluded from the scope of this review are the following: (1) Sheet and strip that is not annealed or otherwise heat treated and pickled or otherwise descaled, (2) sheet and strip that is cut to length, (3) plate (
The Department has determined that certain specialty stainless steel products are also excluded from the scope of this order. These excluded products are described below:
Flapper valve steel is defined as stainless steel strip in coils containing, by weight, between 0.37 and 0.43 percent carbon, between 1.15 and 1.35 percent molybdenum, and between 0.20 and 0.80 percent manganese. This steel also contains, by weight, phosphorus of 0.025 percent or less, silicon of between 0.20 and 0.50 percent, and sulfur of 0.020 percent or less. The product is manufactured by means of vacuum arc remelting, with inclusion controls for sulphide of no more than 0.04 percent and for oxide of no more than 0.05 percent. Flapper valve steel has a tensile strength of between 210 and 300 ksi, yield strength of between 170 and 270 ksi, plus or minus 8 ksi, and a hardness (Hv) of between 460 and 590. Flapper valve steel is most commonly used to produce specialty flapper valves in compressors.
Also excluded is a product referred to as suspension foil, a specialty steel product used in the manufacture of suspension assemblies for computer disk drives. Suspension foil is described as 302/304 grade or 202 grade stainless steel of a thickness between 14 and 127 microns, with a thickness tolerance of plus-or-minus 2.01 microns, and surface glossiness of 200 to 700 percent Gs. Suspension foil must be supplied in coil widths of not more than 407 mm, and with a mass of 225 kg or less. Roll marks may only be visible on one side, with no scratches of measurable depth. The material must exhibit residual stresses of 2 mm maximum deflection, and flatness of 1.6 mm over 685 mm length.
Certain stainless steel foil for automotive catalytic converters is also excluded from the scope of this review. This stainless steel strip in coils is a specialty foil with a thickness of between 20 and 110 microns used to produce a metallic substrate with a honeycomb structure for use in automotive catalytic converters. The steel contains, by weight, carbon of no more than 0.030 percent, silicon of no more than 1.0 percent, manganese of no more than 1.0 percent, chromium of between 19 and 22 percent, aluminum of no less than 5.0 percent, phosphorus of no more than 0.045 percent, sulfur of no more than 0.03 percent, lanthanum of between 0.002 and 0.05 percent, and total rare earth elements of more than 0.06 percent, with the balance iron.
Permanent magnet iron-chromium-cobalt alloy stainless strip is also excluded from the scope of this order. This ductile stainless steel strip contains, by weight, 26 to 30 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent cobalt, with the remainder of iron, in widths 228.6 mm or less, and a thickness between 0.127 and 1.270 mm. It exhibits magnetic remanence between 9,000 and 12,000 gauss, and a coercivity of between 50 and 300 oersteds. This product is most commonly used in electronic sensors and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Arnokrome III.”
Certain electrical resistance alloy steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This product is defined as a non-magnetic stainless steel manufactured to American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) specification B344 and containing, by weight, 36 percent nickel, 18 percent chromium, and 46 percent iron, and is most notable for its resistance to high temperature corrosion. It has a melting point of 1390 degrees Celsius and displays a creep rupture limit of 4 kilograms per square millimeter at 1000 degrees Celsius. This steel is most commonly used in the production of heating ribbons for circuit breakers and industrial furnaces, and in rheostats for railway locomotives. The product is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Gilphy 36.”
Certain martensitic precipitation-hardenable stainless steel is also excluded from the scope of this order. This high-strength, ductile stainless steel product is designated under the Unified Numbering System (UNS) as S45500-grade steel, and contains, by weight, 11 to 13 percent chromium, and 7 to 10 percent nickel. Carbon, manganese, silicon and molybdenum each comprise, by weight, 0.05 percent or less, with phosphorus and sulfur each comprising, by weight, 0.03 percent or less. This steel has copper, niobium, and titanium added to achieve aging, and will exhibit yield strengths as high as 1700 Mpa and ultimate tensile strengths as high as 1750 Mpa after aging, with elongation percentages of 3 percent or less in 50 mm. It is generally provided in thicknesses between 0.635 and 0.787 mm, and in widths of 25.4 mm. This product is most commonly used in the manufacture of television tubes and is currently available under proprietary trade names such as “Durphynox 17.”
Finally, three specialty stainless steels typically used in certain industrial blades and surgical and medical instruments are also excluded from the scope of this review. These include stainless steel strip in coils used in the production of textile cutting tools (
According to section 351.525(b)(6)(vi) of the CVD Regulations, cross ownership exists between two corporations where one corporation can use or direct the individual assets of the other corporation in essentially the same ways it can use its own assets. Normally, this standard will be met where there is a majority voting ownership interest between two corporations. On December 6, 2000, Inchon became the majority shareholder of Sammi with 68 percent of Sammi's shares. However, Sammi remained under court receivership throughout the POR, and until March 23, 2001.
The CVD Regulations acknowledge that control can be exercised by one corporation over another even when that one corporation does not hold majority voting ownership.
Sammi filed for bankruptcy prior to the POR and came under court receivership prior to and throughout the POR. Under Korea's Company Reorganization Act, the authority for management control, the right to operate the company's business, management, and disposition of the company's property rests exclusively with the court or with the receiver appointed by the court. The information on the record demonstrates that the control of Sammi and the ability to use and direct the company's assets were held by the court and the court appointed receiver throughout the POR. Therefore, while Inchon held 68 percent of Sammi's shares, it was not in the position to control Sammi's assets until March 23, 2001, when Sammi's court receivership ended. Therefore, we find preliminarily that cross ownership as defined under section 351.525(b)(6)(vi) of the CVD Regulations did not exist between Inchon and Sammi during the POR.
As noted above, we initiated an administrative review of Sammi. According to the response, Sammi produced subject merchandise but did not export subject merchandise to the United States during calendar year 2000, the POR. However, Sammi provided a complete response to the Department's questionnaire because it was affiliated with Inchon. An affiliated company must provide a questionnaire response if cross-ownership exists and the affiliated company produces the subject merchandise. It is the Department's practice not to review a respondent, in this case Sammi, that has not exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, because we preliminarily find no cross ownership between Sammi and Inchon, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we intend to rescind the review with respect to Sammi because it made no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the review period. If, in the final determination, we find that Sammi is not cross owned by Inchon,
In the
Based on our findings on this issue in prior investigations, we are using the following benchmarks to calculate the subsidies attributable to respondent's long-term loans obtained in the years 1992 through 2000:
(1) For countervailable, foreign-currency denominated loans, we used, where available, the company-specific weighted-average U.S. dollar-denominated interest rates on the company's loans from foreign bank branches in Korea.
(2) For countervailable won-denominated long-term loans, where available, we used the company-specific corporate bond rate on the company's public and private bonds. We note that this benchmark is based on the decision in
Under section 351.107(b)(1) of the Department's regulations, when the subject merchandise is exported to the United States by a company that is not the producer of the merchandise, the Department may establish a “combination” rate for each combination of an exporter and supplying producer. However, as noted in the Preamble to the regulations, there may be situations in which it is not appropriate or practicable to establish combination rates when the subject
We preliminarily determine that it is not appropriate to establish combination rates, with respect to this review. This determination is based on two main facts: first, the majority of the subsidies conferred upon the subject merchandise were received by the producer; second, the level of subsidies conferred upon the individual trading company with regard to the subject merchandise is insignificant.
Instead, we have continued to calculate a rate for the producer of subject merchandise that includes the subsidies received by the trading company. To reflect those subsidies that are received by the exporter of the subject merchandise in the calculated
The Department previously determined in the
In
We provided the GOK with the opportunity to present new factual information concerning the government's credit policies through 2000, the POR, which we would consider along with our findings in the prior investigations. The GOK did not provide any new factual information on this program that would lead us to change our determination in the current administrative review. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we continue to find lending from domestic banks and from government-owned banks, such as the KDB, to be countervailable through 2000.
With respect to foreign sources of credit, in
Inchon received long-term fixed and variable rate loans from GOK owned/controlled institutions that were outstanding during the POR. In order to determine whether these GOK directed loans conferred a benefit, we compared the interest rates on the directed loans to the benchmark interest rates detailed in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section of this notice.
In these preliminary results, the Department is revising its application of the grant equivalent methodology discussed in 351.505(c)(3) of the CVD Regulations. We note that section 351.505(c)(2) of the CVD Regulations states that the Department “will normally calculate the subsidy amount to be assigned to a particular year by calculating the difference in interest payments for that year, (
The Preamble goes on to describe those situations in which the Department shall deviate from the “simple, default methodology,” and instead employ the grant equivalent methodology. The Preamble states that, “[b]ecause a firm may derive a benefit from special repayment terms, in addition to any benefit derived from a concessional interest rate,” the Department will calculate the benefit using the grant equivalent methodology.
There is no information on the record of these preliminary results that indicates that Inchon derived a benefit from any special repayment terms (
To calculate the countervailable subsidy benefit, we first derived the benefit amounts attributable to the POR for the company's fixed and variable rate loans, and then summed the benefit amounts from the loans.
To determine the total benefit for all directed credit, we added the benefit derived from foreign currency loans to the benefit derived from won denominated loans and divided the total benefit by Inchon's total f.o.b. sales value during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine the countervailable subsidy to be 0.76 percent
Under Article 16 of the TERCL, a domestic person engaged in a foreign-currency earning business can establish a reserve amounting to the lesser of one percent of foreign exchange earnings or 50 percent of net income for the respective tax year. Losses accruing from the cancellation of an export contract, or from the execution of a disadvantageous export contract, may be offset by returning an equivalent amount from the reserve fund to the income account. Any amount that is not used to offset a loss must be returned to the income account and taxed over a three-year period, after a one-year grace period. All of the money in the reserve is eventually reported as income and subject to corporate tax either when it is used to offset export losses or when the grace period expires and the funds are returned to taxable income. The deferral of taxes owed amounts to an interest-free loan in the amount of the company's tax savings. This program is only available to exporters. According to information provided by respondents, this program was terminated on April 10, 1998, and no new funds could be placed in this reserve after January 1, 1999. However, Inchon still had an outstanding balance in this reserve during the POR.
In
To determine the benefit conferred by this program, we calculated the tax savings by multiplying the balance amount of the reserve as of December 31, 1999, as filed during the POR, by the corporate tax rate for 1999. We treated the tax savings on these funds as a short-term interest-free loan.
For our final determination, we will consider whether the methodology the Department has traditionally applied to these types of Korean tax programs accurately quantifies the benefit conferred by these tax reserves. As noted above, the Department has treated these tax reserve programs as providing a deferral of tax liability. That is, in Year X a company places funds into a reserve account and these funds are, therefore, not taxed in Year X. However, three years later when the funds in the tax reserve are returned to taxable income, income taxes are paid on these funds in Year X plus three. Therefore, we have considered the tax savings on these funds to benefit the company in the form of an interest-free loan. However, if the company is in a tax loss situation and does not pay any taxes on income in the year in which the funds are refunded to the income account, the funds placed into the tax reserve are never taxed. Under this scenario, the company, instead of being provided with a deferral of tax liability on these reserve funds, may have been provided with a complete exemption of tax liability on these funds. Therefore, we will carefully analyze this methodological issue for the final determination. We also invite interested parties to comment on this issue.
Under Article 17 of the TERCL, a domestic person engaged in a foreign trade business is allowed to establish a reserve fund equal to one percent of its foreign exchange earnings from its export business for the respective tax year. Expenses incurred in developing overseas markets may be offset by returning from the reserve, to the income account, an amount equivalent to the expense. Any part of the fund that is not placed in the income account for the purpose of offsetting overseas market development expenses must be returned to the income account over a three-year period, after a one-year grace period. The balance of this reserve fund is not subject to corporate income tax during the grace period. However, all of the money in the reserve is eventually reported as income and subject to corporate tax either when it offsets export losses or when the grace period expires. The deferral of taxes owed amounts to an interest-free loan equal to the company's tax savings. This program is only available to exporters. Although Inchon did not use this program during the POR, it exported subject merchandise through Hyundai, which used this program during the POR.
In
To determine the benefit conferred by this program, we calculated the tax savings by multiplying the balance amount of the reserve as of December 31, 1999, by the corporate tax rate for 1999. We treated the tax savings on these funds as a short-term interest-free loan. Accordingly, to determine the benefit, we multiplied the amount of tax savings by Hyundai's weighted-average interest rate for short-term won-denominated commercial loans for the POR. Using the methodology for calculating subsidies received by trading companies, which also is detailed in the “Subsidies Valuation Information” section of this notice, we calculate a countervailable subsidy of less than 0.005 percent
On December 28, 1998, the TERCL was replaced by the Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (RSTA). Pursuant to this change in law, TERCL Article 8 is now identified as RSTA Article 9. Apart from the name change, the operation of RSTA Article 9 is the same as the previous TERCL Article 8 and its Enforcement Decree.
This program allows a company operating in manufacturing or mining, or in a business prescribed by the Presidential Decree, to appropriate reserve funds to cover the expenses needed for development or innovation of technology. These reserve funds are included in the company's losses and reduce the amount of taxes paid by the company. Under this program, capital good and capital intensive companies can establish a reserve of five percent, while companies in all other industries are only allowed to establish a three percent reserve.
In
Under Article 56(2) of the TERCL, the GOK permitted companies that made an initial public offering between January 1, 1987, and December 31, 1990, to revalue their assets at a rate higher than the 25 percent required of most other companies under the Asset Revaluation Act. In
To calculate the benefit from the program we reviewed the effect that the difference of the revaluation of depreciable assets had on Inchon's tax liability each year. We multiplied the additional depreciation in the tax return filed during the POR, which resulted from the company's asset revaluation, by the tax rate applicable to that tax return. We then divided the benefit by Inchon's total f.o.b. sales. Accordingly, the net subsidy for this program is less than 0.005 percent
With respect to the Requested Load Adjustment (RLA) program, the GOK introduced this discount in 1990, to address emergencies in Korea Electric Power Company's (KEPCO's) ability to supply electricity. Under this program, customers with a contract demand of 5,000 kW or more, who can curtail their maximum demand by 20 percent or suppress their maximum demand by 3,000 kW or more, are eligible to enter into an RLA contract with KEPCO. Customers who choose to participate in this program must reduce their load upon KEPCO's request, or pay a surcharge to KEPCO.
Customers can apply for this program between May 1 and May 15 of each year. If KEPCO finds the application in order, KEPCO and the customer enter into a contract with respect to the RLA discount. The RLA discount is provided based upon a contract for two months, normally July and August. Under this program, a basic discount of 440 won per kW is granted between July 1 and August 31, regardless of whether KEPCO makes a request for a customer to reduce its load. During the POR, KEPCO granted Inchon electricity discounts under this program.
In
Because the electricity discounts provide recurring benefits, we have expensed the benefit from this program in the year of receipt. To measure the benefit from this program, we summed the electricity discounts which Inchon received from KEPCO under the RLA program during the POR. We then divided that amount by Inchon's total f.o.b. sales value for 2000. On this basis, we determine a net countervailable subsidy of 0.01 percent
POSCO is the only Korean producer of hot-rolled stainless steel coil (hot-rolled coil), which is the main input into the subject merchandise. During the POR, POSCO sold hot-rolled coil to Inchon for products that were consumed in Korea, as well as hot-rolled coil, to produce exports of the subject merchandise. In
Prior to 1999, POSCO set different prices depending on whether the input was to be used to produce products for domestic consumption or export consumption. Respondent claims that in May 1999, POSCO eliminated its two-tiered pricing system and established unit prices applicable for sales to all customers, thereby removing the aspect of the program that constituted a countervailable subsidy. However, we find that this change in pricing policies does not impact the determination made by the Department in
Under section 351.511(a)(2) of the CVD Regulations, the adequacy of remuneration is determined by comparing the government price to a market determined price based on actual transactions in the country in question. Such prices could include prices stemming from actual transactions between private parties, actual imports, or, in certain circumstances, actual sales from competitively run government auctions. During the POR, Inchon also imported hot-rolled coil; therefore, we are using Inchon's actual import prices of hot-rolled coil as our basis of comparison to the price at which Inchon purchased hot-rolled coil from POSCO. Based upon this comparison, we preliminarily determine that POSCO sold hot-rolled coil to Inchon for less than adequate remuneration.
In the
The GOK has argued in this proceeding that POSCO underwent privatization in September 2000, and, thus, cannot possibly sell HR coil to Inchon at less than adequate remuneration at the behest of the GOK. It further contends that POSCO's privatization constitutes a program-wide change pursuant to section 351.526 of the CVD Regulations. In
In
In this current administrative review, the respondents have made a similar claim that POSCO's change in ownership removes the GOK's control of POSCO which was found for this program in
POSCO also states that the restrictions that no individual other than the GOK can exercise voting rights in excess of three percent have been removed. Under the Securities and Exchange Act, a company designated as a “public company” was not permitted to have individual shareholders exercising voting rights in excess of three percent of the company's common shares. This legal requirement applied to POSCO until September 26, 2000. As part of POSCO's privatization process, the GOK removed POSCO's designation as a “public company” on that date. Accordingly, any legal limits on individual shareholder's voting rights or ownership in POSCO ceased on September 26, 2000. POSCO's Articles of Incorporation also included this restriction on the acquisition of shares. According to POSCO, although its Articles of Incorporation had not been implemented during the POR, once the GOK eliminated the restrictions on the acquisition of shares, POSCO was in effect no longer a public company.
According to information on the record, POSCO has seven standing directors and eight outside directors on its Board of Directors who are elected for terms of three years and may be re-elected. The directors are elected at the General Meeting of Shareholders, which usually take place in March of each year. Further, none of POSCO's current standing directors are either current or former government officials. With respect to the outside directors, five candidates were recommended by each of the five largest shareholders, which include the IBK and Seoul Bank, and three candidates were recommended by the Board of Directors. There were changes to the Board of Directors during
For the purposes of this preliminary determination, we continue to countervail POSCO's sales of hot-rolled coil as in the
During verification we plan to closely examine whether or not the GOK continues either directly or indirectly to control POSCO's pricing policy in the Korean domestic market. We invite interested parties to comment on this issue.
Under Korean tax laws, companies in Korea are allowed to claim investment tax credits for various kinds of investments. If the investment tax credits cannot all be used at the time they are claimed, then the company is authorized to carry them forward for use in subsequent years. Until December 28, 1998, these investment tax credits were provided under the Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act (TERCL). On that date, TERCL was replaced by the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (RSTA). Pursuant to this change in the law, investment tax credits received after December 28, 1998, were provided under the authority of RSTA.
During the POR, Inchon earned or used tax credits for investments in productivity increasing facilities (RSTA Article 24, previously TERCL Article 25). If a company invested in foreign-produced facilities (
According to the response of the GOK, the government has changed the manner in which these investment tax credits are determined. Pursuant to amendments made to TERCL, which occurred on April 10, 1998, the distinction between investments in domestic and imported goods was eliminated for the tax credits for investments in productivity increasing facilities (RSTA 24). According to the response of the GOK, for investments made after April 10, 1998, there is no longer a difference between domestic-made and foreign-made facilities. The current tax credit is five percent for all of these investments.
Because the distinction between investments in domestic and foreign-made goods was eliminated for investments made after April 10, 1998, we preliminarily determine that the tax credits received pursuant to these investment programs for investments made after April 10, 1998, are no longer countervailable. However, record evidence indicates that companies can still carry forward and use the tax credits for investments earned under the countervailable aspects of the TERCL program before the April 10, 1998, amendment to the tax law. Therefore, we continue to find the use of investment tax credits earned on domestic investments made before April 10, 1998, to be countervailable.
Inchon claimed tax credits under RSTA 24 that originated when there was a distinction between purchasing domestic facilities and imported facilities. To calculate the benefit from this investment tax credit, we examined the amount of tax credits Inchon deducted from its taxes payable for the 1999 fiscal year income tax return, which was filed during the POR. We first determined the amount of the tax credits claimed which were based upon investments in domestically-produced facilities. We then calculated the additional amount of tax credits received by the company because it earned tax credits of ten percent on such investments instead of a three or five percent tax credit. Next, we calculated the amount of the tax savings earned through the use of this tax credit during the POR and divided that amount by Inchon's total f.o.b. sales during the POR. On this basis, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy of 0.12 percent
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(i), we calculated an individual subsidy rate for the producer/exporter subject to this administrative review. For the period January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, we preliminarily determine the net subsidy for Inchon to be 5.21 percent
If the final results of this review remain the same as these preliminary results, the Department intends to instruct Customs to assess countervailing duties as indicated above. The Department also intends to instruct Customs to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing
Because the URAA replaced the general rule in favor of a country-wide rate with a general rule in favor of individual rates for investigated and reviewed companies, the procedures for establishing countervailing duty rates, including those for non-reviewed companies, are now essentially the same as those in antidumping cases, except as provided for in section 777A(e)(2)(B) of the Act. The requested review will normally cover only those companies specifically named.
We will instruct Customs to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the most recent company-specific or country-wide rate applicable to the company. Accordingly, the cash deposit rates that will be applied to non-reviewed companies covered by this order will be the rate for that company established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding conducted under the URAA. If such a review has not been conducted, the rate established in the most recently completed administrative proceeding pursuant to the statutory provisions that were in effect prior to the URAA amendments is applicable.
Upon completion of this administrative review, the Department will determine, and the Customs Service shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), we have calculated a company-specific assessment rate for merchandise subject to this review. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the Customs Service within 15 days of publication of the final results of review. If these preliminary results are adopted in the final results of review, we will direct the Customs Service to assess the resulting assessment rates against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise on each of the company's entries during the review period.
We find that there are numerous issues that require verification; such as, the allegation of a program-wide change and Inchon's possible cross-ownership of Sammi. Therefore, the Department will verify the information submitted by respondents in accordance with section 782(i)(3) of the Act and 351.307(b)(iv) of the CVD Regulations.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), the Department will disclose to parties to the proceeding any calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days after the date of the public announcement of this notice. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit written comments in response to these preliminary results. Unless otherwise indicated by the Department, case briefs must be submitted within 14 days after the release of the verification reports. Rebuttal briefs, which are limited to arguments raised in case briefs, must be submitted no later than five days after the time limit for filing case briefs, unless otherwise specified by the Department. Parties who submit argument in this proceeding are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties submitting case and/or rebuttal briefs are requested to provide the Department copies of the public version on disk. Case and rebuttal briefs must be served on interested parties in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). Also, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, interested parties may request a public hearing on arguments to be raised in the case and rebuttal briefs. Unless the Secretary specifies otherwise, the hearing, if requested, will be held two days after the date for submission of rebuttal briefs.
Representatives of parties to the proceeding may request disclosure of proprietary information under administrative protective order no later than 10 days after the representative's client or employer becomes a party to the proceeding, but in no event later than the date the case briefs, under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii), are due. The Department will publish the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any case or rebuttal brief or at a hearing.
This administrative review is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1) and 19 U.S.C. 1677f(i)(1)).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of permit.
Notice is hereby given that Point Defiance Zoo and Aquarium, 5400 North Pearl Street, Tacoma, Washington 98407, has been issued a permit to import one harbor seal (
The permit 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
Regional Administrator, Northwest Region, NOAA Fisheries, 7600 Sand
Jennifer Skidmore or Jill Lewandowski, (301) 713-2289.
On July 12, 2002, notice was published in the
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing limits.
January 1, 2003.
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Bahrain and exported during the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the limits for the 2003 period.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2003, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Bahrain and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2003 and extending through December 31, 2003, in excess of the following levels of restraint:
The limits set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.
Products in the above categories exported during 2002 shall be charged to the applicable category limits for that year (see directive dated November 8, 2001) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the limits established for that period have
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception to the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing limits.
January 1, 2003.
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Brazil and exported during the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2003 limits.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2003, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Brazil and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2003 and extending through December 31, 2003, in excess of the following levels of restraint:
The limits set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.
Products in the above categories exported during 2002 shall be charged to the applicable category limits for that year (see directive dated November 9, 2001) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the limits established for that period have been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the limits set forth in this directive.
The conversion factor for merged Categories 338/339/638/639 is 10 (square meters equivalent/category unit).
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing limits.
January 1, 2003.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.ustreas.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Bulgaria and exported during the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2003 limits.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2003, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of wool and man-made fiber textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Bulgaria and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2003 and extending through December 31, 2003, in excess of the following levels of restraint:
The limits set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.
Products in the above categories exported during 2002 shall be charged to the applicable category limits for that year (see directive dated November 8, 2001) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the limits established for that period have been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the limits set forth in this directive.
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing limits.
January 1, 2003.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854);
The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in the Czech Republic and exported during the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2003 limits.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2003, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of wool and man-made fiber textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in the Czech Republic and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2003 and extending through December 31, 2003, in excess of the following limits:
The limits set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.
Products in the above categories exported during 2002 shall be charged to the applicable category limits for that year (see directive dated November 16, 2001) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the limits established for that period have been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the limits set forth in this directive.
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing levels under the North America Free Trade Agreement.
January 1, 2003.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
In order to implement Annex 300-B of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), restrictions and consultation levels for certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products from Mexico are being established for the period beginning on January 1, 2003 and extending through December 31, 2003.
These restrictions and consultation levels do not apply to NAFTA originating goods, as defined in Annex 300-B, Chapter 4 and Annex 401 of the NAFTA. In addition, restrictions and consultation levels do not apply to textile and apparel goods that are assembled in Mexico from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States and exported from and re-imported into the United States under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States item 9802.00.90.
The 2003 DCL for Category 433 was reduced by 1,000 dozen to account for an increase of 1,000 dozen to the 2002 DCL. To the extent that the 2002 increase was not used, the 2003 DCL will be increased later in 2003.
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to implement levels for the 2003 period.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), between the Governments of the United States, the United Mexican States and Canada, you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2003, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of wool and man-made fiber textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Mexico and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2003 and extending through December 31, 2003, in excess of the following levels:
The levels set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of Annex 300-B of the NAFTA.
Products in the above categories exported during 2002 shall be charged to the applicable category levels for that year (see directive dated November 23, 2001) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the levels established for that period have been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the levels set forth in this directive.
The foregoing levels do not apply to NAFTA originating goods, as defined in Annex 300-B, Chapter 4 and Annex 401 of the NAFTA. In addition, restrictions and consultation levels do not apply to textile and apparel goods that are assembled in Mexico from fabrics wholly formed and cut in the United States and exported from and re-imported into the United States under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States item 9802.00.90.
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing limits.
January 1, 2003.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Romania and exported during the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 are based on the limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).
These limits do not apply to goods entered under the Outward Processing Program, as defined in the notice and letter to the Commissioner of Customs published in the
Any shipment for entry under the Outward Processing Program which is not accompanied by valid certification in accordance with the provisions established in the notice and letter to the Commissioner of Customs, published in the
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2003 limits.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2003, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of cotton, wool and man-made fiber textiles and textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Romania and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2003 and extending through December 31, 2003, in excess of the following levels of restraint:
The limits set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.
Products in the above categories exported during 2002 shall be charged to the applicable category limits for that year (see directive dated November 27, 2001) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the limits established for that period have been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the limits set forth in this directive.
These limits do not apply to goods entered under the Outward Processing Program, as defined in the letter to the Commissioner of Customs, dated December 8, 1999 (see 64 FR 69746).
Any shipment for entry under the Outward Processing Program which is not accompanied by a valid certification in accordance with the provisions established in the letter to the Commissioner of Customs, dated December 9, 1999 (see 64 FR 69744), shall be denied entry. However, the Government of Romania may authorize the entry and charges to the appropriate specific limits by the issuance of a valid visa. Also see directive dated December 29, 1983, as amended, (49 FR 493). Any shipment which is declared for entry under the Outward Processing Program but found not to qualify shall be denied entry into the United States.
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing limits.
January 1, 2003.
Naomi Freeman, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Singapore and exported during the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2003 limits.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2003, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Singapore and exported during the twelve-month period beginning on January 1, 2003 and extending through December 31, 2003, in excess of the following levels of restraint:
The limits set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.
Products in the above categories exported during 2002 shall be charged to the applicable category limits for that year (see directive dated November 27, 2001) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the limits established for that period have been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the limits set forth in this directive.
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs establishing limits.
January 1, 2003.
Roy Unger, International Trade Specialist, Office of Textiles and Apparel, U.S. Department of Commerce, (202) 482-4212. For information on the quota status of these limits, refer to the Quota Status Reports posted on the bulletin boards of each Customs port, call (202) 927-5850, or refer to the U.S. Customs website at http://www.customs.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, refer to the Office of Textiles and Apparel website at http://otexa.ita.doc.gov.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The import restraint limits for textile products, produced or manufactured in Turkey and exported during the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003 are based on limits notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body pursuant to the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC).
In the letter published below, the Chairman of CITA directs the Commissioner of Customs to establish the 2003 limits.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: Pursuant to section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended; and the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), you are directed to prohibit, effective on January 1, 2003, entry into the United States for consumption and withdrawal from warehouse for consumption of cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products in the following categories, produced or manufactured in Turkey and exported during the period January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003, in excess of the following levels of restraint:
The limits set forth above are subject to adjustment pursuant to the provisions of the ATC and administrative arrangements notified to the Textiles Monitoring Body.
Products in the above categories exported during 2002 shall be charged to the applicable category limits for that year (see directive dated November 27, 2001) to the extent of any unfilled balances. In the event the limits established for that period have been exhausted by previous entries, such products shall be charged to the limits set forth in this directive.
In carrying out the above directions, the Commissioner of Customs should construe entry into the United States for consumption to include entry for consumption into the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR part 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent US 6,181,303 B1 entitled “Flat Panel, Three Dimensional Display Unit” issued January 30, 2001. This patent is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army.
Mr. Kelly McGuire at U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, AMSAM-RD-AS-TI, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898, Phone 256/876-8743 or e-mail
Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR Part 404.
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6 and 404.7, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of the following: U.S. Patent No. 6,419,629 entitled “Method for Predicting Human Cognitive Performance,” issued July 16, 2002; U.S. Patent No. 6,241,686 entitled “System and Method for Predicting Human Cognitive Performance Using data from an Actigraph,” issued June 5, 2001; and U.S. Patent Application No. 09/848,352 entitled “Method and System for Predicting Human Cognitive Performance”, filed May 4, 2001. The United States Government, as represented by the Secretary of the Army has rights in these inventions.
Commander, U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, ATTN: Command Judge Advocate, MCMR-JR, 504 Scott Street, Fort Detrick, MD 21702-5012.
For patent issues, Ms. Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 619-7808. For licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of Research & Technology Assessment, (301) 619-6664, both at telefax (301) 619-5034.
An apparatus and method for predicting cognitive performance of an individual based on factors including sleep history and the time of day. The method facilities the creation of predicted cognitive performance curves that allow an individual to set his/her sleep times to produce higher levels of cognitive performance. The method also facilities
Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR part 404.6, announcement is made of the availability for licensing of U.S. Patent No. US 6,438,853 B1 entitled “Set of Human Torso Manikins for Use in Fabrication and Evaluation of Body Wear for a Group of Human Beings” issued August 27, 2002. This patent has been assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Army.
Mr. Robert Rosenkrans at U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760; Phone: (508) 233-4928 or e-mail:
Any licenses granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) intends to prepare a Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program involving the planning, design and construction of wastewater treatment systems to improve water quality within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. This program is a cooperative effort between the Corps (lead Federal agency) and the South Florida Water Management District (non-Federal sponsor).
Barbara Cintron, 904-232-1692, Environmental Branch, Planning Division, P.O. Box 4970, Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019 or e-mail at:
Under authority of Public Law 106-554, Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, Section 109 and Conference Report H.R. 4577, the Corps is authorized to provide technical and financial assistance to carry out projects for the planning, design and construction of treatment works to improve the water quality of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary is dependent on acceptable water quality to maintain fragile aquatic habitats. However, as population and tourism within the Keys have increased over the years, improvements in wastewater treatment and management practices have not kept pace with this growth. Ongoing research has suggested that this trend has resulted in a significant degradation of water quality in canals and nearshore waters surrounding the Florida Keys and that nutrients from waterwater are one of the major contributors to the decline of the water quality. This, in turn, is prompting the proposal to improve sewage treatment practices throughout the Florida Keys. According to the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan, approximately 23,000 private onsite systems and 250 small wastewater treatment plants are currently operating throughout the Florida Keys. It is estimated that the onsite systems contribute 4.88 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater and the treatment plants contribute an additional 2.40 mgd of wastewater. Many of these onsite systems and treatment plants provide minimal nutrient removal. The primary objective of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements Program is to improve wastewater management practices throughout the Florida Keys and satisfy the existing and future needs for the community. Several wastewater master plans have been prepared for Monroe County and other municipalities within Monroe County that the Corps plans to utilize as the base for the planning component of the Florida Keys Water Quality Improvement Program. These wastewater master plans recommend that existing onsite systems located in lower density areas of the Florida Keys be upgraded or replaced with onsite wastewater nutrient reduction systems. The wastewater master plan also recommended the construction of 12 community wastewater collection and treatment systems and five regional systems. Five of the 12 community systems would feature interim treatment plants that over time would be phased into larger regional treatment systems. In addition to the new systems and extension of the existing systems, the plans recommend that 17 existing facilities continue to operate and upgrade their treatment processes to meet the best available technology/advanced wastewater treatment standards. The estimated cost to implement these master plans is approximately $500 million.
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 10, 2002.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Karen Lee, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the e-mail address
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested,
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Sheila Carey at
Department of Education.
The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 10, 2002.
Written comments should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Desk Officer, Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the e-mail address
Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere
Requests for copies of the submission for OMB review; comment request may be accessed from
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Joseph Schubart at
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2003.
(1) Projects that provide basic or advanced training leading to an academic degree in areas of personnel shortages in rehabilitation as identified by the Assistant Secretary;
(2) Projects that provide a specified series of courses or program of study leading to award of a certificate in areas of personnel shortages in rehabilitation as identified by the Assistant Secretary; and
(3) Projects that provide support for medical residents enrolled in residency training programs in the specialty of physical medicine and rehabilitation.
This competition is being announced in FY 2002 for grants that will be awarded using FY 2003 funds.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12-point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet, Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. However, you must include all of the application narrative in Part III.
We will reject your application if—
• You apply these standards and exceed the page limit; or
• You apply other standards and exceed the equivalent of the page limit.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.
The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education only.
Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) and 34 CFR 386.1, we consider only applications that provide training in the areas of personnel shortage listed in the chart.
Some of the procedures in these instructions for transmitting applications differ from those in the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (74 CFR 75.102). Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. However, these amendments make procedural changes only and do not establish new substantive policy. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), the Secretary has determined that proposed rulemaking is not required.
The U.S. Department of Education is continuing to expand its pilot project of electronic submission of applications to include additional formula grant programs and additional discretionary grant competitions. The Rehabilitation Training: Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program, CFDA 84.129, is one of the programs included in the pilot project. If you are an applicant under the Rehabilitation Training: Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program, you may submit your application to us in either electronic or paper format.
The pilot project involves the use of the Electronic Grant Application System (e-APPLICATION, formerly e-GAPS) portion of the Grant Administration and Payment System (GAPS). We request your participation in this pilot project. We shall continue to evaluate its success and solicit suggestions for improvement.
If you participate in this e-APPLICATION pilot, please note the following:
• Your participation is voluntary.
• You will not receive any additional point value or penalty because you submit a grant application in electronic or paper format.
• You can submit all documents electronically, including the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424), Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.
• Within 3 working days of submitting your electronic application, fax a signed copy of the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424) to the Application Control Center following these steps:
1. Print ED 424 from the e-APPLICATION system.
2. Make sure that the institution's Authorizing Representative signs this form.
3. Before faxing this form, submit your electronic application via the e-APPLICATION system. You will receive an automatic acknowledgement, which will include a PR/Award number (an identifying number unique to your application).
4. Place the PR/Award number in the upper right corner of ED 424.
5. Fax ED 424 to the Application Control Center at (202) 260-1349.
• We may request that you give us original signatures on all other forms at a later date.
You may access the electronic grant application for the Rehabilitation Training: Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program at:
We have included additional information about the e-APPLICATION pilot project (
Please note that due to the Department's end of the fiscal year close out activities, the e-APPLICATION system will be unavailable from October 1 through October 5. It will become available for users again on Monday, October 7.
You may also contact ED Pubs via its Web site:
Or you may contact ED Pubs at its e-mail address:
If you request an application from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this competition as follows: CFDA number 84.129E, F, H, L, P, Q, or R.
Ellen Chesley, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., (Room 3318, Switzer Building), Washington, DC 20202-2649. Telephone (202) 205-9481 or via Internet:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternative format (
Individuals with disabilities may obtain a copy of the application package in an alternative format by contacting
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
29 U.S.C. 774.
Department of Energy.
This notice announces an open meeting of the Department of Energy's Electricity Advisory Board. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770), requires that agencies publish these notices in the
Electricity Advisory Board.
Friday, September 20, 2002, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Eastern.
The second public meeting of the Electricity Advisory Board (EAB) will be held at the Regent Wall Street Hotel, 55 Wall Street, New York, New York 10005. The meeting will be held in the hotel's Mezzanine of the Ballroom from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.
Dr. Craig R. Reed, Executive Director, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (AB-1), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7092 or (202) 586-6279 (fax).
The Electricity Advisory Board was chartered to provide the Secretary of Energy with essential independent advice and recommendations on electricity policy issues of importance to the Department of Energy. The Electricity Advisory Board is to provide timely, balanced, and authoritative advice to the Secretary of Energy on the Department's electricity programs; current and future capacity of the electricity system; issues related to production, reliability and utility restructuring; and coordination between the Department of Energy and state and regional officials and the private sector on matters affecting electricity supply and reliability.
The agenda for the September 20, 2002 meeting has not been finalized. The following is a tentative agenda:
1. E-Mail to
2. Facsimile to (202) 586-6279 as a fax; or
3. Mail to Dr. Craig R. Reed, Executive Director, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (AB-1), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Persons who fail to preregister for public comments may sign up at the meeting, but such later requests will only be allotted a portion of whatever time remains following the preregistered public comments. The Chairman of the Electricity Advisory Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will, in the Chairman's judgment, facilitate the orderly conduct of business. The Electricity Advisory Board will make every effort to hear the views of all interested parties.
Written comments on either of the Subcommittee's Draft Reports may be submitted to one of the following locations:
4. E-Mail to
5. Facsimile to (202) 586-6279; or
6. Mail to Dr. Craig R. Reed, Executive Director, Secretary of Energy Advisory
Please advise Lisa Epifani, staff director for the Electricity Advisory Board, at least seven days before the meeting if special assistance is required to make the meeting accessible by persons with vision, hearing, or mobility disabilities. Ms. Epifani may be reached at (202) 586-5450 or (202) 586-6279 (fax). This notice is being published less than 15 days before the date of the meeting due to the late resolution of programmatic issues.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP). Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, November 7, 2002; 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Friday, November 8, 2002; 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Hamilton Crowne Plaza Hotel, 14th & K Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
Glen Crawford, Executive Secretary; High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; U.S. Department of Energy; 19901 Germantown Road; Germantown, Maryland 20874-1290; Telephone: 301-903-9458.
Thursday, November 7, 2002, and Friday, November 8, 2002:
• Discussion of Department of Energy High Energy Physics Programs
• Discussion of National Science Foundation Elementary Particle Physics Program
• Discussion of High Energy Physics University Programs
• Reports on and Discussion of U.S. Large Hadron Collider Activities
• Reports on and Discussions of Topics of General Interest in High Energy Physics
• Public Comment (10-minute rule)
Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.
Notice of application.
Sempra Energy Resources (SER) and Termoelectrica U.S., LLC (T-US) jointly applied to rescind Presidential Permit PP-235 held by SER and to issue a Presidential permit to T-US covering the same international transmission facilities. In addition, SER and T-US are requesting expedited consideration of their joint application.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene must be submitted on or before September 25, 2002.
Comments, protests, or requests to intervene should be addressed as follows: Office of Coal & Power Import/Export, FE-27/Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202-586-9624 or Michael T. Skinker (Program Attorney) 202-586-2793.
The construction, operation, maintenance, and connection of facilities at the international border of the United States for the transmission of electric energy between the United States and a foreign country is prohibited in the absence of a Presidential permit issued pursuant to Executive Order (EO) 10485, as amended by EO 12038. Existing Presidential permits are not transferable or assignable. However, in the event of a proposed voluntary transfer of facilities, in accordance with the regulations at 10 CFR 205.323, the existing permit holder and the transferee are required to file a joint application with DOE that includes a statement of reasons for the transfer.
On August 29, 2002, SER and T-US jointly filed an application with the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) for a transfer from SER to T-US of the facilities authorized by Presidential Permit PP-235. These facilities include the following facilities and all supporting structures within the right-of-way occupied by such facilities:
Two 230,000-volt electric transmission circuits installed on a single set of steel lattice towers and extending from San Diego Gas & Electric Company's Imperial Valley Substation approximately 6 miles south to the U.S. international border with Mexico.
At the border these transmission facilities connect to similar facilities owned by Termoelectrica de Mexicali (TDM) and continue south 3 miles to the 500-megawatt natural gas fired powerplant currently being developed by TDM west of the town of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico.
SER is a California corporation engaged in the development, ownership, and operation of non-regulated electric generating facilities and the wholesale sale of electric power. T-US, a Delaware limited liability corporation, will own and operate the U.S. portion of the transmission facility. Both SER and T-US are indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Sempra Energy, a California corporation. SER and T-US request the recession of PP-235, issued to SER on December 5, 2001, and the simultaneous issuance of a Presidential permit to T-US for the same facilities enabling the parties to effectuate an internal corporate reorganization that will result in T-US owning, operating, and maintaining the transmission facility as an exempt wholesale generator (EWG).
The proposed transfer of these facilities has no effect on the proceeding currently before FE in Docket EA-235, SER's application to export a maximum of 12 MW of electric energy to the TDM powerplant using these same transmission facilities. In the EA-235 proceeding, SER proposes to export electric energy for the purpose of providing “black start” capability to the TDM powerplant and for providing ancillary equipment power when the facility's electrical generating equipment is not in operation. These transmission facilities are not interconnected with the electrical distribution system of Mexico owned and operated by Comision Federal de Electricidad, the national electric utility of Mexico.
Construction of the international transmission facilities that are the subject of this application was completed by SER earlier this year; however, the transmission line has not yet been energized. SER and T-US plan to energize the facility in October 2002 and, therefore, have requested expedited consideration of this joint application. Accordingly, DOE has shortened the public comment period to 15 days in order to allow completion of this proceeding within the applicants' time period.
Since restructuring of the electric power industry began, resulting in the introduction of different types of competitive entities into the marketplace, DOE has consistently expressed its policy that cross-border trade in electric energy should be subject to the same principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination that apply to transmission in interstate commerce. DOE has stated that policy in export authorizations granted to entities requesting authority to export over international transmission facilities. Specifically, DOE expects transmitting utilities owning border facilities to provide access across the border in accordance with the principles of comparable open access and non-discrimination contained in the FPA and articulated in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Order No. 888 (Promotion Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public utilities; FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶31,036 (1996)), as amended. In furtherance of this policy, on July 27, 1999, (64 FR 40586) DOE initiated a proceeding in which it noticed its intention to condition existing and future Presidential permits, appropriate for third party transmission, on compliance with a requirement to provide non-discriminatory open access transmission service. That proceeding is not yet complete. However, in this docket DOE specifically requests comment on the appropriateness of applying the open access requirement on facilities proposed to be transferred to T-US.
Additional copies of such petitions to intervene or protests also should be filed directly with: Alberto Abreu, Director, Permitting and Licensing, Sempra Energy Resources, 101 Ash Street, P.O. Box 1831, San Diego, CA 92112-4150.
Before a Presidential permit may be issued or amended, the DOE must determine that the proposed action will not adversely impact on the reliability of the U.S. electric power supply system. In addition, DOE must consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action (
Copies of this application will be made available, upon request, for public inspection and copying at the address provided above. In addition, the application may be reviewed or downloaded from the Fossil Energy Home Page at:
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, DOE.
Notice of availability of the Department of Energy's annual report on its alternative fuel vehicle acquisitions for fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
In compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and Executive Order 13149, this notice announces the availability of the 1999 and 2000 reports which summarize the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) compliance with the annual alternative fuel vehicle acquisition requirement for its fleet. Additionally, the reports include data relative to the agency's effort in reducing petroleum consumption.
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, EE-2G, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Shabnam Fardanesh on (202) 586-9171 or
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211-13219) as amended by the Energy Conservation and Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-388, Section 310(b)(3)(b)) and Executive Order 13149 (April 2000) were intended to decrease the country's dependence on petroleum for transportation purposes. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires Federal fleets to acquire 75 percent of their new covered vehicles acquisitions as alternative fuel vehicles. In fiscal year 1999, DOE acquired 112 percent of its new covered vehicles as alternative fuel
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 13218 of the Energy Policy Act, DOE and other covered agencies are required annually to submit to Congress reports on their Energy Policy Act's alternative fuel vehicle acquisition requirements. These reports must also be placed on an available Web site and their availability, including the Web site address, must be published in the
DOE reports for 1999 and 2000 may be accessed on the Vehicle Technology's Federal Fleet Web site at
Take notice that on August 29, 2002, Baconton Power LLC tendered for filing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a revision to its June 26, 2002 filing clarifying its requested effective date.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on August 29, 2002, Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective October 1, 2002:
CIG states that these tariff sheets clarify the calculation of the maximum and minimum service charge for interruptible gas parking and lending service provided under CIG's Rate Schedule PAL-1.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is reviewing the application for a new license for the El Dorado Project (FERC No. 184), filed on February 22, 2000. The El Dorado Project, licensed to the El Dorado Irrigation District (EID), is located on the South Fork American River, in El Dorado, Alpine, and Amador Counties, California. The project occupies lands of the Eldorado National Forest.
The EID, several state and federal agencies, and several non-governmental agencies are working collaboratively with a facilitator to resolve certain issues relevant to this proceeding. These meetings are a part of that collaborative process. Meetings will be held as follows:
We invite the participation of all interested governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the general public in these meetings.
All meetings will be held in the Rancho Cordova Holiday Inn, located at 11131 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, California.
For further information, please contact Elizabeth Molloy at (202) 502-8771 or John Mudre at (202) 502-8902.
Take notice that on August 29, 2002, Florida Gas Transmission Company (FGT) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective October 1, 2002:
FGT states that the tariff sheets listed above are being filed pursuant to Section 27 of the General Terms and Conditions (GTC) of FGT's Tariff which provides for the recovery by FGT of gas used in the operation of its system and gas lost from the system or otherwise unaccounted for. The fuel reimbursement charges pursuant to Section 27 consist of the Fuel Reimbursement Charge Percentage (FRCP), designed to recover current fuel usage on an in-kind basis, and the Unit Fuel Surcharge (UFS), designed to recover or refund previous under or overcollections on a cash basis. Both the FRCP and the UFS are applicable to Market Area deliveries and are effective for seasonal periods, changing effective each April 1 (for the Summer Period) and each October 1 (for the Winter Period).
FGT states that it is filing herein to establish an FRCP of 3.01% to become effective October 1, 2002 based on the actual company fuel use, lost and unaccounted for volumes and Market Area deliveries for the period from October 1, 2001 through March 31, 2002. The proposed FRCP of 3.01%, to become effective October 1, 2002, is a decrease of 0.30 % from the currently effective FRCP of 3.31%. FGT is also filing herein to establish a Summer Period UFS of $0.0097 per MMBtu to become effective October 1, 2002, a decrease of $0.0057 per MMBtu from the currently effective UFS of $0.0154.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Take notice that on August 9, 2002, Foote Creek II and Foote Creek III tendered for filing a Three-Year Market Analysis Update. Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date, and, to the extent applicable, must be served on the applicant and on any other person designated on the official service list. This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on August 29, 2002, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Sheet No. 20, Third Revised Sheet No. 21,Third Revised Sheet No. 22, Third Revised Sheet No. 23, and Third Revised Sheet No. 24, to become effective October 1, 2002.
Gulf South states that the purpose of this filing is to update Gulf South's tariff to reflect the Annual Charge Adjustment (ACA) factor to be effective for the twelve-month period beginning October 1, 2002.
Gulf South states that copies of this filing have been served upon Gulf South's customers, state commissions and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Take notice that on August 29, 2002, Midwestern Gas Transmission Company (Midwestern) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 5, to become effective October 1, 2002.
Midwestern states that the purpose of this filing is to update Midwestern's tariff to reflect the Annual Charge Adjustment (ACA) factor effective for the twelve-month period beginning October 1, 2002 pursuant to Section 154.402 of the Commission's regulations and Section 18 of the General Terms and Conditions of Midwestern's tariff. Midwestern states that its new ACA factor will be $0.0022 per Dth. This new factor was specified by the Commission at the time the Commission calculated the annual charge bill for fiscal year 2002, and is an increase from its current ACA factor of $0.0001 per Dth.
Midwestern states that copies of this filing have been sent to all of Midwestern's contracted shippers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
On August 15, 2002, North Hartland, LLC (NHL), filed a petition for a declaratory order to resolve matters relating to the transfer of the license for the North Hartland Project No. 2816, located at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' North Hartland Dam, on the Ottauquechee River, in Windsor County, Vermont. The Commission, in June 2000, approved the transfer of the license to NHL from Vermont Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative (VEGT), through the trustee of VEGT's bankruptcy estate. According to the petition, the bankruptcy trustee has been discharged from his duties, and the project assets are now in the custody and control of the U.S. Government, specifically the Department of Justice, representing the Rural Utilities Service of the Department of Agriculture.
The petition states that, under Title 30 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated, section 109, a corporation subject to the Vermont Public Service Board (board) shall not make a sale, lease, or series of sales or leases in any one calendar year constituting ten percent or more of the company's property located within Vermont and actually used for public service operations, except after opportunity for hearing by the board and a finding by the board that such a sale or lease will promote the general good of the state. Section 109 provides that a certificate of consent of the board shall be filed with the secretary of state. Section 231 of the same statute provides that a person, partnership, or association desiring to own or operate a business over which the board has jurisdiction must first petition the board to determine whether the operation of such business will promote the general good of the state.
The petition states that the board has asserted authority under Title 30 over the transfer of the project property to NHL and over NHL's operation of the
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest the petition should file comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211 and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests and other comments, but only those who file a motion to intervene may become parties to the proceeding. Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be filed within 15 days of publication of this notice in the
Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper.
Send the filings (original and 8 copies) to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Petition for Declaratory Order is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on August 29, 2002, Northern Border Pipeline Company (Northern Border) tendered for filing to become part of Northern Border Pipeline Company's FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet to become effective October 1, 2002:
Northern Border states that the purpose of this filing is to update Northern Border's tariff to reflect the Annual Charge Adjustment (ACA) factor effective for the twelve-month period beginning October 1, 2002 pursuant to Section 154.402 of the Commission's regulations and Section 16 of the General Terms and Conditions of Northern Border's tariff. Northern Border states that its new ACA factor will be $0.0022 per Dth. This new factor was specified by the Commission at the time the Commission calculated the annual charge bill for fiscal year 2002, and is an increase from its current ACA factor of $0.0001 per Dth.
Northern Border states that copies of this filing have been sent to all of Northern Border's contracted shippers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on August 29, 2002, Questar Pipeline Company (Questar), tendered for filing FERC Gas Tariff, the following tariff sheets, to be effective October 1, 2002:
Questar states that this filing incorporates into its storage and transportation rates the annual charge adjustment (ACA) unit rate of $0.00212 per Dth..
Questar states that copies of this filing were served upon Questar's customers, the Public Service Commission of Utah and the Public Service Commission of Wyoming.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on August 16, 2002, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern) tendered for filing, pursuant to Section 4 of the Natural Gas Act, a notice of termination of gathering service provided on Southern's LF-49, LF-50, LF-51 and LF-52 Lines and appurtenant facilities in the Logansport Field, Desoto Parish, Louisiana. Southern plans to abandon these facilities as it is no longer economic for it to maintain them. Southern proposes the effective date of October 1, 2002.
Southern states that it has served copies of the filing upon each of Southern's customers and interested state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before September 11, 2002. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on August 27, 2002, Sumas International Pipeline Inc. (SIPI), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 2, Tenth Revised Sheet No. 4, with a proposed effective date of October 1, 2002.
SIPI states that the above tariff sheet reflects the new ACA unit surcharge rate of $0.0022 per Dth. As the new ACA rate is an increase, SIPI has sought a waiver to allow the collection of the new rate effective 1 October 2002.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Take notice that on August 29, 2002, TransColorado Gas Transmission Company (TransColorado), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, Seventh Revised Sheet No. 20 to be effective October 1, 2002.
TransColorado states that this filing incorporates into its transportation rates the revised annual charge adjustment unit rate of $0.0021 per Dth.
TransColorado states that copies of this filing were served upon TransColorado's customers, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the New Mexico Public Utilities Commission.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. This filing is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for amendment of license for the Oak Grove Project No. 135 and North Fork Project No. 2195, located on the Oak Grove and Clackamas Rivers, in Clackamas County, Oregon, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project. The project occupies Federal lands under the administration of the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental effects of Portland General Electric Company's proposed license amendment, and various alternatives, including no-action, and concludes that approving the amendment of license, with appropriate environmental measures, would not constitute a major Federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice and should be addressed to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1-A, Washington, DC 20426. Please affix “Project No. 135 and 2195” to all comments. The EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's web site at
For further information, contact William Guey-Lee at (202) 219-2808.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) regulations, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications dated March 20, June 26 and November 27, 2000, and August 22, 2001, requesting the Commission's approval to sell project land for future private development at the Saluda Project, located on the Saluda River in Lexington, Saluda and Newberry Counties, South Carolina, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed action.
Copies of the EA can be viewed at the Commission's Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 502-8371. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's web site at
Any comments on the EA should be filed within 60 days from the date of this notice and should be addressed to: Magalie Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC, 20426. Please affix “Saluda Project No. 516-319.etc.” to the first page of your comments. All timely filed comments will be considered in the Commission order addressing the proposed sale of project land for future private development. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
For further information, please contact Jack Hannula at (202) 219-0116.
This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(h), of the receipt of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications.
Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission decisional employees, who make or receive an exempt or a prohibited off-the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested on-the-record proceeding, to deliver a copy of the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any oral communication, to the Secretary.
Prohibited communications will be included in a public, non-decisional file associated with, but not part of, the decisional record of the proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited communication and any responses thereto should become part of the decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant such requests only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record communication should serve the document on all parties listed on the official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
Exempt off-the-record communications will be included in the decisional record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR 385.2201(e)(1)(v).
The following is a list of exempt and prohibited off-the-record communications recently received in the Office of the Secretary. These filings are available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has authorized grantee organizations under the Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) Program, and their enrollees; access to information which has been submitted to EPA under the environmental statutes administered by the Agency. Some of this information may be claimed or determined to be confidential business information (CBI).
Comments concerning CBI access will be accepted on or before September 16, 2002.
Comments should be submitted to: Susan Street, National Program Director, Senior Environmental Employment Program (MC 3650A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. (Telephone (202) 564-0410).
The Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) program is authorized by the Environmental Programs Assistance Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-313), which provides that the Administrator may “make grants or enter into cooperative agreements” for the purpose of “providing technical assistance to: Federal, State, and local environmental agencies for projects of pollution prevention, abatement, and control.” Cooperative agreements under the SEE program provide support for many functions in the Agency, including clerical support, staffing hot lines, providing support to Agency enforcement activities, providing library services, compiling data, and support in scientific, engineering, financial, and other areas.
In performing these tasks, grantees and cooperators under the SEE program and their enrollees may have access to potentially all documents submitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, to the extent that these statutes allow disclosure of confidential information to authorized representatives of the United States (or to “contractors” under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act). Some of these documents may contain information claimed as confidential.
EPA provides confidential information to enrollees working under the following cooperative agreements:
Among the procedures established by EPA confidentiality regulations for granting access is notification to the submitters of confidential data that SEE grantee organizations and their enrollees will have access. 40 CFR 2.201(h)(2)(iii). This document is intended to fulfill that requirement.
The grantee organizations are required by the cooperative agreements to protect confidential information. SEE enrollees are required to sign confidentiality agreements and to adhere to the same security procedures as Federal employees.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of proposed second administrative settlement and request for public comment.
In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed second administrative settlement for recovery of past and projected future response costs concerning the Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site in Plaistow, New Hampshire with the settling parties listed in the Supplementary Information portion of this notice. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region I (EPA) is proposing to enter into a second
Comments must be submitted on or before October 10, 2002.
The proposed second settlement is available for public inspection at the EPA Records Center, 1 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Please call 617-918-1440 to schedule an appointment. A copy of the proposed second settlement may be obtained from Kristin Balzano, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES), Boston, MA 02114-2023 (Telephone Number: 617-918-1772). Comments should reference the Beede Waste Oil Superfund Site in Plaistow, New Hampshire and EPA Docket No. CERCLA-01-2002-0025 and should be addressed to Kristin Balzano, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
Cindy Lewis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES), Boston, MA 02114-2023 (Telephone Number: 617-918-1889).
This section contains a list of the approximately 415 settling parties. Each party name is listed as it appears on the current EPA list of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) and many of the names are followed by a parenthetical which refers to the name the party listed on the AOC signature page. The following is a list of the settling parties, including settling federal agencies, to the proposed second settlement: AEP Industries, Inc., Agawam Service Center, Inc., Al & Paul's Auto Sales, Inc., All-Rite Auto, Inc., Altieri Service, Inc., A.M.A. Transportation Company, Inc., Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. (Penske Truck Leasing Company, LP), Andover Auto & Truck Service, Inc., Andover Street Motor Sports LP (d/b/a Acura of Peabody), Andy's Auto Service, Anton's Cleaners, Inc., ARAMARK Uniform and Career Apparel, Inc., Arlex Oil Corporation, Army & Air Force Exchange Service, Arrington Services, Inc., Arsenal Auto Service, Atlantic Broom Service, Auburndale Service Center LLC, Auto Body & Tire Center, Inc. (d/b/a Cape Auto Body), Auto Craft Enterprises, Auto Hospital, Bailey Motor Sales, Inc., Baker-Wright Auto Electric Service, Bancroft Motors, Inc., Barbas Trucking Company, Inc., Beacon Hill Sunoco, Beaulieu Trucking, Belmont Springs Water Company, Inc., Berardi Automotive, Inc., Berardi Bros Auto Body, Berman Repair & Sales, Inc., Betley Chevrolet Buick, Inc., Bettencourt Machine Company, Inc., Bill's Auto Repair, BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., Blakeslee Sales, Blount Marine Corporation, BME Engineering, Inc., Bob & Jim's Service Station, Inc., Bob Pion Pontiac-Buick-GMC, Inc., Borden Foods Corporation, Boro Sand & Stone Corporation, Bouchard & Son, Inc., Bresnahan Ice Company, Brian Egan and Gregory Egan, Brian's Auto Service, Inc., Broadway Foreign Auto Repairs, Broadway Rental, Inc. (d/b/a Taylor Rental Center), Broadway Tire & Auto Company, Inc., Brockton Rental Service, Inc., Brodie, Inc., Brooks School, Brownie's Texaco Service, Inc., Brown's Service Station, Bruce's Tremont Street Garage, Bubbles, Inc., Burke Distributing Corporation, Cabot Cabot & Forbes, Callan Automotive Service, CambridgeSide Galleria, Inc., Campello Coal Company, Inc., Carlson's Motor Sales, Inc., Casoli Sand & Gravel, Inc., Cedarview Filling Station, Inc., Central Motors, Inc., Centre Trucking Services, Inc., Century Trailer Sales, Inc., Charles Doucette (d/b/a Charlie's Garage), Charles M. Rollins Company, Inc., Charlie's Auto Service, Chicos Sunoco, Chute Fuel, City of Attleboro, MA, City of Beverly, MA, City of Brockton, MA, City of Cambridge, MA, City of Manchester, NH, City of New Bedford, MA, City of Pawtucket, RI, City of Portsmouth, NH, City of Somerville, MA, City of Taunton, MA, City of Waltham, MA, Clarence H. Knight, Inc., Clark Motor Company, Inc., Clay Chevrolet, Inc., Cleghorn Oil, Inc., Coan, Inc., Compaq Computer Corporation (wholly-owned by Hewlett-Packard Company), Conley Group, Inc., Contemporary Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, Inc., CPC Division US Filter Wastewater Group, Crystal Motor Express, Inc., Crystal Transport, Inc., D. DiMartino Construction Corporation, D J Basile Jr., Inc., Damon Pontiac, Inc., Dana Hall School, Dan's Auto Service, Inc., Dan's Service Center, Dave Gove Auto Repair, Inc., David J. Coomber (d/b/a Dave's Garage), Davis & Tripp, Inc., Davis Exxon, Davis Motor Service Corporation, Davis Towing, Inc., DCM Liquidation Corporation (f/k/a DiaCom Corporation), Dead River Company, Delongchamp Auto Company, Inc., Demoulas Supermarket, Inc. (Retail Management & Development, Inc. (RMD)), Denaults Auto Repair, Diamond Crystal Specialty Foods, Inc. (a subsidiary of Imperial Sugar Company), D.L. Maher Company, Domenick Zanni Sons, Inc., Dom's Motor Service (d/b/a Riverside Kawasaki-Yamaha), Don's Garage, Inc., Douglas D. Andersen, Down East Drilling, Dracut Tire Shop, Inc., Drew's Service Station, Drum Hill Construction Corporation, Duston Oil Company, Inc., E & S Mobile Service, Inc., Eagle Flight Center, Inc., Early & Sons, Inc., East Coast Petroleum Corporation, Eastham Auto Sales, Inc., Edgcomb Metals Company (and current successor, Edgcomb Metals Company, LLC), Edgemont Oil Company, Energy Machinery, Inc., Essex Gas Company, Exit 4 Service Corporation (d/b/a Super Shell Foodmart), Falmouth Toyota, Inc.,
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601
The proposed second settlement has been approved by the United States Department of Justice and, for the State portion of the settlement, by the State of New Hampshire. EPA will receive written comments relating to this settlement for thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this Notice.
The Advisory Committee was established by Public Law 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.
Wednesday, September 25, 2002, at 10 AM to 12:30 PM. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
Agenda items include reports and discussion on proposed revisions to Ex-Im Bank's Economic Impact Procedures and reports and discussion from the Advisory Committee's Sub-Committees.
The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to September 20, 2002, Nichole Westin, Room 1257, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3542 or TDD (202) 565-3377.
For further information, contact Nichole Westin, Room 1257, 811 Vermont Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565-3542.
Notice of an open special meeting of the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Wednesday, September 24, 2002 at 2 p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.
Draft Revised Economic Impact Procedures.
The meeting will be open to public participation.
A copy of the Draft Revised Economic Impact Procedures can be obtained at Ex-Im Bank's Web site (
10 a.m., Thursday, September 12, 2002.
Board Room, Second Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.
The entire meeting will be open to the public.
Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, (202) 408-2837.
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Notice of public hearing.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) will hold the following public hearing:
Immediately following 10 a.m. Board of Directors Meeting, Thursday, September 12, 2002.
Board Room, Second Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006.
The purpose of this hearing is to provide an opportunity for the Finance Board to gather information on the appropriate benchmarks for measuring FHLBank System performance in borrowing money and to gather information on FHLBank System plans and strategies for cost effective borrowing.
Public testimony at the hearing will be limited to presentations by Finance Board staff, representatives from the FHLBanks and the Board of Directors of the Office of Finance. Testimony prepared by the witnesses for public delivery at the hearing should be submitted in writing to the Finance Board by 12 p.m., Tuesday, September 10, 2002.
Other individuals or organizations interested in commenting on the Cost of Funds may do so by submitting their comments in writing to the Finance Board prior to September 12, 2002.
This hearing will be open to the public.
Send testimony and comments to Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, by electronic mail to
Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the Board, 202-408-2837 or Thomas D. Casey, Counsel to the Chairman, 202-408-2957.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than October 4, 2002.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 5, 2002.
General Services Administration.
Notice.
The General Services Administration/ICMR revised the OF 275, Medical Record—Report to add sponsor information, update the patient identification information and make the form authorized for local reproduction. You can obtain the updated form in two ways:
On the Internet. Address:
From GSA, Forms-CAP, Attn.: Barbara Williams, (202) 501-0581.
Effective September 10, 2002.
Ms. Barbara Williams, General Services Administration, (202) 501-0581.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer on (404) 498-1210.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. CDC is requesting an emergency clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect data under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002. Send comments to Anne O'Connor, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS D-24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should be received within 14 days of this notice. OMB is expected to act on the request of CDC within 21 days of publication of this notice.
Breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death among American women. The American Cancer Society estimates that 203,500 new cases will be diagnosed among women in 2002, and 39,600 women will die of this disease. Mammography is extremely valuable as an early detection tool because it can detect breast cancer well before the woman can feel the lump, when it is still in an early and more treatable stage. Women older than age 40 that receive annual mammography screening reduce their probability of breast cancer mortality and increase their treatment options.
Although early detection efforts have greatly decreased the incidence of invasive cervical cancer during the last four decades, an estimated 13,000 new cases will be diagnosed in 2002 and 4,100 women will die of this disease. Papanicolaou (Pap) tests effectively detect precancerous lesions in addition to invasive cervical cancer. The detection and treatment of precancerous lesions can prevent nearly all cervical cancer-related deaths.
Because breast and cervical cancer screening, diagnostic and treatment data are already collected and aggregated at the state, territory and tribal level, the additional burden on the grantees will be small. Implementation of this program will require grantees to report a minimum data set electronically to the CDC on a semi-annual basis. The program will require grantees to report infrastructure data to the CDC annually using a web-based system. Information collected will be used to obtain more complete breast and cervical cancer data, promote public education of cancer incidence and risk, improve the availability of screening and diagnostic services for under-served women, ensure the quality of services provided to women, and develop outreach strategies for women that are never or rarely screened for breast and cervical cancer. There are no costs to respondents.
Head Start Fellowships are awarded on a competitive basis to individuals (other than Federal employees) selected from among applicants who are working, on the date of application, in local Head Start programs or otherwise working in the fields of child development and children and family services. The information collected from the applications is used to ensure that individuals selected to be Head Start Fellows have the appropriate experience/skills, and that the training developed for them and the work assigned to them will enhance their ability to make significant contributions to the fields of child development and family services. The information collected is used by program staff and policy makers at the Federal level to make judgments on the progress and needs of the program.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above.
Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.
The Department specifically requests comments on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted within 60 days of this publication
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; withdrawal.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal of two guidances: A draft entitled“Labeling Guidance for Noncontraceptive Estrogen Drug Products—Prescibing Information for Healthcare Providers and Patient Labeling” and a final “Guidance for Clinical Evaluation of Combination Estrogen/Progestin-Containing Drug Products Used for Hormone Replacement Therapy of Postmenopausal Women.” These guidances are under agency review for change.
General comments on agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.
Submit written comments to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Submit electronic comments to
Dan Shames, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-580), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-4260
FDA is announcing the withdrawal of two guidances on estrogen and estrogen/progestin drug products. The two guidances being withdrawn are the draft guidance “Labeling Guidance for Noncontraceptive Estrogen Drug Products—Prescibing Information for Healthcare Providers and Patient Labeling” (labeling guidance) and the final “Guidance for Clinical Evaluation of Combination Estrogen/Progestin-Containing Drug Products Used for Hormone Replacement Therapy of Postmenopausal Women” (combination guidance). The draft labeling guidance was made available for comment in the
Interested persons may submit written or electronic comments to the Dockets Management Branch (see
Persons with access to the Internet may obtain CDER guidance documents at
Periodically, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) publishes abstracts of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, call the HRSA Reports Clearance Office on (301) 443-1129.
The following request has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995:
Public Law 106-310, section 2101(b) of Title XXI of the Children's Health Act of 2000, states that the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall provide for a study to determine the costs of immunosuppressive drugs provided to children pursuant to organ transplants and to determine the extent to which health plans and health insurance cover such costs.
The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has determined the extent of government insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs given to children pursuant to organ transplantation. However, HRSA still does not know the extent of private health insurance coverage for immunosuppressive drugs. Analysis of the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) database revealed that approximately 45% of pediatric organ transplant recipients list their primary insurer as being private health insurance—this category being the largest insurer of pediatric organ transplant recipients. Little is known about co-payments, limitation on drug usage,
In order to fulfill the requirements of Section 2101(b), the Division of Transplantation in the Office of Special Programs, HRSA, contracted with the EMMES Corporation to study the costs of immunosuppressive drugs and to conduct a survey to send to approximately 600 families of post-transplant liver and kidney patients who list private health insurance as their primary provider at the time of transplantation. Data collected and analyzed will be reported to Congress. The report will contain information about the extent to which private health insurance covers the cost of immunosuppressive drugs given pursuant to organ transplants and provide recommendations from the Secretary of Health and Human Services about the findings. Once information has been collected and the report to Congress submitted, the information will be incorporated into private databases maintained by the EMMES
Corporation which are closely protected and not available to the public. Analytical requests can be made on the data, but requests are subject to an advisory board and the release in any type of personally-identifiable data or standard analytical file will not be available to the public. The Federal government will not have access to any of the personally-identifiable data. All these measures will assure patient privacy.
Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of this notice to: John Morrall, Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), ACF, HHS.
Final notice of availability of formula allocation funding for FY 2002 targeted assistance grants to States for services to refugees
This notice announces the availability of funds and award procedures for FY 2002 targeted assistance grants for services to refugees under the Refugee Resettlement Program (RRP). The purpose of these grants is to provide services in localities with large refugee populations, high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance by refugees, and where specific needs exist for supplementation of currently available resources.
The final notice reflects adjustments in final allocations to States as a result of additional arrival data. A notice of proposed allocations of targeted assistance funds was published for public comment in the
The closing date for submission of applications is October 10, 2002. Refer to the section of this notice entitled Additional Information for more information on submitting applications. For more information on application procedures, States should contact their ORR State Analyst.
Address applications, in duplicate, to: Ms. Gayle Smith, Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447. In order to be considered timely, applications must be received in ORR by October 10, 2002.
Gayle Smith, Director, Division of Refugee Self-Sufficiency, (202) 205-3590, e-mail:
This notice announces the availability of funds for grants for targeted assistance for services to refugees in counties where, because of factors such as unusually large refugee populations, high refugee concentrations, and high use of public assistance by refugees, there exists and can be demonstrated a specific need for supplementation of resources for services to this population.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has available $49,477,000 in FY 2002 funds for the targeted assistance program (TAP) as part of the FY 2002 appropriation for the Department of Health and Human Services (Pub. L. 107-116).
The Director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) will use the $49,477,000 in targeted assistance funds as follows:
• $44,529,300 will be allocated to States under the 5-year population formula, as set forth in this notice.
• $4,947,700 (10% of the total) will be used to award discretionary grants to States under continuation grant awards.
The purpose of targeted assistance grants is to provide, through a process of local planning and implementation, direct services that would result in the economic self-sufficiency and reduced welfare dependency of refugees through job placements.
The requirements of the targeted assistance program are contained in section 412(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which provides that targeted assistance grants shall be made available “(i) primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment and achievement of self-sufficiency, (ii) in a manner that does not supplant other refugee program funds and that assures that not less than 95 percent of the amount of the grant award is made available to the county or other local entity.”
Targeted assistance projects are funded under the authority of: (1) Section 412(c)(2) of the (INA), as amended by the Refugee Assistance Extension Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-605), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c); (2) section 501(a) of the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-422), 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, insofar as it incorporates by reference with respect to Cuban and Haitian entrants the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above; (3) section 584(c) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1988, as included in the FY 1988 Continuing Resolution (Pub. L. 100-202), insofar as it incorporates by reference with respect to certain Amerasians from Vietnam the authorities pertaining to assistance for refugees established by section 412(c)(2) of the INA, as cited above, including certain Amerasians from Vietnam who are U.S. citizens, as provided under title II of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Acts, 1989 (Pub. L. 100-461), 1990 (Pub. L. 101-167), and 1991 (Pub. L. 101-513); and (4) section 107(b)(1)(A) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-386), insofar as it states that a victim of a severe form of trafficking shall be eligible for federal and certain State benefits and services to the same extent as a refugee.
Targeted assistance funding must be used to assist refugee families to achieve economic independence. To this end, States and counties are required to ensure that a coherent family self-sufficiency plan is developed for each eligible family that addresses the family's needs from time of arrival until attainment of economic independence. (See 45 CFR 400.79 and 400.156(g).) Each family self-sufficiency plan should address a family's needs for both employment-related services and other needed social services. The family self-sufficiency plan must include: (1) A determination of the income level a family would have to earn to exceed its cash grant and move into self-support without suffering a monetary penalty; (2) a strategy and timetable for obtaining that level of family income through the placement in employment of sufficient numbers of employable family members at sufficient wage levels; (3) employability plans for every employable member of the family; and (4) a plan to address the family's social services needs that may be barriers to self-sufficiency. In local jurisdictions that have both targeted assistance and refugee social services programs, one family self-sufficiency plan may be developed for a family that incorporates both targeted assistance and refugee social services.
Services funded through the targeted assistance program are required to focus primarily on those refugees who, either because of their protracted use of public assistance or difficulty in securing employment, continue to need services beyond the initial years of resettlement. However, States may not provide services funded under this notice, except for referral and interpreter services, to refugees who have been in the United States for more than 60 months (5 years).
In accordance with 45 CFR 400.314, States are required to provide targeted assistance services to refugees in the following order of priority, except in certain individual extreme circumstances: (a) Refugees who are cash assistance recipients, particularly long-term recipients; (b) unemployed refugees who are not receiving cash assistance; and (c) employed refugees in need of services to retain employment or to attain economic independence.
In addition to the statutory requirement that TAP funds be used “primarily for the purpose of facilitating refugee employment” (section 412(c)(2)(B)(i) of the INA), funds awarded under this program are intended to help fulfill the congressional intent that “employable refugees should be placed in jobs as soon as possible after their arrival in the United States” (section 412(a)(1)(B)(i) of the INA). Therefore, in accordance with 45 CFR 400.313, targeted assistance funds must be used primarily for employability services designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance program in order to achieve economic self-sufficiency as soon as possible. Targeted assistance services may continue to be provided after a refugee has entered a job to help the refugee retain employment or move to a better job. Targeted assistance funds may not be used for long-term training programs such as vocational training that last for more than a year or educational programs that are not intended to lead to employment within a year.
In accordance with 45 CFR 400.317, if targeted assistance funds are used for the provision of English language training, such training must be provided in a concurrent, rather than sequential, time period with employment or with other employment-related activities.
Reflecting section 412(a)(1)(A)(iv) of the INA, States must “insure that women have the same opportunities as
States and counties are expected to make every effort to obtain child care services, preferably subsidized child care, in order to allow caretaker family members the opportunity to participate in employment services or to accept or retain employment. To accomplish this, child care may be treated as an employment-related service under the targeted assistance program. Refugees who are participating in targeted assistance-funded or social services-funded employment services or have accepted employment are eligible for child care. States and counties are expected to use child care funding from other publicly-administered programs as a prior resource and are encouraged to work with service providers to ensure mainstream access to other publicly funded resources for child care. For an employed refugee, targeted assistance-funded child care should be limited to situations in which no other publicly funded child care funding is available. In these cases, child care services funded by targeted assistance should be limited to one year after the refugee becomes employed.
In accordance with 45 CFR 400.317, targeted assistance services must be provided in a manner that is culturally and linguistically compatible with a refugee's language and cultural background, to the maximum extent feasible. In light of the increasingly diverse population of refugees who are resettling in this country, refugee service agencies will need to develop practical ways of providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services to a changing ethnic population. Services funded under this notice must be refugee-specific services which are designed specifically to meet refugee needs and are in keeping with the rules and objectives of the refugee program. Vocational or job-skills training, on-the-job training, or English language training, however, need not be refugee-specific.
We strongly encourage States and counties when contracting for targeted assistance services, including employment services, to give consideration to the special strengths of mutual assistance associations (MAAs), whenever contract bidders are otherwise equally qualified, provided that the MAA has the capability to deliver services. We also strongly encourage MAAs to ensure that their management and board composition reflect the major target populations to be served.
ORR defines MAAs as organizations with the following qualifications:
a. The organization is legally incorporated as a nonprofit organization; and
b. Not less than 51% of the composition of the Board of Directors or governing board of the mutual assistance association is comprised of refugees or former refugees, including both refugee men and women.
Finally, in order to provide culturally and linguistically compatible services in as cost-efficient a manner as possible in a time of limited resources, ORR strongly encourages States and counties to promote and give special consideration to the provision of services through coalitions of refugee service organizations, such as coalitions of MAAs, voluntary resettlement agencies, or a variety of service providers. ORR believes it is essential for refugee-serving organizations to form close partnerships in the provision of services to refugees in order to be able to respond adequately to a changing refugee picture. Coalition-building and consolidation of providers is particularly important in communities with multiple service providers in order to ensure better coordination of services and maximum use of funding for services by minimizing the funds used for multiple administrative overhead costs.
The award of funds to States under this notice will be contingent upon the completeness of a State's application as described in the section entitled Additional Information, below.
Four letters of comment were received by the deadline in response to the notice of proposed availability of FY 2002 funds for targeted assistance. These comments are summarized below and in each case are followed by the Department's response. Two letters of comment were received after the published deadline and will not be considered.
One of these three commenters submitted data as well as written comments in response to the proposed notice . Those data have been reviewed and were found to pertain to secondary migrants. As we have noted in previous years, we are not able to include secondary migrants in the population formula for targeted assistance because secondary migration data are not available at the county level.
States report on secondary migration annually on the ORR-11. This reporting is based on the first three digits of the social security number (SSN). These digits identify the State in which the SSN was issued, which, with a few exceptions, is the State of initial resettlement. This information allows ORR to both credit the State of in-migration and debit the State of out-migration in developing State population estimates. Most States and counties are not able to provide county-level secondary migration data. We cannot use secondary migration data for one county alone. It would be necessary to collect and determine both in-migration and out-migration for approximately 1,000 counties during the qualification process in order to arrive at accurate adjusted county population estimates.
ORR understands that discontinuance of funding in counties that no longer qualify will have an effect on the services in those counties. Every three years, the targeted assistance qualification process attempts to direct targeted assistance funds to those counties that are the most-impacted by recent refugee arrivals. Counties losing targeted assistance formula funds may wish to apply for ORR targeted assistance discretionary funds through their States at the next available opportunity.
ORR does not plan to consider the eligibility of additional counties for targeted assistance formula funds until FY 2005, when ORR will again review data on all counties that could
The Director of ORR will determine the eligibility of counties for inclusion in the FY 2002 targeted assistance program on the basis of the method described in section VI of this notice.
The use of targeted assistance funds for services to Cuban and Haitian entrants is limited to States which have an approved State plan under the Cuban/Haitian Entrant Program (CHEP).
The State/Wilson-Fish agency will submit a single application on behalf of all county governments of the qualified counties in that State. Subsequent to the approval of the State/Wilson-Fish agency's application by ORR, local targeted assistance plans will be developed by the county government or other designated entity and submitted to the State/Wilson-Fish agency.
A State with more than one qualified county is permitted, but not required, to determine the allocation amount for each qualified county within the State. However, if a State chooses to determine county allocations differently from those set forth in the final notice, in accordance with 45 CFR 400.319, the FY 2002 allocations proposed by the State must be based on the State's population of refugees who arrived in the U.S. during the most recent 5-year period. A State may use welfare data as an additional factor in the allocation of its targeted assistance funds if it so chooses; however, a State may not assign a greater weight to welfare data than it has assigned to population data in its allocation formula. In addition, if a State chooses to allocate its FY 2002 targeted assistance funds in a manner different from the formula set forth in the final notice, the FY 2002 allocations and methodology proposed by the State must be included in the State's application for ORR review and approval.
Applications submitted in response to the final notice are not subject to review by State and area wide clearinghouses under Executive Order 12372, “Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”
For FY 2002, ORR will continue to use the formula that bases allocation of targeted assistance funds on the most current five-year refugee/entrant arrival data. Targeted assistance services are limited to refugees residing in qualified counties who have been in the U.S. five years or less. The Director of ORR proposes to determine the qualification of counties for targeted assistance once every three years, as stated in the FY 1999 notice of proposed availability of targeted assistance allocations to States which was published in the
In order to qualify for application for FY 2002 targeted assistance funds, a county (or group of adjacent counties with the same Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, or SMSA) will be required to either: (1) Rank above a selected cut-off point of jurisdictions for which data were reviewed, based on two criteria: (a) The number of refugee/entrant arrivals placed in the county during the most recent five-year period (FY 1997-FY 2001) and (b) the five-year refugee/entrant arrival population as a percent of the county overall population, or (2) have received 3,000 or more refugee/entrant arrivals during this same five-year period.
In regard to the first qualification criteria, each county will be ranked on the basis of its five-year arrival population and its concentration of refugees, with a relative weighting of
Each county will then be ranked in terms of the sum of a county's rank on refugee arrivals and its rank on concentration. To qualify for targeted assistance based on rank, a county will have to rank within the top 50 counties. In addition, counties that have received at least 3,000 arrivals within the most recent five-year period will also qualify. The total number of qualifying counties is 53—the original 50 ranked counties plus three additional counties with at least 3,000 arrivals within the most recent five-year period. ORR has limited the number of qualified counties to 53 in order to cover as many counties as possible while still targeting a sufficient level of funding to the most impacted counties.
ORR decided that counties with 3,000 or more arrivals should qualify for targeted assistance after analyzing the arrival data and discovering that there were three counties which ranked high in arrival numbers (37, 28, and 39) but will not qualify for targeted assistance based solely on the sum of the ranks formula. ORR concluded that these counties which ranked high nationally in refugee population were impacted by high numbers of refugee arrivals, and thus should qualify for Targeted Assistance.
ORR has screened data on all counties that have received awards for targeted assistance since FY 1983 and on all other counties that could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria proposed in this notice. Analysis of these data indicates that: (1) 44 counties which have previously received targeted assistance will continue to qualify; (2) five counties which have previously received targeted assistance will no longer qualify; and (3) nine new counties will be qualified.
Table 1 provides a list of the counties that will remain qualified and the new counties that will qualify, the number of refugee/entrant arrivals in those counties within the past five years, the percent that the five-year arrival population represents of the overall county population, and each county's rank, based on the qualification formula described above.
Table 2 lists the counties that have previously received targeted assistance which will no longer qualify, the number of refugee/entrant arrivals in those counties within the past five years, the percent that the five-year arrival population represents of the overall county population, and each county's rank, based on the qualification formula.
The counties listed in this final notice as qualified to apply for FY 2002 TAP funding will remain qualified for TAP funding through FY 2004. ORR does not plan to consider the eligibility of additional counties for TAP funding until FY 2005, when ORR will again review data on all counties that could potentially qualify for TAP funds based on the criteria contained in this final notice. We believe that a more frequent redetermination of county qualification for targeted assistance will not provide qualifying counties a sufficient period of time within a stable funding climate to adequately address the refugee impact in their counties, while a less frequent redetermination of county qualification will pose the risk of not considering new population impacts in a timely manner.
Of the funds available for FY 2002 for targeted assistance, $44,529,300 will be allocated by formula to States for qualified counties based on the initial placements of refugees, Amerasians, entrants (including Havana parolees), and Kurdish asylees in these counties during the five-year period from FY 1997 through FY 2001 (October 1, 1996—September 30, 2001). These data are available in the ORR refugee data system.
For fiscal years 1999 through 2001, Havana parolees were derived from actual data. For fiscal years 1997-1998, INS provided the number of actual Havana parolees. The State of Florida supplied ORR with the actual number of these parolees which arrived in Florida. The remaining parolees were not identified with any other State of arrival. To account for these arrivals, ORR prorated the non-Florida parolee numbers to qualifying counties in other States based on the counties' proportion of the five-year entrant population in the U.S.
Table 3 lists the final qualifying counties, the number of refugee and entrant arrivals in those counties during the five-year period from October 1, 1996—September 30, 2001, the number of Havana parolee arrivals in those counties for this five-year period, the sum of the third, fourth, and fifth columns, and the final amount of each county's allocation based on its five-year arrival population.
Table 4 provides State totals for final targeted assistance allocations. Table 5 indicates the areas that each final qualifying county represents. Tables 1 through 5 follow:
Under the FY 2002 targeted assistance program, States and Wilson/Fish agencies may apply for and receive grant awards on behalf of qualified counties in the State. A single allocation will be made to each State by ORR on the basis of an approved State application. The State or Wilson/Fish agency will, in turn, receive, review, and determine the acceptability of individual county targeted assistance plans.
Pursuant to 45 CFR 400.210(b), FY 2002 targeted assistance funds must be obligated by the State agency no later than one year after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. Funds must be liquidated within two years after the end of the Federal fiscal year in which the Department awarded the grant. A State's final financial report on targeted assistance expenditures must be received no later than 90 days after the end of the two-year expenditure period. If final reports are not received on time, the Department will deobligate any unexpended funds, including any unliquidated obligations, on the basis of the State's last filed report.
The requirements regarding the discretionary portion of the targeted assistance program will be addressed under separate continuation grant awards. Continuation applications for these funds, therefore, are not subject to provisions contained in this notice but to other requirements which will be published separately.
A. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used in accordance with the requirements in 45 CFR Part 400.
B. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will be used primarily for the provision of services which are designed to enable refugees to obtain jobs with less than one year's participation in the targeted assistance program. States must indicate what percentage of FY 2002 targeted assistance formula allocation funds that are used for services will be allocated for employment services.
C. Assurance that targeted assistance funds will not be used to offset funding otherwise available to counties or local jurisdictions from the State agency in its administration of other programs,
The project description provides a major means by which an application is evaluated and ranked to compete with other applications for available assistance. The project description should be concise and complete and should address the activity for which Federal funds are being requested. Supporting documents should be included where they can present information clearly and succinctly. In preparing your project description, all information requested through each specific evaluation criteria should be provided. Awarding offices use this and other information in making their funding recommendations. It is important, therefore, that this information be included in the application.
ACF is particularly interested in specific factual information and statements of measurable goals in quantitative terms. Project descriptions are evaluated on the basis of substance, not length. Extensive exhibits are not required. Cross referencing should be used rather than repetition. Supporting information concerning activities that will not be directly funded by the grant or information that does not directly pertain to an integral part of the grant funded activity should be placed in an appendix.
Pages should be numbered and a table of contents should be included for easy reference
Outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished. Account for all functions or activities identified in the application. Cite factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and state your reason for taking the proposed approach rather than others. Describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of people to be served and the number of activities accomplished. When accomplishments cannot be quantified by activity or function, list them in chronological order to show the schedule of accomplishments and their target dates.
If any data is to be collected, maintained, and/or disseminated, clearance may be required from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This clearance pertains to any “collection of information that is conducted or sponsored by ACF.”
List organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Following are requests for additional information that need to be included in the application:
Clearly identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated; supporting documentation, such as letters of support and testimonials from concerned interests other than the applicant, may be included. Any relevant data based on planning studies should be included or referred to in the endnotes/footnotes. Incorporate demographic data and participant/beneficiary information, as needed. In developing the project description, the applicant may volunteer or be requested to provide information on the total range of projects currently being conducted and supported (or to be initiated), some of which may be outside the scope of the program announcement.
• If administered locally, the name of the local agency administering the funds, and the name and telephone number of the responsible person.
• The amount of funds to be awarded to the targeted county or counties. In instances where a State receives targeted assistance funding for impacted counties contained in a standard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA), the State must indicate in its application the proposed allocation plan for the counties contained in the SMSA and the rationale for the proposed allocations. In instances in which a State receives targeted assistance funding for impacted counties contained in an SMSA that includes a county or counties located in a neighboring State, the State receiving those funds must provide a description of coordination and planning activities undertaken with the State Refugee
• Assurance that county targeted assistance plans will include:
1. A description of the local planning process for determining targeted assistance priorities and services, taking into consideration all other ORR-funded services available to the refugee population, including formula social services.
2. Identification of refugee/entrant populations to be served by targeted assistance projects, including approximate numbers of clients to be served, and a description of characteristics and needs of targeted populations. (As per 45 CFR 400.314)
3. Description of specific strategies and services to meet the needs of targeted populations.
4. The relationship of targeted assistance services to other services available to refugees/entrants in the county including formula allocated ORR social services to States/Wilson-Fish agencies.
5. Analysis of available employment opportunities in the local community. Examples of acceptable analyses of employment opportunities might include surveys of employers or potential employers of refugee clients, surveys of presently effective employment service providers, and review of studies on employment opportunities/forecasts which will be appropriate to the refugee populations.
6. Description of the monitoring and oversight responsibilities to be carried out by the county or qualifying local jurisdiction.
7. Assurance that the local administrative budget will not exceed 15% of the local allocation. Targeted assistance grants are cost-based awards. Neither a State nor a county is entitled to a certain amount for administrative costs. Rather, administrative cost requests should be based on projections of actual needs. All TAP counties will be allowed to spend up to 15% of their allocation on TAP administrative costs, as need requires. However, States and counties are strongly encouraged to limit administrative costs to the extent possible to maximize available funding for services to refugees.
8. For any State that administers the program directly or otherwise provides direct service to the refugee/entrant population in a qualified county (with the concurrence of the county), the State must have the same information contained in a county plan prior to issuing a Request for Proposals (RFP) for services. States that administer programs directly may spend no more than 5% of their total allocation, and up to 10% of the county's allocation, on administrative costs that are reasonable, allocable, and necessary.
9. Assurance that the State will make available to the county or designated local entity not less than 95% of the amount of its formula allocation for purposes of implementing the activities proposed in its plan, except in the case of a State that administers the program locally as described in item H above. Allocable costs for State contracting and monitoring for targeted assistance, if charged, must be charged to the targeted assistance grant and not to general State administration.
• A description of the State's plan for conducting fiscal and programmatic monitoring and evaluations of the targeted assistance program, including frequency of on-site monitoring.
Identify the results and benefits to be derived.
All applicants will be required to establish proposed targeted assistance performance goals for each of the six ORR performance outcome measures for each impacted county's proposed service contract(s) or sub-grants for the next contracting cycle. Proposed performance goals must be included in the application for each performance measure. The six ORR performance measures are: entered employments, cash assistance reductions due to employment, cash assistance terminations due to employment, 90-day employment retentions, average wage at placement, and entered employments with available health benefits. Targeted assistance program activity and progress achieved toward meeting performance outcome goals are to be reported quarterly on the ORR-6, the “Quarterly Performance Report.”
States that are currently grantees for targeted assistance funds should base projected annual outcome goals on past performance. Current grantees should have adequate baseline data for all of the six ORR performance outcome measures based on a history of targeted assistance program experience.
States identified as new eligible targeted assistance grantees are also required to set proposed outcome goals for each of the six ORR performance outcome measures. New grantees may use baseline data, as available, and current data as reported on the ORR-6 for social services program activity to assist them in the goal-setting process.
New qualifying counties within States that are current grantees are also required to set proposed outcome goals for each of the six ORR performance outcome measures. New counties may use baseline data, as available, and current data as reported on the ORR-6 for social services program activity to assist them in the goal-setting process.
Proposed targeted assistance outcome goals should reflect improvement over past performance and strive for continuous improvement during the project period from one year to another.
Final targeted assistance outcome goals are due November 15, 2002, in conjunction with the ORR Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) cycle.
Provide line item detail and detailed calculations for each budget object class identified on the Budget Information form.
Detailed calculations must include estimation methods, quantities, unit costs, and other similar quantitative detail sufficient for the calculation to be duplicated. The detailed budget must also include a breakout by the funding sources identified in Block 15 of the SF-424.
Provide a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs. The Office of Refugee Resettlement is particularly interested in the following:
A line item budget and justification for State administrative costs limited to a maximum of 5% of the total award to the State. Each total budget period funding amount requested must be necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the project. States that administer the program directly in lieu of the county, through a mutual agreement with the qualifying county, States that administer programs directly may spend no more than 5% of their total award, and up to 10% of the county's allocation, on administrative costs that are reasonable, allocable, and necessary.
Forms may be obtained from the ORR Web site at:
States are required to submit quarterly reports on the outcomes of the targeted assistance program, using Schedule A and Schedule C of the ORR-6 Quarterly Performance Report (0970-0036).
All information collections within this program notice are approved under the following valid OMB control numbers: SF 424 (0348-0043); SF 424A (0348-0044); SF 424B (0348-0040); Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (0348-0046); Uniform Project Description (0970-0139), Expiration date 12/31/2003; Financial Status Report (SF-269) (0348-0039); and ORR Quarterly Performance Report (0970-0036).
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.
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information.
Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting of the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) National Advisory Council in September 2002.
The agenda of the open portion of the meeting will include the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention's Director's Report, the Administrator's Report, updates on CSAP's budget and programs, and the Faith-based Initiative, and administrative matters and announcements.
The agenda will include the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications. Therefore a portion of the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the Administrator, SAMHSA, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and 5 U.S.C. App.2, 10(d).
Public comments are welcome. If anyone needs special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please notify the contact listed below.
A summary of this meeting and roster of committee members may be obtained from Carol Watkins, Committee Management Officer, Rockwall II building, Suite 900, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-9542.
Substantive program information may be obtained from the contact person listed below.
Pursuant to Pubic Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the 35th meeting of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council will be held September 19-20, 2002.
A portion of the meeting is open and includes discussion of the Center's policy issues and current administrative, legislative, and program developments. Reports to the Council will include the National Treatment Plan; Women, Youth and Families Task Force; Seclusion and Restraint; and Buprenorphine/Methadone. Council will also hear presentations from SAMHSA's Administrator; SAMHSA/CSAT Director; Acting Director, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, NIH; Executive Director, New Freedom Commission on Mental Health; and Acting Director, SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. The Council will receive input on Oral Fluid Testing in Opioid Treatment Programs.
The meeting will also include the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications. Therefore a portion of the meeting will be closed to the public as determined by the SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) and (6) and 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).
SAMHSA/CSAT welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee, and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please inform the contact person at least 7 days in advance of the meeting. Substantive program information, a summary of the meeting and a roster of Council members may also be obtained from the contact person.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by October 10, 2002.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with marine mammals. The application(s) was submitted to satisfy requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The applicant requests a permit to import a polar bear (
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of applications for permit.
The public is invited to comment on the following applications to conduct certain activities with endangered species and/or marine mammals.
Written data, comments or requests must be received by October 10, 2002.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Management Authority, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 700, Arlington, Virginia 22203; fax 703/358-2281.
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
The public is invited to comment on the following application(s) for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,
The applicant requests a permit to export a male Baird's tapir (
The applicant requests a permit to import the sport-hunted trophy of one male bontebok (
The applicant requests a permit to export, re-export, and re-import African leopards (
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has information collection approval from OMB through March 31, 2004, OMB Control Number 1018-0093. Federal Agencies may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permit for marine mammals.
The following permits were issued.
Documents and other information submitted for these applications are available for review by
Division of Management Authority, telephone 703/358-2104.
On May 30, 2002, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on July 31, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
On May 30, 2002, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 6, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
On May 30, 2002, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 6, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
On June 4, 2002, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 6, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
On June 25, 2002, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 5, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
On June 28, 2002, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 6, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
On July 9, 2002, a notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on August 8, 2002, as authorized by the provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
1. Pursuant to Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, subpart 2400; and section 7 of the Act of June 28, 1934 (48 Stat. 1269); and the provisions granted to the State in the Act of June 20, 1910 (36 Stat. 557, 568-579), the public lands described below are hereby classified by State Indemnity Selection. The State of Arizona has filed an application to acquire the described lands in lieu of certain school lands that were encumbered by other rights or reservations before the State's title could attach. This application was assigned serial number AZA-32028.
2. The notice of proposed classification of these lands was published Friday, July 26, 2002, in the
The following parcels are classified as mineral in character for oil and gas and have been dropped from further consideration of transfer:
The areas described contain approximately 1,480.00 acres, more or less.
3. The lands included in this classification are located near St. Johns, Arizona, in Apache County, Arizona and are described as follows:
The areas described contain approximately 1,652.98 acres, more or less.
The areas described contain approximately 8,683.62 acres, more or less.
The areas described contain approximately 3,360.00 acres, more or less.
The areas described contain approximately 11,870.55 acres, more or less.
The areas described contain approximately 1,265.82 acres, more or less.
4. This classification decision is based on the following disposal criteria set forth in Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart 2400.
Transfer of the lands to the State will fulfill the Federal Government's common school land grant to the State, and constitute a public purpose use of the land. Lands found to be valuable for a public purpose use will be considered chiefly valuable for public purposes (43 CFR 2430.2b).
5. The subject lands are under grazing leases with the following individuals or corporations.
The following individuals or corporations have range improvements:
If these lands are transferred to the State of Arizona, and a grazing waiver has been received, the grazing leases will be terminated at the time title is transferred to the State. If no waiver has been received, grazing use will be continued under the existing federal grazing lease for a period of two years and, will be listed as “subject to” in the transfer document. At the end of the two year period, the grazing authority for leasing will transfer to the State of Arizona. The State shall recognize the federal lessee's interest in federally approved range improvements. Ownership of federally owned improvements shall pass to the State.
Threatened and Endangered Species and Cultural Resources Evaluations have been performed and approved for subject classification. Any cultural resources will be managed by the Arizona State Land Department under the Arizona State Historic Preservation Act and other applicable statutes.
If and when the selection is approved and certified to the State, the certification will contain the following:
(1) Excepting and reserving to the United States a right-of-way for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States. Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 361; 43 U.S.C. 945).
(2) As to the lands described above in Group IV, excepting and reserving to the United States, all minerals, including oil and gas, in the lands so granted, together with the right to prospect for, mine and remove the same. Act of July 17, 1941 (38 Stat. 509).
(3) Excepting and reserving to the United States for the duration of oil and gas leases and any renewals thereof all the oil and gas in the lands described subject to the rights of prior permitees and lessees to use so much of the surface of said lands as is required for mining operations without compensation to the State for damages resulting from proper operations, in accordance with Section 29 of the Act
(4) Subject to those rights for a power line right-of-way granted to Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc., its successors or assigns, by right-of-way number AZAR-17703, pursuant to the Act of February 15, 1901 (43 U.S.C. 959) as to S
(5) Subject to those rights for buried communications cables, access roads, and repeater sites, granted to American Telephone and Telegraph Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way number AZAR-33064, pursuant to the Act of March 4, 1911 (43 U.S.C. 961) as to SW
(6) Those rights for electric distribution lines granted to Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc., its successors or assigns, by right-of-way number AZA-6016, pursuant to the Act of February 15, 1901 (43 U.S.C. 959) as to N
(7) Subject to those rights for a road right-of-way granted to Apache County Board of Supervisors, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way number AZA-18952, pursuant to the Act of July 26, 1866 (43 U.S.C. 932) as to S
(8) Subject to those rights for a buried fiber optic communication cable granted to American Telephone and Telegraph Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way number AZA-23608, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761) as to SW
(9) Those rights for an overhead electric distribution line granted to Navopache Electric Cooperative, Inc., its successors or assigns, by right-of-way number AZA-23995, pursuant to the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761) as to SE
(10) Those rights for irrigation facility granted to Lyman Water Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of way number AZPHX-14912, pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1891 (43 U.S.C. 946-951), as to NW
(11) Those rights for irrigation facility granted to Lyman Water Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of way number AZPHX-86671, pursuant to the Act of March 3, 1891 (43 U.S.C. 946-951), as to E
A study has been conducted to assess the mineral character of the area selected for transfer.
None of the parcels described above contain known mineral values, nor are they valuable for minerals potentially locatable under the General Mining Laws, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21,
All of the parcels described above with federal mineral interests are classified as prospectively valuable for oil and gas. Issued oil and gas leases will remain in effect for the duration of the lease term. None of the oil and gas leases are producing, nor are they in a producible status.
The following parcels are classified as mineral in character for oil and gas and have been dropped from further consideration of transfer:
The areas described contain approximately 1,480.00 acres, more or less.
6. The public lands classified by this notice are shown on maps on file and available for inspection in the Arizona State Office, 222 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.
7. For a period of 30 days from the date of publication in the
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Medford District Resource Advisory Committee (RAC), will meet as indicated below.
The meeting will be held October 10, 2002, at the Medford District Office, Medford, OR beginning at 10 a.m. The public comment period will begin at approximately 2 p.m. and the meeting will adjourn at approximately 4 p.m.
The 21-member Committee advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Medford. At this meeting, topics we plan to discuss include: final approval of 2003 projects, the potential role of the RAC as it relates to management of the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument, and the overall goals of the RAC.
All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Committee. Each formal Committee meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such sign language interpretation, tour transportation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below.
Karen Gillespie, Public Affairs Officer, 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR, Telephone (541) 618-2424.
Notice of meeting.
The National Park Service (NPS) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), in accordance with the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, announce the next meeting of the National Parks Overflight Advisory Group (NPOAG). The meeting will take place October 4-5, 2002, in Tusayan, Arizona. This notice informs the public of the dates, location, and agenda for the meeting.
The NPOAG will meet October 4-5, 2002, at the Best Western Grand Canyon Squire Inn, Highway 64, Tusayan, Arizona 86023 (telephone 1-800-622-6966). The meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. on Friday, October 4, and end at approximately 3:00 p.m. October 5.
Barry Brayer, Manager, Executive Resource Staff, Western Pacific Region, Federal Aviation Administration, 15000 Aviation Blvd., Hawthorne, CA 90250, telephone: (310) 725-3800, or
The National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000, enacted on April 5, 2000, as Public Law 106-181 (Pub. L. 106-181), required the establishment of a National Parks Overflights Advisory Group within 1 year after its enactment. The NPOAG was to be a balanced group representative of general aviation, commercial air tour operations, environmental concerns, and Indian tribes. The duties of the NPOAG included providing advice, information, and recommendations to the Director, NPS, and to the Administrator, FAA, on the implementation of Public Law 106-181, on quiet aircraft technology, on other measures that might accommodate interests to visitors to national parks, and, at the request of the Director and Administrator, on safety, environmental, and other issues related to commercial air tour operations over national parks or tribal lands.
On March 12, 2001, the FAA and NPS announced the establishment of the NPOAG (48 FR 14429). Current members of the NPOAG are Andy Cebula (general aviation), David Kennedy, Joe Currao, and Alan Stephens (commercial air tour operations), Chip Dennerlein, Charles Maynard, Boyd Evison, and Susan Gunn (environmental interests), and Germaine White and Richard Deertrack (Indian tribes).
The first meeting of the advisory group was held August 28-29, 2001, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The meeting on October 5, 2002, will include a review of the status of documents pertaining to development of air tour management plans, discussion noise analysis, new development in quiet aircraft technology, issues of historical and cultural preservation in the national parks, and a review of plans for noise data collection in national parks in Hawaii. On Saturday, October 6, the NPOAG will visit a Grand Canyon air tour operator and possibly travel to the Grand Canyon rim to observe air tour overflights.
Although this is not a public meeting, interested persons may attend. Because seating is limited, if you plan to attend, please contact one of the persons listed under
If you cannot attend the meeting, a summary record of the meeting will be made available by the Office of Rulemaking (ARM), 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591. Contact is Linda Williams, (202) 267-9685, or
International Trade Commission.
Institution of investigation and scheduling of hearing.
Following receipt on August 22, 2002, of a request from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) under section 332(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1332 (g)), the Commission instituted investigation No. 332-447, Advice Concerning Possible Modifications to the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences.
In providing its advice on these articles, the USTR asked that the Commission assume that the benefits of the GSP would not apply to imports that would be excluded from receiving from receiving such benefits by virtue of the competitive need limits specified in section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act.
As requested under section 332(g) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and in accordance with section 503(d)(1)(A) of the 1974 Act, the Commission will provide advice on whether any industry in the United States is likely to be adversely affected by a waiver of the competitive need limits specified in section 503(c)(2)(A) of the 1974 Act for Argentina for the following HTS subheadings: 1202.20.40, 2008.11.25, 2009.61.00, 2009.69.00; for the Philippines or HTS subheading 2009.49.20; and for Turkey for HTS subheading 7113.19.50.
With respect to the competitive need limit in section 503(c)(2)(A)(i)(I) of the 1974 Act, the Commission, as requested, will use the dollar value limit of $100,000,000.
As requested by the USTR, the Commission will seek to provide its advice not later than December 4, 2002.
September 4, 2002.
The above persons are in the Commission's Office of Industries. For information on legal aspects of the investigation, contact William Gearhart of the Commission's Office of the General Counsel at 202-205-3091.
By order of the Commission.
Judicial Conference of the United States, Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence.
Change of time for open meeting on October 18, 2002, in Seattle, Washington.
The time for the open meeting of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence has been changed. The new time for the meeting is from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. The meeting will be held at the original location: Renaissance Madison Hotel, 515 Madison Street, Seattle, Washington.
[Original notice of meeting appeared in the
John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Justice.
Notice of meeting.
Announcement of a meeting of the Global Justice Information Network (Global) Federal Advisory Committee (GAC) to discuss the Global Initiative, as described in Initiative A07 “Access America: Re-Engineering Through Information Technology.”
The meeting will take place on Tuesday, October 15, 2002, from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. E.D.T.
The meeting will take place at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004; Phone: (202) 393-2000. All attendees will be required to sign in at the meeting registration desk. Please bring photo identification and allow extra time prior to the meeting.
This meeting is open to the public. However, due to security measures, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register with Mr. Patrick McCreary, Global Designated Federal Employee (DFE), at least (7) days in advance of the meeting. Access to the meeting will not be allowed without registration.
Mr. McCreary may be contacted as follows: Address: Patrick McCreary—Global DFE, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street, NW., Fourth Floor, Washington, DC 20531; Phone: (202) 616-0532 (
Anyone requiring special accommodations should contact Mr. McCreary at least seven (7) days in advance of the meeting.
The GAC was established pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), as amended.
The GAC will act as the focal point for justice information systems integration activities in order to facilitate the
The GAC will guide and monitor the development of the Global information sharing concept. It will advise the Assistant Attorney General, OJP; the Attorney General; the President (through the Attorney General); and local, state, tribal, and federal policymakers in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The GAC will also advocate strategies for accomplishing a Global information sharing capability.
This meeting will be open to the public and registrations will be accepted on a space available basis. Interested persons whose registrations have been accepted may be permitted to participate in the discussions at the discretion of the meeting chairman and with the approval of the Designated Federal Employee (DFE). Further information about this meeting can be obtained from Patrick McCreary, DFE, at (202) 616-0532.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) issued during the period of August, 2002.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met.
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated,
(2) That sales or production, or both, of the firm or sub-division have decreased absolutely, and
(3) That increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met. A survey of customers indicated that increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
Increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) has not been met. Sales of production did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification.
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) and criteria (3) have not been met. Sales of production did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification.
The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
Also, pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA) and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchaper D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act as amended, the Department of Labor presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA issued during the months of August, 2002.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA the following group eligibility requirements of Section 250 of the Trade Act must be met:
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, (including workers in any agricultural firm or appropriate subdivision thereof) have become totally or partially separated from employment and either—
(2) That sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely,
(3) That imports from Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and that the increases imports contributed importantly to such workers' separations or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
(4) That there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the firm or subdivision.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criteria (3) and (4) were not met. Imports from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to workers' separations. There was no shift in production from the subject firm to Canada or Mexico during the relevant period.
The investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as amended.
The investigation revealed that criteria (2) has not been met. Sales or production did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the months of August, 2002. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) issued during the period of August, 2002.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met.
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated,
(2) That sales or production, or both, of the firm or sub-division have decreased absolutely, and
(3) That increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met. A survey of customers indicated that increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
Increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
The investigation revealed that criteria (1) has not been met. A significant number or proportion of the workers did not become totally or parqtially separated from employment as required for certification.
The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
Also, pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA) and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchaper D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act as amended, the Department of Labor presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA issued during the months of August, 2002.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA the following group eligibility requirements of Section 250 of the Trade Act must be met:
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, (including workers in any agricultural firm or appropriate subdivision thereof) have become totally or partially separated from employment and either—
(2) That sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely,
(3) That imports from Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and that the increases imports contributed importantly to such workers' separations or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
(4) That there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the firm or subdivision.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criteria (3) and (4) were not met. Imports from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to workers' separations. There was no shift in production from the subject firm to Canada or Mexico during the relevant period.
The investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as amended.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the months of August, 2002. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.
In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) issued during the period of August, 2002.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of Section 222 of the Act must be met.
(1) That a significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, have become totally or partially separated,
(2) that sales or production, or both, of the firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, and
(3) that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm or appropriate subdivision have contributed importantly to the separations, or threat thereof, and to the absolute decline in sales or production.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criterion (3) has not been met. A survey of customers indicated that increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
In the following cases, the investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
Increased imports did not contribute importantly to worker separations at the firm.
The workers firm does not produce an article as required for certification under Section 222 of the Trade Act of 1974.
The investigation revealed that criterion (1) and criterion (2) have not been met. A significant number or proportion of the workers did not become totally or partially separated from employment as required for certification. Sales or production did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification.
The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.
Also, pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182 concerning transitional adjustment assistance hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA) and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act as amended, the Department of Labor presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA issued during the months of August, 2002.
In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for NAFTA-TAA the following group eligibility requirements of Sections 250 of the Trade Act must be met:
(1) That a significant number of proportion of the workers in the workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision thereof, (including workers in any agricultural firm or appropriate subdivision thereof) have become totally or partially separated from employment and either—
(2) that sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely,
(3) that imports from Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have increased, and that the increases imports contributed importantly to such workers' separations or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or
(4) that there has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to Mexico or Canada of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by the firm or subdivision.
In each of the following cases the investigation revealed that criteria (3) and (4) were not met. Imports from Canada or Mexico did not contribute importantly to workers' separations. There was no shift in production from the subject firm to Canada or Mexico during the relevant period
The investigation revealed that the criteria for eligibility have not been met for the reasons specified.
The investigation revealed that workers of the subject firm did not produce an article within the meaning of Section 250(a) of the Trade Act, as amended.
The investigation revealed that criterion (1) and criterion (2) have not been met. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision (including workers in any agricultural firm or appropriate subdivision thereof) did not become totally or partially separated from employment as required for certification. Sales or production did not decline during the relevant period as required for certification.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the months of August, 2002. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on May 20, 2002 in response to a petition filed by a company official on May 3, 2002 on behalf of workers at Domtar A.W., Port Edwards, Wisconsin.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 24, 2002, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at FCI Electronics, Etters, Pennsylvania. The workers assembled fiber optic cables and circuit boards.
The petition has been deemed invalid. The petitioning group of workers were separated from the subject firm more than one year prior to the date of the petition. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 3, 2002 in response to a worker petition filed on May 3, 2002 on behalf of workers at G & L Trucking, Inc., Hanceville, Alabama.
All workers were separated from the subject firm more than one year prior to the date of the petition. Section 223 of the Act specifies that no certification
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on July 1, 2002 in response to a worker petition, which was filed by the company on behalf of workers at G & T Industrial Sheet Metal, Bend, Oregon.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated in response to a petition received July 8, 2002 by the company on behalf of workers at Robert Bosch Corporation, Automotive Group, Braking Systems Division, Ashland, Ohio.
An active certification covering the petitioning group of workers remains in effect (TA-W-39,534, expires August 8, 2003). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 10, 2002, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Invensys, Inc., The Foxboro Company, Foxboro, Massachusetts.
The company official submitting the petition has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on July 1, 2002, in response to a worker petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at Lenox China, Oxford, North Carolina.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 3, 2002 in response to a worker petition, which was filed on behalf of workers at Nordic Gear, Inc., Millersburg, Pennsylvania.
The petitioners have requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on July 8, 2002 in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Oxford Industries, Inc., Women's Wear, New York, New York.
The petitioning group of workers are subject to an investigation for which a certification has been issued (TA-W-39,764A). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on July 22, 2002, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Scotty Fashions #6, Lehighton, Pennsylvania.
The investigation revealed that there is an existing petition (TA-41,665A) for the subject firm that has been assigned to another investigator.
Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on July 1, 2002, in response to a worker petition which was filed by the company on behalf of workers at Standard Container Company, Badger Basket Division, Edgar, Wisconsin.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 17, 2002 in response to a worker petition which was filed on behalf of workers at Supreme Tool and Die Company, Fenton, Missouri.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation is terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 10, 2002, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers at T & J Personal Services, Clearfield, Pennsylvania.
The petitioner submitting the petition has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 17, 2002, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Tyco Electronics, Corporation, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
An active certification covering the petitioning group of workers remains in effect (TA-W-39,972). Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation was initiated on June 24, 2002 in response to a petition filed by the company on behalf of workers at United Chair, First Source Furniture Group, Leeds, Alabama.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-1) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with Section 250(a), Subchapter D, Chapter 2, Title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on May 8, 2002, in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at Domtar A.W., Port Edwards, Wisconsin. Workers produced uncoated freesheet paper.
The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment assistance, hereinafter called NAFTA-TAA and in accordance with section 250(a), subchapter D, chapter 2, title II, of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2331), an investigation was initiated on February 4, 2002, in response to a worker petition which was filed by on behalf of workers at Tyco Electronics, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Currently, an active certification covering the petitioning group of workers remains in effect (NAFTA-5317). Consequently further investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.
Legal Services Corporation.
Announcement of intention to make FY 2003 Competitive Veterans Grant Awards.
The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) hereby announces its intention to award grants and contracts to provide economical and effective delivery of high quality legal services to veterans, beginning January 1, 2003.
All comments and recommendations must be received on or before the close of business on October 10, 2002.
Legal Services Corporation—Veterans Grant Competition, Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street NE., 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20002-4250.
Jennifer Bateman, Grants Coordinator, Office of Program Performance, (202) 336-8835.
Pursuant to LSC's announcement of funding availability on May 15, 2002, LSC received a qualified application from the following organization to provide legal services to veterans:
An award will be made so that low income veteran appellants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims will be represented. The listed organization is not guaranteed an award or contract. LSC requests comments and recommendations concerning the potential grantee within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of publication of this notice. Grants will become effective and grant funds will be distributed on or about January 1, 2003.
* * *
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.
All of these meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
These closed proposal review meetings will no longer be announced on an individual basis in the
9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 17, 2002.
NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 20594.
The three items are Open to the Public.
Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Ms. Carolyn Dargan at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, September 13, 2002.
Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.
The Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-7, which authorizes operation of the North Anna Power Station, Unit 2. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a one pressurized-water reactor located in Louisa County in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), part 50, Section 50.44 requires reactors fueled with Zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding to control any hydrogen gas that may be generated after a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). 10 CFR 50.46 identifies design requirements for calculating the performance of the emergency core cooling system (ECCS) for reactors containing fuel with Zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding. Finally, Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 requires the Baker-Just equation, which is only applicable for fuels using Zircaloy cladding, be used to predict the rates of energy release, hydrogen concentration, and cladding oxidation from the metal water reaction.
By letter dated February 11, 2002, as supplemented by letter dated May 16, 2002, the licensee submitted a request for a license amendment to irradiate a Framatome lead test assembly during Cycle 16 at North Anna, Unit 2. The lead test assembly to be used is one of four lead test assemblies that have been used for the past three operating cycles at North Anna, Unit 1. Included in this proposed license amendment was a request for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 that would allow the licensee to use a lead test assembly that consisted of two advanced zirconium-based alloys, M4 and M5, for the fuel rod cladding. The licensee included the following license condition in its submittal:
Virginia Electric and Power Company may operate one lead test assembly containing advanced zirconium-based alloys for one cycle, to a lead rod burnup not exceeding 75,000 MWD/MTU.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances exist whenever an application of a particular regulation under the circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.44 is to ensure that means are provided for the control of hydrogen gas that may be generated following a LOCA. The licensee has provided means for controlling hydrogen gas and has previously considered the potential for hydrogen gas generation stemming from a metal-water reaction. The chemical similarity of the lead test assembly containing advanced zirconium-based cladding with that of the Zircaloy cladding ensures that previous calculations of hydrogen production resulting from a metal-water reaction would not be significantly changed. As such, the licensee has achieved the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.44.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K, is to establish requirements for the calculation of ECCS performance. The licensee has performed a calculation demonstrating adequate ECCS performance for North Anna, Unit 2, and has shown that the lead test assembly does not have a significant impact upon the calculation. The peak cladding temperature of the lead test assembly was significantly lower than the resident Westinghouse fuel. Using the Baker-Just equation, the result conservatively predicted local cladding oxidation of the lead test assembly of only a few percent. Also, the maximum hydrogen generation was unchanged with the inclusion of the lead test assembly. Therefore, the coolable geometry was maintained following a LOCA.
Paragraph I.A.5 of Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 states that the rates of energy, hydrogen concentration, and cladding oxidation from the metal-water reaction shall be calculated using the Baker-Just equation. Since the Baker-Just equation presumes the use of Zircaloy clad fuel, strict application of the rule would not permit use of the equation for advanced zirconium-based alloys for determining acceptable fuel performance. The underlying intent of this portion of the Appendix, however, is to ensure that analysis of fuel response to LOCAs is conservatively calculated. Due to the similarities in the chemical composition of the advanced zirconium-based alloys and Zircaloy, the application of the Baker-Just equation in the analysis of advanced zirconium-based clad fuel is justified and will conservatively bound all post-LOCA scenarios. Thus the underlying purpose of the rule will be met, and special circumstances exist, allowing the staff to grant an exemption from Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50 that would allow the licensee to apply the Baker-Just equation to advanced zirconium-based alloys.
The staff confirmed that the licensee used approved LOCA methods to
The lead test assembly meets the same design bases and requirements as the resident Westinghouse fuel for the North Anna, Unit 2, Cycle 16 core. No safety limits or setpoints have been altered as a result of the use of the lead test assembly. The lead test assembly will be placed in a core location that will not experience the most limiting power peaking during the aforementioned operating cycle. The advanced cladding has been irradiated and tested for corrosion resistance, tensile and burst strength, and creep characteristics. The results indicate that the advanced cladding should be acceptable for reactor service. Therefore, granting the exemption requests will not present an undue risk to public health and safety or be inconsistent with the common defense and security.
Based on the previously acceptable performance of the four lead test assemblies at North Anna, Unit 1, and the subsequent approval of the advanced cladding material M5, the staff concludes that the licensee has demonstrated that the lead test assembly will perform adequately under LOCA conditions, and thus the lead test assembly is acceptable for operation in North Anna, Unit 2, Cycle 16. In addition, based on the special circumstances described above, the staff approves of an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix K for the lead test assembly in North Anna, Unit 2.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the licensee an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44, 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR Part 50, for North Anna Power Station, Unit 2. This exemption only applies to the one lead test assembly containing advanced zirconium-based alloys for the one operating cycle, with a lead rod burnup not exceeding 75,000 MWD/MTU.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (67 FR 53813).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of September 9, 16, 23, 30, October 7, 14, 2002.
Commissioner's Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public and Closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 9, 2002.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 16, 2002.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of September 23, 2002.
This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address—
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 7, 2002.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 7, 2002.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of October 14, 2002.
* The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)—(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: R. Michelle Schroll (301) 415-1662.
By a vote of 5-0 on September 3, the Commission determined pursuant to U.S.C. 552b(e) and § 9.107(a) of the Commission's rules that “Affirmation of (a) Final Rule: 10 CFR Part 63: Specification of a Probability for Unlikely Features, Events, and Processes, and (b) Duke Cogema Stone & Webster (Savannah River Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility); Board's Certified Question Regarding Procedure” be held on September 4, and on less than one week's notice to the public.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301)-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of medically underserved areas for 2003.
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has completed its annual determination of the States that qualify as Medically Underserved Areas under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program for calendar year 2003. This is necessary to comply with a provision of the FEHB law that mandates special consideration for enrollees of certain FEHB plans who receive covered health services in States with critical shortages of primary care physicians. Accordingly, for calendar year 2003, OPM's calculations show that the following states are Medically Underserved Areas under the FEHB Program: Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. We have removed Georgia from the list of calendar year 2003 and added the states of Louisiana, Maine, and West Virginia.
January 1, 2003.
Ingrid Burford, 202-606-0004.
FEHB law (5 U.S.C. 8902(m)(2)) mandates special consideration for enrollees of certain FEHB plans who receive covered health services in States with critical shortages of primary care physicians. The FEHB law also requires that a State be designated as a Medically Underserved Area if 25 percent or more of the population lives in an area designated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a primary medical care manpower shortage area. Such States are designated as Medically Underserved Areas for purposes of the FEHB Program, and the law requires non-HMO FEHB plans to reimburse beneficiaries, subject to their contract terms, for covered services obtained from any licensed provider in these States.
FEHB regulations (5 CFR 890.701) require OPM to make an annual determination of the States that qualify as Medically Underserved Areas for the next calendar year by comparing the latest HHS State-by-State population counts on primary medical care manpower shortage areas with U.S. Census figures on State resident populations.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
The Federal Salary Council will meet at the time and location shown below. The Council is an advisory body composed of representatives of Federal employee organizations and experts in the fields of labor relations or pay policy. The Council makes recommendations to the President's Pay Agent (the Secretary of Labor and the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel Management) about the locality pay program for General Schedule employees under section 5304 of title 5, United States Code. The Council's recommendations cover the establishment or modification of locality pay areas, the coverage of salary surveys, the process of comparing Federal and non-Federal rates of pay, and the level of comparability payments that should be paid. This meeting is to formulate the Council's recommendations for locality payments in 2004. The meeting is open to the public.
October 1, 2002, at 10 a.m.
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 5303 (Pendleton Room) Washington, DC.
Donald J. Winstead, Assistant Director for Compensation Administration, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW., Room 7H31, Washington, DC 20415-8200. Phone (202) 606-2838; FAX (202) 606-0824; or e-mail at
For the President's Pay Agent.
Postal Rate Commission.
Notice of Commission tour.
A Postal Rate Commissioner and staff members will tour Chicago-area mailers' facilities and United States Postal Service (USPS) facilities in mid-September. The purpose of the tours is to observe printing and mailing operations.
September 11, 2002: Quebecor World Inc. and USPS facilities.
September 12, 2002: USPS facilities.
September 13, 2002: R.R. Donnelley and Sons.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 202-789-6818.
Notice is hereby given that the following filing has been made with the Commission pursuant to provisions of the Act and rules promulgated under the Act. All interested persons are referred to the application/declaration for a complete statements of the proposed transaction summarized below. The application/declaration is available for public inspection through the Commission's Branch of Public Reference.
Interested persons wishing to comment or request a hearing on the application/declaration should submit their views in writing by September 30, 2002, to the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington, DC 20549-0609, and serve a copy on the relevant applicant/declarant at the address specified below. Proof of service (by affidavit or, in the case of an attorney at law, by certificate) should be filed with the request. Any request for hearing should identify specifically the issues of facts or law that are disputed. A person who so requests will be notified of any hearing, if ordered, and will receive a copy of any notice or order issued in the matter. After September 30, 2002, the application/
Entergy Mississippi, Inc. (“EMI”), 308 East Pearl Street, Jackson, Mississippi, an electric public-utility subsidiary company of Entergy Corporation (“Entergy”), a registered holding company, has filed with this Commission a post-effective amendment to its application-declaration filed under sections 6(a), 7, 9(a), 10 and 12(d) of the Act and rules 42, 44, 62 and 65 under the Act.
By order dated December 26, 2000 (HCAR No. 27317), EMI was authorized, among other things, from time to time through December 31, 2003, to issue and sell up to (i) $540 million of EMI's first mortgage bonds (“Bonds”) and/or EMI's debentures (“Debentures”); (ii) $50 million of preferred securities of a subsidiary of EMI (“Entity Interests”) and/or EMI's preferred stock (“Preferred Stock”); (iii) $46 million of tax-exempt bonds (“Tax-Exempt Bonds”) to be issued by the appropriate governmental authority, including the pledge of bonds up to $52 million as security; and (iv) $100 million of municipal securities (“Municipal Securities”) issued by the appropriate municipal entity.
Fees, commissions and expenses of the underwriters to be incurred in connection with the Bonds, Debentures, Preferred Stock and Tax-Exempt Bonds were estimated not to exceed 2% of the principal amount to be sold, and in the case of Entity Interests and Debentures issued under a subordinated debenture indenture, 3.25% of the principal amount to be sold.
EMI states that current market conditions require an increase above the 2% of principal amount of underwriters' fees, commissions and expenses to effect sales into the retail securities markets. EMI now requests authority for fees, commissions and expenses of the underwriters to be incurred in connection with the issuance and sale of Bonds, Debentures, Debentures issued under a subordinated debenture indenture, Preferred Stock, Entity Interests, Tax-Exempt Bonds and Municipal Securities not to exceed the lesser of 3.25% of the principal amount, respectively, to be sold or those generally paid at the time of pricing for sales of first mortgage bonds, debentures, debentures issued under a subordinated debenture indenture, preferred stock, subsidiary interests, tax-exempt bonds or municipal securities, respectively, having the same maturity, issued by companies of comparable credit quality and having similar terms, conditions and features.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.
Applicants request an order that would permit (a) an open-end management investment company, whose series will be based on certain fixed-income securities indices, to issue shares of limited redeemability; (b) secondary market transactions in the shares of the series to occur at negotiated prices; (c) dealers to sell shares of the series of the Trust to purchasers in the secondary market unaccompanied by a prospectus, when prospectus delivery is not required by the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”); and (d) affiliated persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and redemption of aggregations of the series' shares.
ETF Advisors Trust (“Trust”), ETF Advisors, LP (“Advisor”), and ALPS Distributors, Inc. (“Distributor”).
The application was filed on July 2, 2002, and amended on August 22, 2002.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on September 26, 2002, and should be accompanied by proof of service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit, or for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.
Secretary, Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants: Trust and Advisor, 153 East 53rd Street, 49th Floor, New York, New York 10022; Distributor, 370 17th Street, Suite 3100, Denver, Colorado 80202.
Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, at 202-942-0567, or Michael W. Mundt, Senior Special Counsel, at 202-942-0564 (Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company Regulation).
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (telephone 202-942-8090).
1. The Trust is an open-end management investment company registered under the Act and organized as a Delaware business trust. The Trust intends to offer four series (each, an “Index Fund”). The Advisor is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and will serve as the investment adviser for the Index Funds. The Distributor, a broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), will serve as the principal underwriter for each Index Fund.
2. Each Index Fund will invest in a portfolio of securities (“Portfolio Securities”) to provide investment results that seek to match, before fees and expenses, the total return of an underlying fixed income security index (each, an “Underlying Index” and together, the “Underlying Indices”).
The Underlying Indices for the Index Funds are the Ryan 1 Year Adjusted Treasury Index, Ryan 2 Year Treasury Index, Ryan 5 Year Treasury Index and Ryan 10 Year Treasury Index. The Underlying Indices consist of the most recently auctioned Treasury Securities for various maturities.
3. The Advisor will seek to achieve each Index Fund's investment objective by constructing the portfolio of an Index Fund to provide a duration and cash flow profile similar to that of the Underlying Index. Intra-day values of each Underlying Index will be disseminated every 15 seconds throughout the trading day by the American Stock Exchange, LLC (“AMEX”). Applicants expect that each Index Fund will have an annual tracking error relative to the performance of its respective Underlying Index of less than 1 percent.
4. Shares of the Index Funds (“FITRs”) will be issued in aggregations of 50,000 FITRs (such aggregations, “Creation Unit Aggregations”), as specified in the relevant prospectus (the “Prospectus”). The price of a Creation Unit Aggregation will range from $2,500,000 to $10,000,000. Creation Unit Aggregations may be purchased only by or through a party that has entered into an agreement with the administrator of an Index Fund and the Distributor regarding creations and redemptions of Creation Unit Aggregations (an “Authorized Participant”). An Authorized Participant must be a participant in The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”). Creation Unit Aggregations generally will be issued in exchange for an in-kind deposit of securities and cash. An Index Fund also may sell Creation Unit Aggregations on a cash-only basis in limited circumstances. An investor wishing to make an in-kind purchase of a Creation Unit Aggregation from an Index Fund will have to transfer to the Index Fund a “Portfolio Deposit” consisting of: (a) A portfolio of securities that has been selected by the Advisor to closely match the total return of the relevant Underlying Index (“Deposit Securities”), and (b) a cash payment to equalize any difference between the total aggregate market value per Creation Unit Aggregation of the Deposit Securities and the net asset value (“NAV”) per Creation Unit Aggregation of the Index Fund (the “Balancing Amount”).
5. Orders to purchase Creation Unit Aggregations will be placed with the Distributor, who will be responsible for transmitting orders to each Index Fund. The Distributor will issue, and maintain records of, confirmations of acceptance to purchasers of Creation Unit Aggregations and delivery instructions to the relevant Index Fund (to implement the delivery of Creation Unit Aggregations). The Distributor also will be responsible for delivering Prospectuses to purchasers of Creation Unit Aggregations. 6.Persons purchasing Creation Unit Aggregations from an Index Fund may hold the FITRs or sell some or all of them in the secondary market. FITRs of the Index Funds will be listed on the AMEX or on another national securities exchange as defined in section 2(a)(26) of the Act (each, including AMEX, an “Exchange”) and traded in the secondary market in the same manner as equity securities. One or more member firms of the AMEX (“Specialists”) will maintain a market on the AMEX for the FITRs. The price of FITRs traded on an Exchange will be based on a current bid/offer market. Each FITR is expected to have a market value of between $50 and $200. Transactions involving the sale of FITRs in the secondary market will be subject to customary brokerage commissions and charges.
7. Applicants expect that purchasers of Creation Unit Aggregations will include institutional investors and arbitrageurs (which could include institutional investors). In providing for a fair and orderly secondary market for FITRs on the Exchange, the Specialist also may purchase Creation Unit Aggregations. Applicants expect that secondary market purchasers of FITRs will include both institutional and retail investors.
8. Applicants will make available a FITRs product description (“Product Description”) for distribution in accordance with an AMEX rule requiring AMEX members and member organizations effecting transactions in FITRs to deliver a Product Description to investors purchasing FITRs. Applicants state that any other Exchange that applies for unlisted trading privileges in FITRs will have to adopt similar rules.
9. FITRs will not be individually redeemable. FITRs will only be redeemable in Creation Unit Aggregations through each Index Fund. To redeem, investors will have to accumulate enough FITRs to constitute a Creation Unit Aggregation. An investor redeeming a Creation Unit Aggregation generally will receive (a) the Portfolio Securities designated to be delivered for Creation Unit Aggregation redemptions on the date the request for redemption is made (“Redemption Securities”), which may not be identical to the Deposit Securities applicable to the purchase of Creation Unit Aggregations, and (b) a “Cash Redemption Payment,” consisting of an amount calculated in the same manner as the Balancing Amount, although the actual amount of the Cash Redemption Payment may differ from the Balancing Amount if the Redemption Securities are not identical to the Deposit Securities on a given day. An investor may receive the cash equivalent of a Redemption Security in certain circumstances. A redeeming investor will pay a Transaction Fee to offset transaction costs, whether the redemption proceeds are in kind or cash. When an investor redeems for cash rather than in kind, the investor may pay a higher Transaction Fee.
10. Applicants state that neither the Trust nor any Index Fund will be marketed or otherwise held out as an “open-end investment company” or a “mutual fund.” Rather, the designation of the Trust and the Index Funds in all marketing materials will be limited to the terms “exchange-traded fund,” “investment company,” “fund” and “trust” without reference to an “open-end fund” or “mutual fund,” except to compare and contrast the Trust and the Index Funds with traditional mutual funds. Any marketing materials that describe the purchase or sale of Creation Unit Aggregations, or refer to redeemability, will prominently disclose that FITRs are not individually redeemable and that owners of FITRs may tender FITRs for redemption to the Index Fund in Creation Unit Aggregations only. The same type of disclosure will be provided in each Index Fund's Prospectus, SAI and all reports to shareholders. The Trust will provide copies of its annual and semi-annual shareholder reports to DTC participants for distribution to beneficial holders of FITRs.
1. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d), and 24(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act; and under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act.
2. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of the Act, if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
3. Section 5(a)(1) of the Act defines an “open-end company” as a management company which is offering for sale or has outstanding any redeemable security of which it is the issuer. Section 2(a)(32) of the Act defines a redeemable security as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon its presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately a proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent. Because FITRs will not be individually redeemable, applicants request an order under section 6(c) of the Act that would permit the Trust to register as an open-end management investment company and issue FITRs that are redeemable in Creation Unit Aggregations only. Applicants state that investors may purchase Creation Unit Aggregations from each Index Fund and redeem Creation Unit Aggregations through each Index Fund. Applicants believe that because the market price of Creation Unit Aggregations will be disciplined by arbitrage opportunities, investors generally should be able to sell FITRs in the secondary market at approximately NAV.
4. Section 22(d) of the Act, among other things, prohibits a dealer from selling a redeemable security that is currently being offered to the public by or through a principal underwriter, except at a current public offering price described in the prospectus. Rule 22c-1 under the Act generally requires that a dealer selling, redeeming, or repurchasing a redeemable security do so only at a price based on its NAV. Applicants state that secondary market trading in FITRs will take place at negotiated prices, not at a current offering price described in the Prospectus and not at a price based on NAV. Thus, purchases and sales of FITRs in the secondary market will not comply with section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) of the Act from these provisions.
5. Applicants assert that the concerns sought to be addressed by section 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act with respect to pricing are equally satisfied by the proposed method of pricing FITRs. Applicants maintain that while there is little legislative history regarding section 22(d), its provisions, as well as those of rule 22c-1, appear to have been designed to (a) prevent dilution caused by certain riskless-trading schemes by principal underwriters and contract dealers, (b) prevent unjust discrimination or preferential treatment among buyers resulting from sales at different prices, and (c) ensure an orderly distribution of investment company shares by eliminating price competition from non-contract dealers offering shares at less than the published sales price and repurchasing shares at more than the published redemption price.
6. Applicants believe that none of these purposes will be thwarted by permitting FITRs to trade in the secondary market at negotiated prices. Applicants state that (a) secondary market trading in FITRs would not cause dilution for owners of FITRs because such transactions do not directly involve Index Fund assets, and (b) to the extent different prices exist during a given trading day, or from day to day, such variances will occur as a result of third-party market forces, such as supply and demand. Therefore, applicants assert that secondary market transactions in FITRs will not lead to discrimination or preferential treatment among purchasers. Finally, applicants contend that the proposed distribution system will be orderly because arbitrage activity will ensure that the difference between the market price of FITRs and their NAV remains narrow.
7. Section 24(d) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that the prospectus delivery exemption provided to dealer transactions by section 4(3) of the Securities Act does not apply to any transaction in a redeemable security issued by an open-end investment company. Applicants request an exemption from section 24(d) to permit dealers selling FITRs to rely on the
8. Applicants state that FITRs will be listed on an Exchange and will be traded in a manner similar to other equity securities, including the shares of closed-end investment companies. Applicants note that dealers selling shares of closed-end investment companies in the secondary market generally are not required to deliver a prospectus to the purchaser.
9. Applicants contend that FITRs, as a listed security, merit a reduction in the compliance costs and regulatory burdens resulting from the imposition of prospectus delivery obligations in the secondary market. Because FITRs will be exchange-listed, prospective investors will have access to several types of market information about FITRs. Applicants state that information regarding market price and volume will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day. The previous day's closing price and volume information for FITRs also will be published daily in the financial sections of many newspapers. In addition, the Trust's website will also include for each Index Fund, the previous business day's NAV and the bid price at the time of calculation of such NAV (the “Bid Price”) and data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters.
10. Investors also will receive a Product Description describing the Index Fund and its FITRs. Applicants state that, while not intended as a substitute for a Prospectus, the Product Description will contain information about FITRs that is tailored to meet the needs of investors purchasing FITRs in the secondary market.
11. Section 17(a) of the Act makes it unlawful, except under certain circumstances, for any affiliated person of a registered investment company, or any affiliated person of such a person, acting as principal, to sell any security to, or purchase any security from, such registered investment company. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines “affiliated person” to include any person directly or indirectly owning, controlling, or holding with power to vote 5% or more of the outstanding voting securities of the other person and any person directly or indirectly controlling, controlled by, or under common control with, the other person. Section 2(a)(9) of the Act provides that a control relationship will be presumed where one person owns more than 25% of another person's voting securities. Applicants state that because the definition of “affiliated person” includes any person owning 5% or more of an issuer's outstanding voting securities, every purchaser of a Creation Unit Aggregation will be affiliated with the Index Fund so long as twenty or fewer Creation Unit Aggregations are in existence, and any purchaser that owns more than 25% of an Index Funds' outstanding FITRs will be affiliated with the Index Fund. Applicants assert that, from time to time, one or more holders of FITRs, including the Specialist, may accumulate 5% or more or more than 25% of an Index Fund's outstanding FITRs. Applicants state that section 17(a) may prohibit such affiliated persons of an Index Fund (and affiliated persons of affiliated persons that are not otherwise affiliated with the Trust or the Index Fund) from purchasing or redeeming Creation Unit Aggregations in kind. Applicants request an exemption from section 17(a) under sections 6(c) and 17(b) to permit these affiliated persons of the Index Fund (and affiliated persons of these affiliated persons that are not otherwise affiliated with the Trust or the Index Fund) to effect such transactions in Creation Unit Aggregations.
12. Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is consistent with the policy of each registered investment company concerned and the general provisions of the Act. Applicants contend that no useful purpose would be served by prohibiting persons with the types of affiliations described above from purchasing or redeeming Creation Unit Aggregations. The deposit procedure for in-kind purchases and the redemption procedure for in-kind redemptions will be the same for all purchases and redemptions. Deposit Securities and Redemption Securities will be valued under the same objective standards applied to valuing Portfolio Securities. Therefore, applicants state that in-kind purchases and redemptions will afford no opportunity for the affiliated persons, and the affiliated persons of the affiliated persons, described above, of an Index Fund to effect a transaction detrimental to the other holders of FITRs. Applicants also believe that in-kind purchases and redemptions will not result in abusive self-dealing or overreaching by these persons of the Index Fund.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicants will not register a future portfolio of the Trust, by means of filing a post-effective amendment to the Trust's registration statement or by another means, unless Applicants have requested and received with respect to such future portfolio, either (a) exemptive relief from the Commission or (b) a no-action letter from the Division of Investment Management of the Commission.
2. Each Index Fund's Prospectus and Product Description will clearly disclose that, for purposes of the Act, FITRs are issued by each Index Fund and that the acquisition of FITRs by investment companies is subject to the restrictions of section 12(d)(1) of the Act.
3. As long as the Trust operates in reliance on the requested order, the FITRs will be listed on an Exchange.
4. Neither the Trust nor any Index Fund will be advertised or marketed as an open-end fund or a mutual fund. Each Index Fund's Prospectus will prominently disclose that FITRs are not individually redeemable shares and will disclose that the owners of FITRs may
5. Before an Index Fund may rely on the order, the Commission will have approved, pursuant to rule 19b-4 under the Exchange Act, an Exchange rule requiring Exchange members and member organizations effecting transactions in FITRs to deliver a Product Description to purchasers of FITRs.
6. The website for the Trust, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information, on a per FITR basis, for each Index Fund: (a) The prior business day's NAV and Bid Price, and a calculation of the premium or discount of such Bid Price against such NAV; and (b) data in chart format displaying the frequency distribution of discounts and premiums of the daily Bid Price against the NAV, within appropriate ranges, for each of the four previous calendar quarters. In addition, the Product Description for each Index Fund will state that the website of the Trust has information about the premiums and discounts at which the Index Fund's FITRs have traded.
7. The Prospectus and the annual report for each Index Fund will also include: (a) The information listed in condition 6(b), (i) in the case of the Prospectus, for the most recently completed year (and the most recently completed quarter or quarters, as applicable) and (ii) in the case of the annual report, for the immediately preceding five years, as applicable; and (b) the following data, calculated on a per FITR basis for one, five and ten year periods (or life of the Index Fund), (i) the cumulative total return and the average annual total return based on NAV and Bid Price, and (ii) the cumulative total return of the relevant Underlying Index.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
On May 29, 2002, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex or Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to adopt an access fee for non-customer orders in the Nasdaq 100® Index Tracking Stock (“QQQ”), Nasdaq-100® Index (“NDX”), CBOE Mini-NDX Index (“MNX
(1) Per contract side, including FLEX options. Transaction and Trade Match Fees are applicable to the CBOEdirect system.
(4) Transaction, trade match and RAES fees are charged to the CBOE executing firm on the input record.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The CBOE proposes to adopt a $0.30 per contract access fee for all non-customer orders in the MNX
According to the CBOE, non-customer orders subject to this proposed fee are Firm orders, CBOE market maker orders, non-CBOE market maker orders, orders from a specialist in the underlying security, and orders for the account of a registered broker-dealer.
The CBOE recently began to allow broker-dealer orders to be executed on RAES for products within the jurisdiction of the Exchange's Index Floor Procedure Committee.
The CBOE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or charge imposed by the Exchange and, therefore, has become effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2002-42 and should be submitted by October 1, 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 CBOE proposes to make a change to its Fee Schedule to add a pass-through charge for electrician service pertaining to market maker hand held terminal tethering services on the floor. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Office of the Secretary, the CBOE, and the Commission.
In its filing with the Commission, the CBOE included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The CBOE has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is submitting this rule filing to add to its Fee Schedule charges for electrician services connected to the installation and relocation of infrastructure related to the tethering of market maker hand held terminals (“MMHHs”) on the CBOE trading floor. These terminals, originally designed to be wireless, now have the option of being tethered, which can provide superior speed and reliability of data transmission. The Exchange proposes to charge $350 for installation of the tethering, and $200 for relocation. There will be no charge for termination of the tethered service. These fees represent a simple pass-through of the Exchange's costs to provide these services. The CBOE notes that this fee will be charged to Exchange members through their clearing firms, by way of the customary monthly billing that occurs shortly after the close of each trading month.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of purposes of the Act.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing rule change establishes or changes a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange, it has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the CBOE. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2002-43 and should be submitted by October 1, 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”),
Nasdaq proposes to: (1) Establish a $75 maximum execution fee cap for a single SuperSoes transaction, and (2) establish a $37.50 maximum cap on the rebate amount provided by Nasdaq to market participants that provide liquidity to its market. Nasdaq has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization under section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
The text of the proposed rule change appears below. New text is in italics.
(a)-(h) No change.
(1) No change.
The following charges shall apply to the use of the Nasdaq National Market Execution System:
For a pilot period commencing on November 1, 2001 and lasting until October 31, 2002, the per share charge will be $0.002 per share executed for all fully or partially executed orders (entering party only)
(3) No change.
For a pilot period commencing on November 1, 2001 and lasting until October 31, 2002:
(A) NASD members that do not charge an access fee to market participants accessing their quotations through the Nasdaq National Market Execution System will receive a rebate of $0.001 per share when their quotation is executed against by a Nasdaq National Market Execution System order.
(B) NASD members will receive a rebate of $0.001 per share when they send a Nasdaq National Market Execution System order that executes against the quotation of a market participant that charges an access fee to market participants accessing its quotations through the Nasdaq National Market Execution System.
(j)-(r) No change.
In its filing with the Commission, the Nasdaq 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. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In order to control trading costs for low-priced stocks, Nasdaq proposes to establish a maximum SuperSoes execution fee of $75.00 per trade and liquidity provider rebate cap of $37.50 per trade for securities trading at $1.00 or less per share.
Currently, Nasdaq assesses on parties entering orders into SuperSoes a $0.002 per share charge for all resulting full or partial trade executions. This fee applies regardless of the price of the individual security traded and there is no maximum fee per individual trade. Nasdaq also rebates $0.001 per share to market participants that provide liquidity to the market by having their quotes accessed by SuperSoes orders, when those quoting market participants do not themselves charge a separate fee for that access. When a market participant enters an order into SuperSoes that interacts with the quote of an access fee-charging Electronic Communications Network (“ECN”), Nasdaq likewise rebates $0.001 per share to that entering party. Like the per share SuperSoes execution fee, these rebates currently have no maximum dollar amount.
Nasdaq represents that recent market activity has caused the prices of many Nasdaq securities to fluctuate, and in some cases lose significant value. As the prices of these securities decline, market participants generally need to purchase or sell an increasing number of total shares to actively participate in the market for these issues. This increase in the size of individual transactions, when combined with SuperSoes' unlimited per share fee structure, raise execution costs to market participants. Similarly, large transactions involving low-priced securities also can result in disproportionate liquidity-provider rebates.
In response, Nasdaq has determined to establish per trade maximums for SuperSoes execution fees and liquidity provider rebates in low-priced ($1.00 or less per share) securities. Under the proposal, Nasdaq would cap at $75 the maximum execution fee it would impose on the entering party for a single SuperSoes trade where the price of the security traded was one dollar or less. For rebates, Nasdaq would cap at $37.50 the amount it gives back to market participants for providing liquidity in low-priced securities or when their orders access the low-priced quotes of fee-charging ECNs. Nasdaq notes that the ratio between its low-priced maximum per trade fee and per trade rebate is the same as those that are applicable to higher-priced issues.
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is with the provisions of section 15A of the Act,
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Association. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2002-106 and should be submitted by October 1, 2002.
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
In accordance with notices received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated August 27 and August 30, 2002, the above numbered declaration is hereby amended to include Bee County in the State of Texas as a disaster area due to damages caused by severe storms and flooding beginning on June 29, 2002 and continuing through July 31, 2002. This declaration is also amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to September 16, 2002.
All other counties contiguous to the above named primary counties have been previously declared.
All other information remains the same,
Small Business Administration.
Notice of revision of Privacy Act System of Records.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) Office of Inspector General (OIG) is revising its Privacy Act System of Records, SBA 120, Security and Investigations Files, and SBA 130, Investigations Division Management Information System, to include as routine uses the disclosure of information to the public when: (1) An investigation has become public knowledge; (2) it is necessary to preserve confidence in the integrity of the investigative process; (3) it is necessary to demonstrate the accountability of individuals covered by this system; (4) a legitimate public interest exists; or (5) it is necessary for the protection from imminent threat to life or property.
In addition, the revision includes a routine use to allow the disclosure of information to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) for the purpose of accurate reporting to the President and Congress on the activities of the Inspectors General. The revision further includes a routine use to allow disclosures to members of the PCIE, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the U.S. Marshals Service, as necessary, for investigative qualitative assessment review. The PCIE is establishing a peer review process to ensure that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures continue to exist. The objectives of the review are to assess whether adequate internal safeguards and management procedures are met, foster high-quality investigations and investigative processes, ensure that the highest levels of professionalism are maintained, and promote consistency in investigative standards and practices within the Inspector General investigative community.
The changes to this System of Records are effective without further notice October 10, 2002, unless comments are received that result in further modifications.
Address comments to David R. Gray, Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416.
David R. Gray, Counsel to the Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street SW., 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-7200.
This publication is in accordance with the Privacy Act requirement that Agencies publish their amended Systems in the
These notices contain minor typographical changes. Several data elements have also been updated and clarified: (1) SBA 120, Security and Investigations Files—safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager(s) and address, and record source categories, and (2) SBA 130, Investigations Division Management Information System—retention and disposal, system manager(s) and address, and record source categories.
Security and Investigations Files—SBA 120.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public when: (1) The matter under investigation has become public knowledge, or (2) when the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is necessary (a) to preserve confidence in the integrity of the OIG investigative process, or (b) to demonstrate the accountability of SBA officers, or employees, or other individuals covered by this system; unless the Inspector General determines that disclosure of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the news media and public when there exists a legitimate public interest (
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, for the preparation of reports to the President and Congress on the activities of the Inspectors General.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the U.S. Marshals Service, as necessary, for the purpose of conducting qualitative assessment reviews of the investigative operations of SBA OIG to ensure that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures are maintained.
Investigations Division Management Information System—SBA 130.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public when: (1) The matter under investigation has become public knowledge, or (2) when the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is necessary (a) to preserve confidence in the integrity of the OIG investigative process, or (b) to demonstrate the accountability of SBA officers, or employees, or other individuals covered by this system; unless the Inspector General determines that disclosure of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the news media and public when there exists a legitimate public interest (
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, for the preparation of reports to the President and Congress on the activities of the Inspectors General.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the U.S. Marshals Service, as necessary, for the purpose of conducting qualitative assessment reviews of the investigative operations of SBA OIG to ensure that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures are maintained.
Security and Investigations Files—SBA 120.
Office of Inspector General (OIG), Investigations Division, Central Office duty stations in the field, and Federal Records Centers. See Appendices A and B for addresses.
Applicants for, recipients of, and other parties in interest (
This system of records contains material gathered or created during the preparation for, conduct of, and follow up on, investigations conducted by OIG, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other Federal, state, local or foreign regulatory or law enforcement agencies as well as other material submitted to or gathered by OIG in furtherance of its investigative function. These records include FBI and other Federal, state, local and foreign regulatory or law enforcement investigative reports and include personal history statements, background character checks, field
5 U.S.C. app.; 15 U.S.C. chs. 14A and 14B; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
In the event that a system of records maintained by this Agency to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or administrative in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, state, local, foreign, international, private agency or organization involved in investigation or prosecution of such violations or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto.
A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence in or to a court, magistrate, administrative tribunal, or grand jury, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of such proceedings or in settlement negotiations.
A record from this system of records which indicates either by itself or in combination with other information within the agency's possession, a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the appropriate Federal, state, local, foreign, international, private agency or organization charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing or investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any source or person, either private or governmental, to the extent necessary to secure from such source information relevant to, and sought in furtherance of, a legitimate investigation concerning a violation of any Federal, state, local or foreign law, rule, regulation or order or the commission of an offense.
These records may routinely be disclosed to other Federal agencies, in response to their requests in connection with the conduct of background checks. Disclosure will be made only to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agencies' function.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any Federal, state, local, foreign, international, private agency or organization in connection with such entity's assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, issuance of a security clearance, reporting of an investigation of an individual, letting of a contract or issuance of a license, grant or other benefit, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to such agency's decision on the matter.
These records may be disclosed as a routine use, to a domestic, foreign, or international governmental agency maintaining civil, criminal or other relevant enforcement information, or other pertinent information, in order to obtain information relevant to an agency decision concerning the assignment, hiring or retention of an individual, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.
These records may be disclosed to Federal, state or local bar associations and other professional regulatory or disciplinary bodies for use in disciplinary proceedings and inquiries preparatory thereto.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress who submits an inquiry on behalf of an individual when the Member of Congress informs the appropriate agency official that the individual to whom the record pertains has authorized the Member of Congress to have access. In such cases, the member has no greater right to the record than does the individual. These records may be used to provide data to the General Accounting Office for periodic reviews of this Agency.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Government Ethics for any purpose consistent with that office's mission, including the compilation of statistical data.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the General Accounting Office and to the General Services Administration's Board of Contract Appeals in bid protest cases involving an agency procurement.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to any Federal agency which has the authority to subpoena other Federal agencies' records and which has issued a facially valid subpoena for the record.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Justice when an agency is seeking an ex parte court order to obtain taxpayer information from the Internal Revenue Service.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to debt collection contractors for the purpose of collecting delinquent debts as authorized by the Debt Collection Act of 1982, 31 U.S.C. 3718.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a “consumer reporting agency” as that term is defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(f)) and the Federal Claims Collection Act of 1966 (31 U.S.C. 3701(a)(3)), for the purposes of obtaining information in the course of an investigation.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to agency personnel responsible for bringing Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act litigation, to the persons constituting the tribunal hearing such litigation or any appeals therefrom, and to counsel for the defendant party in any such litigation.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a grand jury agent pursuant either to a Federal or state grand jury subpoena or to a prosecution request that such record be released for the purpose of its introduction to a grand jury.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the public under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the U.S. Department of Justice in order to obtain that department's advice regarding an agency's disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Management and Budget in order to obtain that office's advice regarding an agency's obligations under the Privacy Act.
It shall be routine use of the records in this system of records to disclose them to the Department of Justice when:
(a) SBA, or any component thereof; or
(b) Any employee of SBA in his or her official capacity; or
(c) Any employee of SBA in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect SBA or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Agency's legal representative, to include the Department of Justice and other outside counsel, where the Agency is a party in litigation or has an interest in litigation when:
(a) SBA, or any component thereof; or
(b) Any employee of SBA in his or her official capacity; or
(c) Any employee of SBA in her or her individual capacity, where the Department of Justice has agreed or is considering a request to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect SBA or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SBA determines that the use of such records by the Department of Justice is relevant and necessary to litigation; provided however, that in each case, SBA determines that disclosures to the records to the Department of Justice is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
It shall be a routine use of records maintained by SBA to disclose them in a proceeding before a court, grand jury or adjudicative body before which SBA is authorized to appear, when:
(a) SBA or any component thereof; or
(b) Any employee of SBA in his or her official capacity; or
(c) Any employee of SBA in his or her individual capacity where SBA has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect SBA or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the SBA determines that the use of such record is relevant and necessary to the litigation; provided, however, that in each case SBA determines that disclosure of the records is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public when: (1) The matter under investigation has become public knowledge, or (2) when the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is necessary (a) to preserve confidence in the integrity of the OIG investigative process, or (b) to demonstrate the accountability of SBA officers, or employees, or other individuals covered by this system; unless the Inspector General determines that disclosure of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the news media and public when there exists a legitimate public interest (
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, for the preparation of reports to the President and Congress on the activities of the Inspectors General.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the U.S. Marshals Service, as necessary, for the purpose of conducting qualitative assessment reviews of the investigative operations of SBA OIG to ensure that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures are maintained.
These records are currently maintained in rotary diebold power files, filing cabinets, file folders and computer databases.
These records are indexed by name and cross-referenced to OIG files containing related material.
Information is released only to authorized persons. Files are maintained in secure, controlled access rooms.
Following final agency action as the result of an investigation, field investigation records are transferred to the Central Office. In accordance with established record retention schedules, records are maintained in the Investigations Division's file room for six years and then transferred to the Federal Records Center, which destroys them after fifteen years. An electronic alphabetical index is maintained on all investigations for an indefinite period of time.
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations or Designee. See Appendix A for Central Office address.
An individual may inquire as to whether the system contains a record pertaining to him or her by addressing a request in writing to the Inspector General. The address of OIG is contained in Appendix A.
In response to a request by an individual to determine whether the system contains a record pertaining to him or her, the Inspector General will set forth the procedures for gaining access to these records. If there is no record of the individual, he or she will be so advised.
Individuals desiring to contest or amend information maintained in the system should direct their request to the official listed in the above paragraph, stating the reasons for contesting it and the proposed amendment.
Individuals to whom the records pertain, Agency personnel, third party informants, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, and other investigative Government agencies.
(1) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522a(j)(2), this system of records is exempt from the application of all provisions of section 522a except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) thorough (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), (11), and (i), to the extent that it consists of (A) information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, confinement, release, and parole and probation status; (B) information compiled for the purpose of criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or (C) reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. This system is exempted in order to maintain the efficacy and integrity of the OIG's criminal law enforcement function.
(2) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5), except as otherwise provided therein, all investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes or for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information contained in this system to records is exempt from sections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G) through (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act. This exemption is necessary in order to protect the confidentiality of sources of information and to maintain access to sources necessary in making determinations of suitability for employment.
Investigations Division Management Information System—SBA 130
Office of Inspector General (OIG), Investigations Division.
Principals and representatives of applicants, participants, contractors, grantees, participants in cooperative agreements, and other parties in interest to, as well as governmental entities participating in, SBA programs. Records are also maintained on SBA employees against whom allegations have been made and investigations conducted; members of Advisory Councils; the Service Corps of Retired Executives; and the Active Corps of Executives volunteers.
This system of records contains material gathered or created during preparation for, conduct of, and follow-up on, investigations conducted by OIG, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other Federal, state, local, or foreign regulatory or law enforcement agency. This system of records contains alphabetical indices of names and case numbers. These records include FBI and other Federal, state, local and foreign regulatory or law enforcement investigative reports and referrals and include arrest, indictment, and conviction records, parole and probation data and related information.
5 U.S.C. app.; 15 U.S.C. chs. 14A and 14B; 44 U.S.C. 3101.
In the event that a system of records maintained by this Agency to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or administrative in nature, and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the appropriate agency, whether Federal, state, local or foreign, charged with responsibility for, or otherwise involved in, investigation or prosecution of such violations or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto.
A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence in or to a court, magistrate, administrative tribunal or grand jury including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of such proceedings or in settlement negotiations.
A record from this system of records, which indicates either by itself or in combination with other information within the agency's possession, a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal or regulatory and whether arising by general statute or particular program statute, or by regulation, rule or order issued pursuant thereto, may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the appropriate Federal, foreign, state, or local agency or professional organization charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing or investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute or rule, regulation or order issued pursuant thereto.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to provide data to the General Accounting Office for periodic reviews of this Agency.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Office of Government Ethics for any purpose consistent with that office's mission, including the compilation of statistical data.
It shall be a routine use of the records in this system of records to disclose them to the Department of Justice when:
(a) SBA, or any component thereof; or
(b) Any employee of SBA in his or her official capacity; or
(c) Any employee of SBA in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by the Department of Justice is deemed by SBA to be relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, the agency determines that disclosure of the records to the Department of Justice is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
It shall be a routine use of records maintained by this agency to disclose them in a proceeding before a court, grand jury or adjudicative body before which SBA is authorized to appear, when:
(a) SBA, or any component thereof; or
(b) Any employee of SBA in his or her official capacity; or
(c) Any employee of SBA in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) The United States, where SBA determines that litigation is likely to affect the agency or any of its components, is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and SBA determines that use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, SBA determines that disclosure of the records to a court, grand jury or other adjudicative body is a use of the information contained in the records that is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public when: (1) The matter under investigation has become public knowledge, or (2) when the Inspector General determines that such disclosure is necessary (a) to preserve confidence in the integrity of the OIG investigative process, or (b) to demonstrate the accountability of SBA officers, or employees, or other individuals covered by this system; unless the Inspector General determines that disclosure of the specific information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the news media and public when there exists a legitimate public interest (
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, for the preparation of reports to the President and Congress on the activities of the Inspectors General.
These records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to members of the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or the U.S. Marshals Service, as necessary, for the purpose of conducting qualitative assessment reviews of the investigative operations of SBA OIG to ensure that adequate internal safeguards and management procedures are maintained.
These records are maintained in a secured electronic database system and on computer disks.
These records are indexed by the subject's name, subject's Social Security Number, company name, case number, agent's name, or agent's identification number.
Access to and use of these records is limited to those persons whose official duties require such access. Personnel screening is employed to prevent unauthorized disclosure.
These records are retained on computer disks and deleted when the investigative case file is destroyed. In accordance with established record retention schedules, investigative case files are maintained in the Investigations Division's file room for six years and then transferred to the Federal Records Center, which destroys them after fifteen years.
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations or Designee.
An individual may inquire as to whether the system contains a record pertaining to them by addressing a request in person or in writing to the Inspector General. The address of OIG is contained in Appendix A.
In response to a request by an individual to determine whether the system contains a record pertaining to him or her, the Inspector General will set forth the procedures for gaining access to these records. If there is no record of the individual, he or she will be so advised.
Individuals desiring to contest or amend information maintained in the system should direct their request to the official listed in the paragraph above, stating the reasons for contesting it and the proposed amendment.
Individuals to whom the records pertain, Agency personnel, third party informants, the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, and other investigative Government agencies.
(1) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 522a(j)(2), this system of records is exempt from the application of all provisions of section 522a except sections (b), (c)(1) and (2), (e)(4)(A) thorough (F), (e)(6), (7), (9), (10), (11), and (i), to the extent that it consists of (A) information compiled for the purpose of identifying individual criminal offenders and alleged offenders and consisting only of identifying data and notations of arrests, confinement, release, and parole and probation status; (B) information compiled for the purpose of criminal investigation, including reports of informants and investigators, and associated with an identifiable individual; or (C) reports identifiable to an individual compiled at any stage of the process of enforcement of the criminal laws from arrest or indictment through release from supervision. This system is exempted in order to maintain the efficacy and integrity of the OIG's criminal law enforcement function.
(2) Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5), except as otherwise provided therein, all investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes or for the purpose of determining suitability, eligibility, or qualifications for Federal civilian employment, military service, Federal contracts, or access to classified information contained in this system to records is exempt from sections (c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4) (G) through (I), and (f) of the Privacy Act. This exemption is necessary in order to protect the confidentiality of sources of information and to maintain access to sources necessary in making determinations of suitability for employment.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of extension of aviation insurance.
This notice contains the text of a memo from the Secretary of Transportation to the President regarding the extension of the provision of aviation insurance coverage for U.S. flag commercial air carrier service in domestic and international operations.
Dates of extension from August 18, 2002 through October 16, 2002.
Helen Kish, Program Analyst, APO-3, or Eric Nelson, Program Analyst, APO-3, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20591, telephone 202-267-9943 or 202-267-3090. Or online at FAA Insurance Website:
On August 9, 2002, the Secretary of Transportation authorized a 60-day extension of aviation insurance provided by the Federal Aviation Administration as follows:
“Pursuant to the authority delegated to me in paragraph (3) of Presidential Determination No. 01-29 of September 23, 2001, I hereby extend that determination to allow for the provision of aviation insurance and reinsurance coverage for U.S. Flag commercial air service in domestic and international operations for an additional 60 days.
Pursuant to section 44306(c) of chapter 443 of 49 U.S.C.—Aviation Insurance, the period for provision of insurance shall be extended from August 18, 2002, through October 16, 2002.”
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of petitions for exemption received.
Pursuant to FAA's rulemaking provisions governing the application, processing, and disposition of petitions for exemption part 11 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), this notice contains a summary of certain petitions seeking relief from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of any petition or its final disposition.
Comments on petitions received must identify the petition docket number involved and must be received on or before September 30, 2002.
Send comments on any petition to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2000-XXXX at the beginning of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You may also submit comments through the Internet to
Denise Emrick (202) 267-5174, Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85 and 11.91.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of RTCA Special Committee 189/EUROCAE Working Group 53 meeting.
The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 189/EUROCAE Working Group 53: Air Traffic Services (ATS) Safety and Interoperability Requirements.
The meeting will be held September 16-20, 2002 starting at 9 a.m.
The meeting will be held at Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC), 2551 Riva Road, Annapolis, MD 21401-7435.
(1) RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW., Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone (202) 833-9339; fax (202) 833-9434; Web site
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for a Special Committee 189/EUROCAE Working Group 53 meeting.
The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in the
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 use, and impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Harrisburg International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L.
Comments must be received on or before October 10, 2002.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Sharon/Dabion/Manager HAR-ADO, FAA, Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to David Holdsworth, Deputy Director of Administration and Finance of the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority at the following address: Harrisburg International Airport, 208 Airport Drive, Middletown, Pennsylvania 17057.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority under section 158.23 of part 158.
Lori Ledebohm/Planner, Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508 Camp Hill, PA 17011, 717-730-2835. The application may be reviewed in Person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to use, and impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Harrisburg International Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990) (Pub. L. 101-508) and part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 158).
On August 23, 2002, the FAA determined that the application to use, and impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority was substantially complete within the requirements of § 158.25 of part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, not later than November 22, 2002.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
The following approved to impose PFC revenue and is seeking authority to use PFC revenue:
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the Susquehanna Area Regional Airport Authority Office.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
Notice; correction.
NHTSA published a document in the
Julia Goldson at (202) 366-9944 or at
In the
The Agency's public meeting relating to EWR data submission will be held on Tuesday, September 24, 2002, beginning at 10 a.m. in Room 2230 of the United States Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh St., SW., (NASSIF Building), Washington, DC 20590.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.
Notice of receipt of petition for decision that nonconforming 2002 Ferrari 360 passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2002 are eligible for importation.
This document announces receipt by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of a petition for a decision that 2002 Ferrari 360 passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2002 that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because (1) they are substantially similar to vehicles that were originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and that were certified by their manufacturer as complying with the safety standards, and (2) they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
The closing date for comments on the petition is October 10, 2002.
Comments should refer to the docket number and notice number, and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm].
Luke Loy, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-5308).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
G&K Automotive Conversion, Inc. of Santa Anna, California (“G&K”) (Registered Importer 90-007) has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2002 Ferrari 360 passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2002 are eligible for importation into the United States. The vehicles which G&K believes are substantially similar are 2002 Ferrari 360 passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2002 that were manufactured for importation into, and sale in, the United States and certified by their manufacturer as conforming to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
The petitioner claims that it carefully compared non-U.S. certified 2002 Ferrari 360 passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2002 to their U.S.-certified counterparts, and found the vehicles to be substantially similar with respect to compliance with most Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
G&K submitted information with its petition intended to demonstrate that non-U.S. certified 2002 Ferrari 360 passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2002, as originally manufactured, conform to many Federal motor vehicle safety standards in the same manner as their U.S. certified counterparts, or are capable of being readily altered to conform to those standards.
Specifically, the petitioner claims that non-U.S. certified 2002 Ferrari 360 passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2002 are identical to their U.S. certified counterparts with respect to compliance with Standard Nos. 102
Petitioner also contends that the vehicles are capable of being readily altered to meet the following standards, in the manner indicated:
Standard No. 101
Standard No. 108 Lamps,
Standard No. 110
Standard No. 111
Standard No. 114
Standard No. 118
Standard No. 201
Standard No. 208
Standard No. 209
Standard No. 210
Standard No. 214
Standard No. 225
Standard No. 301
Because the petitioner is only seeking import eligibility for 2002 Ferrari 360 passenger cars manufactured before September 1, 2002, those vehicles will not have to be conformed to the requirements of Standard No. 401
The petitioner states that the front and rear bumpers of the vehicle will be replaced with U.S.-model components to meet the requirements of the Bumper Standard found in 49 CFR part 581.
The petitioner also states that all vehicles will be inspected prior to importation to ensure that all required anti-theft devices identical to those found on the U.S. certified counterpart vehicles are installed. Any modifications necessary to achieve compliance with the Theft Prevention Standard in 49 CFR part 541 will be made at that time.
In addition, the petitioner states that a vehicle identification number (VIN) plate must be affixed to the vehicles so that it is readable from outside the driver's windshield pillar, and a reference and certification label must be affixed to the edge of the driver's side door or to the latch post nearest the driver to meet the requirements of 49 CFR part 565.
Lastly, the petitioner states that a certification label will be affixed to the driver's side doorjamb to meet the requirements of the vehicle certification regulations in 49 CFR part 567.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on the petition described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to: Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC 20590. [Docket hours are from 9 am to 5 pm]. It is requested but not required that 10 copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated above will be considered, and will be available for examination in the docket at the above address both before and after that date. To the extent possible, comments filed after the closing date will also be considered. Notice of final action on the petition will be published in the
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice of decision by NHTSA that nonconforming 2001 and 2002 Porsche GT2 passenger cars are eligible for importation.
This notice announces the decision by NHTSA that 2001 and 2002 Porsche GT2 passenger cars not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) are eligible for importation into the United States. The 2001 Porsche GT2 is eligible for importation because it has safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply all applicable FMVSS. The 2002 Porsche GT2 is eligible for importation because it is substantially similar to a vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States and certified by its manufacturer as complying with the safety standards (the U.S. certified version of the 2002 Porsche GT2), and it is capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
This decision is effective as of the date of its publication in the
Marilynne Jacobs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-2832).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable FMVSS shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS.
Where there is no substantially similar U.S.-certified motor vehicle, 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B) permits a nonconforming motor vehicle to be admitted into the United States if its safety features comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable FMVSS based on destructive test data or such other evidence as NHTSA decides to be adequate.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
Northern California Diagnostic Laboratories, Inc. of Napa, California (“NCDL”) (Registered Importer 92-011) petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2002 Porsche GT2 passenger cars are eligible for importation into the United States. Shortly after NCDL's petition was filed, J.K. Technologies, L.L.C. of Baltimore, Maryland (“J.K.”) (Registered Importer 90-006) separately petitioned NHTSA to decide whether 2001 and 2002 Porsche GT2 passenger cars are eligible for importation. NHTSA published notice of these petitions on April 9, 2002 (67 FR 17115) to afford an opportunity for public comment. The reader is referred to that notice for a thorough description of the petitions.
One comment was received in response to the notice of the petitions. This was from Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (“Porsche”), the U.S. representative of Porsche AG, the vehicles' manufacturer. In its comment, Porsche stated that it did not manufacture and certify for importation into and sale in the United States any model year 2001 Porsche 911 GT2 passenger car. Porsche stated that J.K. may have confused the 2001 Porsche 911 GT2 with the 2001 Porsche 911 Turbo, which it did offer for sale in the United States. Porsche contended that there are substantial differences between the non-U.S. certified 2001 Porsche 911 GT2 and the U.S. certified 2001 Porche 911 Turbo that preclude those vehicles from being found to be substantially similar. Porsche submitted no comments regarding the 2002 Porsche GT2.
From its review of the information submitted by the petitioners, the agency has concluded that the 2002 Porsche GT2 is eligible for importation under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) based on its substantial similarity to the U.S.-certified model and its capability of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
With regard to the 2001 model, NHTSA has considered Porsche's comments and confirmed that it did not certify a 2001 Porsche GT2 for importation into and sale in the United States. However, the factory-issued sales literature for the German versions of the 2001 and 2002 Porsche GT2 (“Der 911 GT2” Catalog Nos. WVK 178 410 D/WW 11/00 and WVK 202 310 02 D/WW 8/01) show that those vehicles have identical mechanical and dimensional specifications. In light of this circumstance, the agency has decided to grant import eligibility to the 2001 Porsche GT2 even though there is no U.S.-certified version of that vehicle.
The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. VCP-20 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to 2001 Porsche GT2 passenger cars and VSP-388 is the vehicle eligibility number assigned to 2002 Porsche GT2 passenger cars admissible under this notice of final decision.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that 2001 Porsche GT2 passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because they have safety features that comply with, or are capable of being altered to comply with, all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards. In addition, the agency decides that 2002 Porsche GT2 passenger cars that were not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to 2002 Porsche GT2 passenger cars originally manufactured for sale in the United States and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and are capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
Notice of decision by NHTSA that certain nonconforming motor vehicles are eligible for importation.
This document announces decisions by NHTSA that certain motor vehicles not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards are eligible for importation into the United States because they are substantially similar to vehicles originally manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United States and certified by their manufacturers as complying with the safety standards, and they are capable of being readily altered to conform to the standards.
These decisions are effective as of the date of their publication in the
Marilynne Jacobs, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, NHTSA (202-366-2832).
Under 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A), a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards shall be refused admission into the United States unless NHTSA has decided that the motor vehicle is substantially similar to a motor vehicle originally manufactured for importation into and sale in the United States, certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, and of the same model year as the model of the motor vehicle to be compared, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
Petitions for eligibility decisions may be submitted by either manufacturers or importers who have registered with NHTSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 592. As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice in the
NHTSA received petitions from registered importers to decide whether the vehicles listed in Annex A to this notice are eligible for importation into the United States. To afford an opportunity for public comment, NHTSA published notice of these petitions as specified in Annex A. The reader is referred to those notices for a thorough description of the petitions. No comments were received in response to these notices. Based on its review of the information submitted by the petitioners, NHTSA has decided to grant the petitions.
The importer of a vehicle admissible under any final decision must indicate on the form HS-7 accompanying entry the appropriate vehicle eligibility number indicating that the vehicle is eligible for entry. Vehicle eligibility numbers assigned to vehicles admissible under this decision are specified in Annex A.
Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing, NHTSA hereby decides that each motor vehicle listed in Annex A to this notice, which was not originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards, is substantially similar to a motor vehicle manufactured for importation into and/or sale in the United States, and certified under 49 U.S.C. 30115, as specified in Annex A, and is capable of being readily altered to conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.
49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(A) and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.8; delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.50 and 501.8.
Nonconforming Vehicle: 1999, 2001 BMW 3 Series passenger cars.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle: 1999, 2001 BMW 3 Series passenger cars.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 16147 (April 4, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-379.
Nonconforming Vehicles: 2001 and 2002 Vespa ET2 and ET4 motor scooters.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicles: 2001 and 2002 Vespa ET2 and ET4 motor scooters.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 13823 (March 26, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-378.
Nonconforming Vehicle: 1980 General Motors Jimmy multipurpose passenger vehicles.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle: 1980 General Motors Jimmy multipurpose passenger vehicles.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 22488 (May 3, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-383.
Nonconforming Vehicles: 1978 General Motors Blazer multipurpose passenger vehicles.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicles: 1978 General Motors Blazer multipurpose passenger vehicles.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 21796 (May 1, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-384
Nonconforming Vehicle: 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee multipurpose passenger vehicles.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle: 2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee multipurpose passenger vehicles.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 18679 (April 16, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-382
Nonconforming Vehicles: 1999, 2000, 2001 Mercedes Benz CLK passenger cars.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicles: 1999, 2000, 2001 Mercedes Benz CLK passenger cars.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 18678 (April 16, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-380.
Nonconforming Vehicle: 2000, 2001 Mercedes Benz SLK passenger cars.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicle: 2000, 2001 Mercedes Benz SLK passenger cars.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 18680 (April 16, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-381.
Nonconforming Vehicles: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Mercedes Benz S Class (W220) passenger cars.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicles: 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Mercedes Benz S Class (W 220) passenger cars.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 38314 (June 3, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-387.
Nonconforming Vehicles: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars.
Substantially similar U.S.-certified vehicles: 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 Mercedes Benz SL Class (W129) passenger cars.
Notice of Petition Published at: 67 FR 36664 (May 24, 2002).
Vehicle Eligibility Number: VSP-386.
Research and Special Programs Administration, DOT.
List of applications delayed more than 180 days.
In accordance with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5117(c), RSPA is publishing the following list of exemption applications that have been in process for 180 days or more. The reason(s) for delay and the expected completion date for action on each application is provided in association with each identified application.
J. Suzanne Hedgepeth, Director, Office of Hazardous Materials, Exemptions and Approvals, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
1. Awaiting additional information from applicant.
2. Extensive public comment under review.
3. Application is technically complex and is of significant impact or precedent-setting and requires extensive analysis.
4. Staff review delayed by other priority issues or volume of exemption applications.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.
Notice; issuance of advisory bulletin.
This advisory bulletin urges owners and operators of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) distribution systems to review their compliance with all leak detection, corrosion monitoring, and emergency response procedures, including training of emergency response personnel and liaison with emergency responders. Heavy rains and frozen soils can cause leaking propane to migrate to low areas, such as basements, and impede measurement of the presence of combustible gas.
Richard Huriaux, (202) 366-4565; or by e-mail,
On September 1, 2002 a propane gas explosion leveled a house in Snow Hill, MD. An employee of the local gas distribution company was killed and 17 emergency responders and others were injured, four critically. The accident is under investigation by the Maryland Public Service Commission. Initial
The Federal pipeline safety regulations for gas pipeline systems (49 CFR part 192) provide safety requirements for corrosion control, leak detection, operations and maintenance, and emergency response for LPG systems. Leak detection on LPG systems is complicated because LPG is heavier than air and has a lower explosive limit (LEL) of 2 percent in air. Leak detection equipment must be calibrated to detect this lower concentration. Leak detection may also be complicated by extremely wet or frozen soils and by ineffective leak detection procedures. Wet or frozen soils can effectively cap an area of leaking gas and cause gas that had been venting through the soil into the air to be redirected along underground utility lines or through loosely compacted soils into structures, especially basements. Both these conditions require leak detection procedures that emphasize measurement of gas below the surface of the soil or pavement. Usually this is accomplished by “bar holing” and examination of below ground areas, such as manholes, storm drains, and basements.
In addition, the gas pipeline safety regulations require an operator to establish and follow written procedures for responding to an LPG pipeline emergency (49 CFR 192.615). The operator's emergency plan for LPG must recognize its different characteristics. The operator must establish effective communications between utilities and appropriate fire, police, and other public officials. The regulations require a continuing educational program to enable customers, the public, and appropriate government organizations to recognize an LPG pipeline emergency and to take action to notify the gas operator and local emergency responders (49 CFR 192.616).
Prompt and effective response is required when gas is detected in or near a building. All actions should be directed to protecting people through a prompt evacuation of the affected buildings and securing the area.
RSPA and its state pipeline safety program partners have recently issued a manual to assist LPG pipeline operators in safely operating their systems and effectively responding to emergencies. The
Another excellent source of information on complying with the gas pipeline safety regulations is the
LPG system operators should ensure that their procedures are adequate to detect leaks of heavier-than-air gas. LPG leaks do not dissipate as readily as does the natural gas, which is lighter than air and tends to rise through the soil. Leak detection may also be complicated by extremely wet or frozen soils that effectively cap an area of leaking gas and cause gas that had been venting through the soil into the air to be redirected along underground utility lines or through loosely compacted soils into structures, especially basements. Both these conditions require a leak detection procedure that emphasizes measurement of gas below the surface of the soil or pavement. Usually this is accomplished by “bar holing” and examination of below ground areas, such as manholes, storm drains, and basements.
In addition, the gas pipeline safety regulations require an operator to establish and follow written procedures for responding to LPG pipeline emergencies (49 CFR 192.615). This includes establishment of communications systems between utilities, and appropriate fire, police, and other public officials. The regulations also require an operator to establish a continuing educational program to enable customers, the public, and appropriate government organizations to recognize a gas pipeline emergency and to take action to notify the gas operator and local emergency responders (49 CFR 192.616).
Prompt and effective response is required when gas is detected in or near a building. All actions should be directed to protecting people first through a prompt evacuation of the buildings, followed by establishing access control, elimination of sources of ignition, ventilation, and coordination with emergency responders.
In notice document 02-22111 beginning on page 55383 in the issue of Thursday, August 29, 2002, make the following correction:
On page 55385, in the first column, in the first paragraph, in the ninth line after the word “assuming”, the phrase “that their bond limit is 10 percent of the assessed” is added.
In notice document 02-16975 beginning on page 45153 in the issue of Monday, July 8, 2002, make the following correction:
On pages 45153 and 45154, the Appendix is corrected to read as set forth below.
In rule document 02-15835 beginning on page 45194 in the issue of Monday, July 8, 2002 make the following correction:
On page 45194 the docket number should read as set forth above.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This final rule adds a provision to the existing requirements for fuel tank system fault tolerance evaluations that allows type certificate holders to use equivalent safety provisions for demonstrating compliance. The current regulations do not provide such provisions. This rulemaking will allow current certificate holders to use the same equivalent safety provisions already available to applicants for new or changed type design approvals.
This final rule is effective August 30, 2002. Comments must be submitted on or before October 10, 2002.
Address your comments to the Docket Management System, U.S. Department of Transportation, Room Plaza 401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-1999-6411 at the beginning of your comments, and you should submit two copies of your comments. If you wish to receive confirmation that FAA received your comments, include a self-addressed, stamped postcard.
You must also submit comments through the Internet to
Mike Dostert, Transport Airplane Directorate, Propulsion/Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2132.
This final rule is being adopted without prior notice and prior public comment. The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 1134, February 26, 1979), however, provide that, to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Accordingly, the FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might result from this amendment. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the amendment, explain the reason for any recommended changes, and include supporting data. We ask that you send us two copies of written comments.
We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive pubic contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking. The docket is available for public inspection before and after the comment closing date. If you wish to review the docket in person, go to the address in the
The FAA will consider all comments received on or before the closing date for comments. Late filed comments will be considered to the extent practicable. This final rule may be amended in light of the comments received.
If you want the FAA to acknowledge receipt of your comments on this amendment, include with your comments a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard and mail it to you.
You can get an electronic copy of this final rule using the Internet by taking the following steps:
(1) Go to the search function of the Department of Transportation's electronic Docket Management System (DMS) Web page (
(2) On the search page type in the last four digits of the Docket number shown at the beginning of this final rule. Click on “search.”
(3) On the next page, which contains the Docket summary information for the Docket you selected, click on the final rule.
You can also get an electronic copy using the Internet through the Office of Rulemaking's Web page at
You can also get a copy by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this final rule.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a question regarding this document may contact their local FAA official, or the person listed under
Following the 1996 TWA 800 accident, which was caused by an explosion in the center wing fuel tank, the FAA promulgated rulemaking to establish several new transport airplane fuel tank safety requirements (66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). The rulemaking which was effective June 6, 2001, included:
• Amendment 21-78 (SFAR 88) which requires type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC) holders to conduct a revalidation of the fuel tank system designs on the existing fleet of transport category airplanes carrying 30 or more passengers or a payload of 7,500 lbs. or more; and to develop all design changes required to demonstrate they meet the new ignition prevention requirements and develop fuel tank maintenance and inspection instructions,
• Amendments 91-266, 121-282, 125-36, and 129-30, which require certain operators to incorporate FAA-approved fuel tank maintenance and inspection requirements into their maintenance or inspection programs, and
• Amendment 25-102, which includes ignition prevention design and maintenance requirements (§ 25.981(a) & (b) and paragraph H25.4 of appendix H), and fuel tank flammability requirements (§ 25.981(c)).
SFAR 88 requires that holders of type certificates and supplemental type certificates review the designs of fuel tank systems of large transport category airplanes, and develop design changes and maintenance and inspection programs based on the findings of those reviews. The reviews are conducted using the identical ignition prevention requirements that were adopted for new or amended type designs in § 25.981. Reports documenting compliance are required to be submitted to the FAA by December 6, 2002.
During initial implementation of the rule, the FAA learned that mandating all the design changes required to meet the new safety assessment requirements of Amendment 25-102 for in-service airplanes, as required by SFAR 88, may not be needed to achieve the safety level intended by the rule. For example, the SFAR requires that design changes be developed to comply with the new design standard, § 25.981, which in turn requires that all possible ignition sources be eliminated from fuel systems. In the final rule preamble, we said that these design changes would be mandated by airworthiness directive (AD); however, ADs are issued only when we find an unsafe condition. This means that in some cases the SFAR would require development of design changes to address problems that are not serious enough (
This new amendment will allow certificate holders to propose other means of demonstrating equivalent safety. For example, in the preamble to Amendment 25-102, the FAA discussed a change in philosophy regarding fuel tank safety. Data from past accidents indicated reduced fuel tank flammability, in combination with prevention of ignition sources, would provide the needed level of safety. Section 25.981(c) requires that fuel tank flammability be minimized.
The flammability level required by § 25.981(c) was based on the report of a 1998 industry advisory group that determined the flammability exposure of an unheated aluminum wing tank would provide an acceptable level of safety for all transport airplane fuel tanks. At the time of the rulemaking, however, the FAA did not have data to support rulemaking to require reduced fuel tank flammability on in-service airplanes. Since the rulemaking, FAA research into nitrogen inerting systems has shown that the practicality of incorporating nitrogen inerting systems into in-service airplanes has significantly improved. Type certificate holders may therefore wish to propose use of reduced fuel tank flammability to mitigate the need to make other more costly changes or implement expensive maintenance actions to prevent certain fuel tank ignition sources. This rulemaking will allow the FAA to consider these proposals that may well provide a better long-term solution to the fuel tank safety issues than that of ignition source prevention alone, as is currently require by SFAR 88.
The SFAR applies to two groups: current TC holders and applicants whose TC applications were pending on June 6, 2001, the SFAR's effective date. (All subsequent applicants are subject to the new part 25 standard.) [
Since § 21.21 only applies to the issuance of TCs, this “equivalent safety” provision does not apply to current TC holders. Because this type of provision is needed for existing TCs at least as much as for pending applications, an immediately adopted “spot amendment” to the SFAR is necessary. This amendment adds a new provision to the SFAR that allows the FAA to approve a TC holder's required submission based on a finding that it provides an equivalent level of safety to full compliance with the SFAR. It would therefore provide a “level playing field” between pending applicants and current holders of TCs.
In originally adopting the SFAR, we anticipated neither the need for this provision, nor the difference in treatment between TC applicants and holders. Given the impending compliance deadline later this year, it would not be practicable to complete this rulemaking following notice and comment procedures in sufficient time to provide a meaningful alternative to TC holders. Good cause therefore exists for issuing this amendment without following those procedures.
Since this rule would simply make available to all persons subject to the SFAR an alternative that is currently available only to some, it is not “significant” for purposes of Executive Order 12866, DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, or the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and it does not require preparation of a regulatory evaluation.
There are no new requirements for information collection associated with this amendment.
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these regulations.
Sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. Sections 553(b)(3)(B) and 553(d)(3)) authorize agencies to dispense with certain notice procedures for rules when they find “good cause” to do so. Under section 553(b)(3)(B), the requirements of notice and opportunity for comment do not apply when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Section 553(d)(3) allows an agency, upon finding good cause, to make a rule effective immediately, thereby avoiding the 30-day delayed effective date requirement in section 553.
The FAA finds that notice and public comments on this final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. For certificate holders to have sufficient time to take advantage of the alternative compliance methods allowed by this
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs each Federal agency to propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. section 2531-2533) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, use them as the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation).
In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined this rule (1) has benefits which justify its costs; (2) is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (3) will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities; (4) will have little effect on international trade; and (5) does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.
For regulations with an expected minimal impact, the above-specified analyses are not required. The Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If it is determined that the expected impact is so minimal that the proposal does not warrant a full evaluation, a statement to that effect and the basis for it is included in the proposed regulation. The FAA has determined that there are no costs associated with this final rule and the current level of safety is maintained. Instead, this rule change relieves holders of existing TCs from a cost that would have been inadvertently imposed on them in the adoption of the 2001 SFAR. This change effectuates the original intent of the 2001 SFAR.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objective of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve that principle, the RFA requires agencies to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions. The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a proposed or final rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. If, however, an agency determines that a proposed or final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
This action will relieve unnecessary costs to holders of existing TCs. The FAA therefore expects this rule to impose no cost on small entities. Consequently, the FAA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The Trade Agreement Act of 1979 prohibits Federal agencies from engaging in any standards or related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this rulemaking and has determined that it will reduce costs on holders of existing TCs and will have a minimal effect on international trade
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (the Act) is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of the Act requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in as $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. Such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.”
This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply.
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We therefore determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications.
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993) requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make these regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such as the following:
• Are the requirements in the regulation clearly stated?
• Does the regulation contain technical language or jargon that interferes with their clarity?
• Would the regulation be easier to understand if it was divided into more (but shorter) sections?
• Is the description in the premable helpful in understanding the regulation?
Please send your comments to the address specified in the
FAA Order 1050.1D defines FAA actions that may be categorically excluded from preparation of a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact statement. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1D, appendix 4, paragraph 4(j), this rulemaking action qualifies for a categorical exclusion.
The energy impact of the final rule has been assessed in accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), Pub. L. 94-163, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6362), and FAA Order 1053.1. It has been determined that the final rule is not a major regulatory action under provisions of the EPCA.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7572; 40105, 40113; 44701-44702, 44707, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, and 45303.
(d) The Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), or office of the Transport Airplane Directorate, having cognizance over the type certificate for the affected airplane, may approve a report submitted in accordance with paragraph 2(c) of it determines that any provisions of this SFAR not compiled with are compensated for by factors that provide an equivalent level of safety.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is proposing to approve the operating permit program for the State of Maryland. Maryland's operating permit program was submitted in response to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 that requires States to develop, and submit to EPA, programs for issuing operating permits to all major stationary sources and to certain other sources within the States' jurisdiction. On July 3, 1996, EPA published a rule, granting final interim approval of Maryland's operating permit program, which listed the reasons why Maryland did not receive full approval. On July 15, 2002, Maryland submitted a corrected operating permit program that included regulatory amendments and other documentation that address all deficiencies identified in the interim approval action as well as other additional amendments not related to the interim approval. With the correction of the deficiencies cited in the final rule granting interim approval, EPA is proposing to fully approve the operating permit program for the State of Maryland.
Comments on this notice must be received in writing on or before October 10, 2002.
Written comments should be mailed to Ms. Makeba Morris, Chief, Permits and Technical Assessment Branch, Mail code 3AP11, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 and Air Quality Permits Program, Air and Radiation Management, Maryland Department of the Environment, 188 Washington Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.
Helene Drago, (215) 814-5796, or by e-mail at
On July 15, 2002, the State of Maryland submitted documentation that revises its State operating permit program. These revisions are the subject of this document. This section provides additional information on the revisions by addressing the following questions:
The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 required all States to develop operating permit programs that meet certain federal criteria. When implementing the operating permit programs, the States require certain sources of air pollution to obtain permits that contain all of their applicable requirements under the CAA. The focus of the operating permit program is to improve enforcement by issuing each source a permit that consolidates all of its applicable CAA requirements into a federally-enforceable document. By consolidating all of the applicable requirements for a given air pollution source into an operating permit, the source, the public, and the State environmental agency can more easily understand what CAA requirements apply and how compliance with those requirements is determined.
Sources required to obtain an operating permit under this program include “major” sources of air pollution and certain other sources specified in the CAA or in EPA's implementing regulations. For example, all sources regulated under the acid rain program, regardless of size, must obtain operating permits. Examples of “major” sources include those that have the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, lead, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, or particulate matter (PM10); those that emit 10 tons per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) specifically listed under the CAA; or those that emit 25 tons per year or more of a combination of HAPs. In areas that are not meeting the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter, major sources are defined by the gravity of the nonattainment classification.
The minimum program elements for an approvable operating permit program are those mandated by title V of the CAA Amendments of 1990 and established by EPA's implementing regulations at title 40, part 70—“State Operating Permit Programs” in the Code of Federal Regulations (part 70). Title V of the CAA requires state and local air pollution control agencies to develop operating permit programs and submit them to EPA for approval by November 15, 1993. Under title V, State and local air pollution control agencies that implement operating permit programs are called “permitting authorities''.
Where an operating permit program substantially, but not fully, met the program approval criteria outlined at 40 CFR part 70, EPA granted interim approval contingent on the permit authority revising its program to correct those programmatic deficiencies that prevented full approval. Maryland's original operating permit program substantially, but not fully, met the requirements of 40 CFR part 70. Therefore, EPA granted final interim approval of the program in a rule making published on July 3,1996. (
The Secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment, on behalf of the Governor of Maryland, submitted a title V operating permit program for the State of Maryland on May 09, 1995. The submittal included regulations for implementing the part 70 program which are found in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), specifically COMAR 26.11.02 and .03. In addition, the program submittal included a legal opinion from the Attorney General of Maryland (dated May 31, 1995) affirming that the laws of the State provide adequate authority to carry out all aspects of the program. The submittal contained a description of how the State would implement the program, evidence of proper adoption of the program regulations, application and permit forms and a permit fee demonstration. This program, including the operating permit regulations, substantially met the requirements of part 70.
On October 30, 1995, EPA proposed interim approval of the Maryland's operating permit program. (
On July 15, 2002, Maryland submitted documents that revise its title V operating permit program. In general,
On December 11, 2000, EPA announced a 90-day comment period for members of the public to identify deficiencies they perceive exist in State and local agency operating permits programs. (
EPA stated that it will consider information received from the public pursuant to the December 11, 2000 notice and determine whether it agrees or disagrees with the purported deficiencies. Where EPA agrees there is a deficiency, it will publish a notice of deficiency consistent with 40 CFR 70.4(i) and 40 CFR 70.10(b). The Agency will, at the same time, publish a notice identifying any alleged problems that we do not agree are deficiencies. For programs that have not yet received full approval, such as Maryland's program, EPA would publish these notices by December 1, 2001. On December 5, 2001, EPA announced that a part 71 federal operating permit program became effective in Maryland. (
EPA received numerous comments in response to the December 11, 2000 notice announcing the start of the 90-day public comment period. As part of those comments, EPA Region III received comments about Maryland's interim approved operating permit program. The Agency will respond to those comments in a separate notice(s), as required by the December 11, 2000 notice.
EPA is not addressing any comments received pursuant to the December 11, 2000 notice in this document. As mentioned above, comments provided in accordance with the December 11, 2000 notice were to address shortcomings that had not previously been identified by EPA as deficiencies necessitating interim, rather than full, approval of a State's operating permit program. This action, proposing full approval of Maryland's operating permit program, addresses program deficiencies identified when EPA granted interim approval to Maryland's program in 1996 as well as other regulatory amendments. Therefore, any persons wishing to comment on this action should do so at this time.
1. The principles of “representational” standing provided by the CAA, its implementing regulations and Article III of the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the federal courts was not fully articulated by Maryland law. The Maryland Environmental Standing Act (MESA) provided standing to those “persons” as defined under MESA. Not included in that definition were individuals and organizations that do not reside or do business in Maryland. The minimum requirements for judicial review are those established by the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations. In general, State programs must provide an opportunity for judicial review in State court to the applicant, to any person who filed comments or attended a hearing on a permit, and any other person who could obtain judicial review under State law. When EPA granted Maryland interim approval in 1996, it stated that in order to fully meet the standing requirements of the CAA the State must take legislative action to ensure that the standing requirements for non-state residents and organizations not doing business in Maryland are not more restrictive than the minimum requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution as they apply to federal courts. On May 16, 2002, Maryland changed its statute at Ann. Code MD. 2-404.1 to expand its standing for the title V operating permit program to meet the threshold standing requirements under federal constitutional law. Maryland revised its Attorney General's opinion by stating that Maryland's standing law is now equivalent to federal constitutional standard. With this statute revision, Maryland's program is consistent with the scope of standing for judicial review implicit in the CAA and title V's implementing regulations.
2. Maryland was required to revise the provisions for insignificant activities under COMAR 26.11.03.04 in the following three ways to achieve consistency with the requirements of 40 CFR 70.5(c):
a. Maryland's regulation found at COMAR 26.11.03.04A(18) provided that “any other emission unit that is not subject to an applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act” may be excluded from part 70 permit applications. This item was part of a list of other emission units and activities which were allowed to be excluded from part 70 applications. EPA recommended that Maryland remove this item from the list because it was important for such unspecified units or activities to be included in the permit application even if they did not have applicable requirements. Rather than remove the item from its regulations, Maryland amended the provision to ensure that such emission units and activities were not excluded from permit applications. Maryland revised COMAR 26.11.03.04A to require that any emission unit or activity that the permit applicant believes does not have any applicable requirements and is seeking to be exempted from the requirement to provide detailed emissions and operational information in the permit application must be identified to, and agreed upon by, the Maryland Department of the Environment during the application process. Identification of these units during the permit application process ensures that Maryland, EPA and members of the public who have access to the permit application are aware of the existence of these units at an applicant's facility. Because these emissions units and activities are clearly identified as part of the permit application process, the Maryland Department of the Environment can affirmatively determine whether additional information in the permit application regarding these units or activities is necessary to assess whether they have applicable requirements. The identification of these units also has a subsidiary benefit of allowing the State to request additional information about a unit that may be subject to state-only requirements, even if there is no federal applicable requirement. If the Maryland
Further, the amended language of COMAR 26.11.03.04A works in conjunction with other provisions of this section which require that (1) a permit applicant may not omit information on an emissions unit that is necessary to determine the applicability of, or to impose, an applicable requirement of the CAA; (2) potential emissions from all exempt sources shall be included in the determination of whether a source is major; (3) the listing as an insignificant activity does not exempt an emissions unit from any air quality regulation; and (4) emissions units that use Class I or Class II ozone-depleting substances subject to an applicable requirement established under title VI of the CAA are not exempt from the part 70 application. Therefore, the amended provisions of COMAR 26.11.03.04A ensure that permit applicants are required to provide all information in their applications necessary to determine the applicability of requirements and to verify compliance with those applicable requirements.
b. Maryland's regulation at COMAR 26.11.03.04B did not provide that a permit applicant shall not omit information needed to determine the applicability of, or to impose, any applicable requirement as required under 40 CFR 70.5(c). Maryland amended its regulation to include COMAR 26.11.03.04C which states “A permit applicant may not omit information on an emissions unit that is necessary to determine the applicability of, or to impose, an applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.” With this amendment, Maryland's program is consistent with 40 CFR 70.5(c).
c. Maryland's regulation at COMAR 26.11.03.04 A(2) provided an exemption from part 70 permit applications to boilers used exclusively to operate steam engines for farm and domestic use. Maryland has deleted this exemption from it regulation. While not included as an interim approval deficiency, the Maryland statute found at Ann. Code. Md. 2-402 provides a similar exemption to boilers used exclusively to operate steam engines for farm and domestic use. Maryland has provided a statement with supporting documentation that no boilers used exclusively to operate steam engines for farm and domestic currently exist in the State. Further, the State provided an Attorney General's opinion, dated May 20, 2002 stating that since there are no sources subject to the exemption, Maryland's title V operating permit program applies to all sources that are required to be covered by the title V permit program. With the deletion from its regulation, coupled with the State's affirmation and Attorney General's opinion, Maryland's regulation is consistent with 40 CFR 70.5(c).
3. Maryland's regulations at COMAR 26.11.03.21 did not specifically state that the procedures for issuing general permits include notice and opportunity for public comment and hearing by affected states consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(h)(3) and 70.8 and a 45-day EPA review consistent with 40 CFR 70.8(a) and (c). In addition, Maryland's regulation for issuing general permits did not provide that the State would keep a record of public commenters and issues raised during the public participation process so that EPA may fulfill its obligation under section 505(b)(2) of the CAA to determine whether a citizen petition should be granted. Maryland revised its regulation, found at COMAR 26.11.03.21.A, to clarify that the procedures for issuing general permits include a review by EPA and affected states. Further, COMAR 26.11.03.21.B was added which states “the Department shall maintain records of the public comments and issues raised during the public participation process.” With these amendments, Maryland's regulations are consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(h) and 70.8.
4. COMAR 26.11.03.21.J allowed Maryland to revise or repeal a general permit using the procedures that are appropriate to the particular permit. COMAR 26.11.03.21.L stated that the revision procedures set forth in Maryland's regulations do not apply to a general permit, except as provided in the general permit. These provision were inconsistent with part 70 because they gave Maryland the discretion to determine the appropriate procedures that should be followed to revise a general permit. To remedy the deficiency, Maryland has deleted COMAR 26.11.03.21.J. In addition, Maryland revised COMAR 26.11.03.21.L to clearly state that all permit revisions procedures apply to general permits. With these amendments, Maryland's regulations are consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e).
5. Maryland's requirements for permit reopenings, including COMAR 26.11.03.07.A(2), 26.11.03.08.A, and 26.11.03.20C(4), (5) and (6), provided the State discretion to follow procedures other than the procedures for permit issuance. Federal regulations at 40 CFR 70.7(f)(2) require that procedures to reopen and issue a permit shall follow the same procedure as apply to initial permit issuance. Maryland has revised its regulations found at COMAR 26.11.03.07.A(2), 26.11.03.08.A, and 26.11.03.20C(4), and (5) to provide that procedures to reopen and issue a permit shall follow the same procedure for issuance of an initial permit. With these amendments, Maryland's regulations are consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(f)(2).
6. COMAR 26.11.03.17F provided that the permittee could submit an application for a significant modification up to 12 months after commencing operation of the changed source. This provision is inconsistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(4) and provides less stringent application requirements in making a significant modification than for making minor modifications or administrative amendments. Maryland revised its regulation by deleting the language at COMAR 26.11.03.17F which stated that the permittee could submit an application for a significant modification up to 12 months after commencing operation of the changed source. Maryland added language at COMAR 26.11.03.17F that requires that no significant modifications may be made at a facility prior to the facility obtaining all permits to construct and approvals or a certificate of public convenience and necessity and submitting a complete application for a significant modification to an operating permit. Further, if no permit to construct or approval is necessary, the permittee may not make the change until Maryland issues a revised part 70 permit that includes the requirements that apply to the modification. With these amendments, Maryland's regulations are consistent with 40 CFR 70.7(e)(4).
7. EPA required that the language at COMAR 26.11.03.15B(7) be clarified to indicate that all permit modifications for purposes of the acid rain portion of the permit shall be governed by regulations promulgated under title IV of the act. Maryland modified its regulation by deleting COMAR 26.11.03.15B(7). Maryland added language at COMAR 26.11.03.15C that states that amendments will be consistent with the part 70 regulation “except for a permit modification for the acid rain portion of a part 70 permit which is governed by regulations promulgated under title IV of the Clear Air Act.” In addition, COMAR 26.11.03.01M incorporates by reference
8. COMAR 26.11.03.11 afforded EPA a thirty day opportunity to comment on the proposed decision of an administrative law judge prior to Maryland's issuance of a final decision. It was not clear to EPA that in the event that Maryland issues a final decision which modifies conditions in the final permit under a contested case decision, that that modification would follow State requirements at COMAR 26.11.03.09, .16 and .17 which require Maryland to provide EPA with an additional 45 day period in which to review and comment on the final permit. Maryland revised its regulation at COMAR 26.11.03.11 to change EPA's review time of any permit modification proposed through a contested case hearing from 30 days to 45 days. In addition, Maryland provided an Attorney General's opinion, dated May 20, 2002, that states that “a final decision pursuant to COMAR 26.11.03.11E which makes significant or minor modifications to a challenged title V permit is subject to the review and comment provisions in regulations .09B, .16F, and .17D. Therefore, EPA must be provided with a 45-day review and comment period prior to issuance of a final decision which makes significant or minor modifications to the permit.” With this regulation revision and the amended Attorney General's opinion, Maryland's regulations are consistent with the part 70 program.
9. Maryland's part 70 program submitted in 1995 did not include a review from its Attorney General that the State has the necessary legal authority to implement and enforce the federal requirements for hazardous air pollutants. Maryland has submitted an Attorney General's opinion, signed October 9, 2001, that affirms that the laws of Maryland provide the necessary legal authority to implement and enforce 40 CFR part 63 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants for all major and area sources subject to part 63 standards. With this Attorney General's opinion, Maryland's regulations are consistent with the part 70 program.
1. Maryland regulation at COMAR 26.11.02.01.C defined major sources as those that emit or have the potential to emit 100 tons per year of any
2. Maryland regulation at COMAR 26.11.03.01.B(4) exempted from part 70 requirements “a source that is not subject to an applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act.” Federal regulations found at part 70 do not provide for such an exemption. To closely mirror the part 70 regulations, Maryland deleted the exemption from its regulation. This revision is consistent with the part 70 regulations.
3. Maryland regulation at COMAR 26.11.03.18.A provided that a permittee may make a change to a permitted source without obtaining a revision to the part 70 permit,
4. Maryland added language at COMAR 26.11.02.16.A(2)(a), 26.11.02.19.A, 26.11.03 to clarify that it has authority to assess permit fees for Title V sources whether the sources are subject to part 70 or 40 CFR part 71. These permit revisions are consistent with the part 70 program.
5. Regulations at COMAR 26.11.03.19.D(1) require the permittee to keep a record describing “changes made at the source that result in emissions of a
6. Maryland added regulations at COMAR 26.11.03.01. N which states “The owner or operator of a source which a part 70 permit is required is subject to the compliance assurance monitoring requirements under 40 CFR part 64 which is incorporated by reference.” This amendment ensures compliance assurance monitoring is a requirement when applicable in a part 70 permit. This addition is consistent with the part 70 program.
EPA has reviewed the program revisions which include regulatory amendments adopted on June 08, 2001 and a statutory amendment effective May 16, 2002 in conjunction with the portion of Maryland's operating permit program that was earlier approved on an interim basis. Based on this review, EPA has determined that the revisions to Maryland's operating permit program adequately address the nine deficiencies identified by EPA in its July 03, 1996 rule granting interim approval and fully satisfy the minimum requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the CAA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to fully approve the Maryland Title V operating permit program in accordance with 40 CFR 70.4(e). In addition, EPA has reviewed the regulatory amendments adopted November 06, 2001. EPA has determined that these additional amendments fully meet the minimum requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the CAA and is proposing to approve the additional amendments. Interested members of the public may comment on the changes, as described above.
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 proposes to approve 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
In reviewing State operating permit program submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove an operating permit program for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews an operating permit program submission, to use VCS in place of an operating permit program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule, proposing to approve the operating permit program for the State of Maryland, does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.