Federal Housing Finance Board.
Final rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is amending its regulations to implement provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley) that changed the methodology for determining the amount of the payments to be made by the Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks) to the Resolution Funding Corporation (REFCORP). These payments are used to pay a portion of the interest owed on bonds issued by REFCORP. Gramm-Leach-Bliley requires each Bank to pay 20 percent of its net earnings each year to REFCORP and requires the Finance Board to adjust the final payment date so that the value of the payments made under the new methodology equals those that were to have been made under prior law. The Finance Board proposed to discount the Banks' payments using appropriate present-value factors selected by the Finance Board in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. After carefully considering the comments received on its proposal, the Finance Board has decided to adopt the proposed rule with the technical changes discussed below.
This final rule is effective on April 3, 2000.
Joseph A. McKenzie, Deputy Chief Economist, Office of Policy, Research, and Analysis, (202) 408-2845,
As discussed more completely in the proposed rule,
Gramm-Leach-Bliley changed the Banks' REFCORP assessment from a fixed-dollar $300 million annual payment to an annual payment of 20 percent of each Bank's net earnings.
The Finance Board received five comment letters on its proposed methodology: four from Banks, and one from a national trade association of community banks. All the comments were generally supportive of the Finance Board's proposed methodology. Each of the four Banks, however, proposed that the Finance Board use a zero-coupon bond rate other than that for Treasury instruments in performing the present value calculations. The trade
Each of the four Banks suggested that the Finance Board modify the calculation set forth in § 997.2 and § 997.3 by replacing the referenced Treasury zero-coupon interest rate with a different, and higher, interest rate. The use of a higher interest rate would have the effect of reducing the present value of the Banks' total REFCORP obligation whenever the Banks' actual quarterly REFCORP payments exceed $75 million.
The Finance Board has considered the arguments made by the commenters but continues to believe that the zero-coupon Treasury rate remains the most appropriate rate for the use in the calculation set forth in § 997.2 or § 997.3. Although the Banks have paid $300 million annually to REFCORP in the past, and are likely to pay well in excess of $400 million in 2000, the total annual interest obligation to REFCORP bondholders exceeds $2.5 billion, of which the Treasury pays in excess of $2.0 billion. Therefore, the effect of an excess or deficit quarterly payment by the Banks, as those terms are defined in § 977.1, will be to decrease, in the case of an excess quarterly payment, or increase, in the case of a deficit quarterly payment, the payment due from Treasury in the current quarter, but to have the opposite effect on payments made by Treasury in future quarters. For example, an excess quarterly payment can be viewed, in effect, as the Banks “lending” to Treasury to reduce Treasury's current expenditures for interest on REFCORP bonds, and as Treasury “paying back” the Banks by paying amounts that would have been due from the Banks for interest on the REFCORP bonds in the future. Similarly, a deficit quarterly payment can be viewed, in effect, as the Banks “borrowing” from Treasury to meet current REFCORP obligations and then “paying back” Treasury in the future by extending the term of the REFCORP obligation.
Several of the comment letters raised technical issues about the use of Treasury interest rates, indicating that certain factors in the bond market may cause the yield on a particular Treasury issue to be temporarily or “artificially” high or low. For example, “on-the-run” issues (
In response to this comment, there are three observations. First, temporary technical factors may either increase of decrease the interest rates on Treasury issues, and it is impossible to predict the net effect these technical factors will have over the life of the REFCORP obligation. Second, technical factors that have an effect on the Treasury bond market are likely to have a larger effect on non-Treasury bonds because such instruments are far less liquid and potentially subject to widening and narrowing credit spreads. Third, “on-the-run” Treasury issues, the rates of which may be artificially low, will seldom be used in the calculations set forth in this rule. For example, if the benchmark quarterly payment to be “defeased” and the maturity date for the applicable zero-coupon Treasury bond used for that purpose are exactly thirty years from the date of the Banks' actual quarterly payment date, an “on-the-run” Treasury bond would be used in the calculation. However, the interest rate used to discount the next outstanding benchmark quarterly payment would necessarily be for a Treasury bond with a term of less than 30 years, and therefore would not be an “on-the-run” issue. The next “on-the-run issue” is the 10-year Treasury bond, which will not be the appropriate benchmark to use in the calculations set forth in this rule for some time.
Several comments raise the issue about the potential refunding of the United States government debt. Specifically, commenters expressed concern that if the United States budget surpluses occur as projected, the publicly held debt would disappear around 2015, and there would be no Treasury bonds to use as a benchmark. The Finance Board does not believe that this argument requires it to use a different interest rate, as even under somewhat conservative assumptions, the Banks' REFCORP obligation would be fully satisfied between 2013 and 2015, which roughly coincides with the projected date of the elimination of the publicly held debt.
Furthermore, the use of Treasury zero-coupon rates is not unique to the REFCORP calculation. There are other programs and agencies that use these rates. If the Treasury retires publicly held debt, then the Finance Board along with these other agencies and programs would have to determine successor discount factors. Gramm-Leach-Bliley provides the Finance Board with sufficient authority to determine successor discounting factors in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury. Thus, the Finance Board could reconsider the use of the zero-coupon Treasury rate, if and when it appears imminent that a benchmark Treasury rate would not be available, or would not provide an accurate reference interest rate for the REFCORP calculations.
More generally, the Finance Board believes that the actual effects of the planned reduction of outstanding government debt on the Treasury bond market remain uncertain at this time. In addition, although reduced issuance by
The trade association requested that the Finance Board regularly publish the results of the calculation and its determination of the new termination date for the REFCORP obligation. The issue of publishing the determination made pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley requirements was not directly addressed in the proposed rule. However, the Finance Board expects that, after it has reviewed the results of the calculations made in accordance with § 997.4, it will publish its determination as to the new termination date for the Banks' REFCORP obligation in the quarterly and annual combined financial report of the Bank System.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley provides that the Finance Board shall select appropriate present-value factors for making the statutorily required determination in “consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.” 12 U.S.C. 1441b(f)(2)(C)(ii). Before proposing this rule, Finance Board staff met with staff from OMB and Treasury. The Finance Board also provided a copy of the proposed rule to the Secretary of the Treasury. In response, staff from Treasury has informally suggested clarifications to certain aspects of the Finance Board's proposed rule. Primarily, Treasury staff wished to make clear its general approach to estimating the rates that it will provide to the Finance Board,
In addition, the Finance Board has made a slight change to the wording of § 997.4(c) concerning the maintenance of the official record of the quarterly present value determinations, because the proposed wording could be read to imply that REFCORP would make the present value determination required by Gramm-Leach-Bliley. As proposed, the provisions stated that the Finance Board will keep the official records of all quarterly present value determinations “made under this part by either the REFCORP or the Finance Board.” To avoid any confusion, the Finance Board has deleted the phrase “by either the REFCORP or the Finance Board” from the final version of § 997.4(c). This change does not alter the purpose of the provision, which is to make clear that the Finance Board will maintain the official record relating to the quarterly present value determinations.
Treasury staff also commented that the maturity date for zero-coupon bonds maturing after 2006 will not always correspond to the date of the benchmark quarterly payment. In such a situation, the Finance Board expects that Treasury will provide an estimated interest rate on a zero-coupon bond with a maturity date that is closest to that of the benchmark quarterly payment. The effect of this change on the present value calculation should be minimal. The Finance Board has also added a definition of “estimated interest rate” to § 997.1 that makes clear that the estimated interest rate will be for a zero-coupon Treasury bond that matures on the date of the quarterly benchmark payment that is being defeased or, if there is no zero-coupon Treasury bond that matures on that date, then on the date that is closest to the date of the quarterly benchmark payment being defeased. In addition, after adding this definition, the repetitive descriptions of the estimated interest rate that had appeared elsewhere in the rule, especially in § 997.2 and § 997.3, are no longer necessary and have been deleted.
This rule is effective immediately on publication so that the new methodology may be applied without delay to the first REFCORP payment that will be made by the Banks under the new Gramm-Leach-Bliley provisions on April 17, 2000. Moreover, the implementation of this final rule requires no action or change in activity on the part of the Banks or other parties. The rule merely sets forth a methodology that will be used by the Finance Board in determining the new end date of the Banks' REFCORP obligation as required by Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Thus, the Finance Board finds that it has good cause to adopt this rule with an effective date that is immediate upon publication in the
After considering all the comments that it received, and for the reasons discussed above and in the preamble to the proposed rule, the Finance Board has decided to adopt new Part 997, with the changes discussed above, and the amendment to § 951.1 of the Finance Board's regulations as proposed.
The final rule applies only to the Finance Board and to the Banks, which do not come within the meaning of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
The final rule does not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Credit, Federal home loan banks, Housing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal home loan banks, Resolution funding corporation.
12 U.S.C. 1430(j)
3. Add part 997 to subchapter L to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1422b(a) and 1441b(f).
As used in this part:
(a)
(b)
(1) The future value of the excess quarterly payment shall be calculated using the estimated interest rate corresponding to the last non-defeased benchmark quarterly payment.
(2) The future value calculated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be subtracted from the amount of the last non-defeased quarterly benchmark payment.
(3) If the difference resulting from the calculation in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is greater than zero, then the last non-defeased quarterly benchmark payment is reduced by the future value of the excess quarterly payment.
(4) If the difference resulting from the calculation in paragraph (b)(2) of this section is less than zero, then the last non-defeased quarterly benchmark payment shall be defeased and the payment term shall be shortened.
(5) The amount of the excess quarterly payment that has not already been applied to defeasing the payment under paragraph (b)(4) of this section shall be applied toward defeasing the last non-defeased quarterly benchmark payment using the applicable estimated interest rate.
(a)
(b)
(1) The future value of the deficit quarterly payment shall be calculated using the estimated interest rate corresponding to the last non-defeased benchmark quarterly payment, or to the first quarter thereafter if the last non-defeased benchmark quarterly payment already equals $75 million.
(2) The future value calculated in paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall be added to the amount of the last non-defeased quarterly benchmark payment if that sum is $75 million or less.
(3) If the sum calculated in paragraph (b)(2) of this section exceeds $75 million, the last non-defeased quarterly benchmark payment will become $75 million, and the quarterly benchmark payment term will be extended.
(4) The extended payment will equal the future value of the amount of the deficit quarterly payment that has not already been applied to raising the quarterly benchmark payment to $75 million under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, using the estimated interest rate corresponding to the date of the extended benchmark quarterly payment.
(c)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(a)
(b)
By the Board of Directors of the Federal Housing Finance Board:
Small Business Administration (SBA).
Final rule.
This final rule would implement Public Law 106-22, enacted on April 27, 1999, which establishes new rules for the loan loss reserve fund which an intermediary must maintain to participate in SBA's microloan program.
This rule is effective on April 3, 2000.
Jody Raskind, 202-205-6497.
Public Law 106-22, enacted on April 27, 1999, amended section 7(m) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(7)(m)) in order to change the requirements for the loan loss reserve fund (LLRF) which each intermediary in the SBA's microloan program must maintain. The LLRF is an interest-bearing deposit account at a bank. An intermediary must establish an LLRF to pay any shortage in its day-to-day revolving account caused by delinquencies or losses on microloans it makes to qualified small business borrowers. An intermediary must maintain the LLRF until it repays all obligations it owes to the SBA.
On July 26, 1999, SBA published a proposed rule in the
Under the present rule, an intermediary, during its first year in the microloan program, must maintain its LLRF at a level equal to at least 15 percent of the total outstanding balance of notes receivable owed to it by its microloan borrowers (Portfolio). Thereafter, the minimum balance that an intermediary must maintain in its LLRF must be the percent of its Portfolio equal to its actual average loan loss rate after its first year in the microloan program. The maximum level of the LLRF, under the present rule, cannot exceed 15 percent of the Portfolio. There is no prescribed minimum level.
Under the final rule, until the intermediary is in the microloan program for at least five years, it would be required to maintain a balance on deposit in its LLRF equal to 15 percent of its Portfolio. After an intermediary is in the microloan program for five years, it may request SBA's Associate Administrator for Financial Assistance (AA/FA) to grant the intermediary's request to reduce the percentage of its Portfolio which it must maintain in its LLRF to an amount equal to its actual average loan loss rate during the preceding five year period. The AA/FA would review the intermediary's annual loss rate for that five-year period and determine whether he or she should grant the intermediary's request. The AA/FA could not reduce the loan loss reserve to under ten percent of the Portfolio.
Under the final rule, to get a reduction in its loan loss reserve, an intermediary must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the AA/FA that (1) its average annual loss rate during the preceding five years is under fifteen percent, and (2) no other factors exist that might impair its ability to repay all obligations which it may owe to SBA under the microloan program.
This final rule does not constitute a significant rule within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, result in a major increase in costs or prices, or have a significant adverse effect on competition or the U.S. economy.
SBA has determined that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. SBA estimates that there are a total of 130 microintermediaries who are small entities that will be affected by this rule. However, SBA does not believe that this rule will have a significant economic impact because this rule relates only to Microloan Program intermediarie's internal accounting procedures and is not expected to have any economic effect.
SBA has determined that this final rule does not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
For purposes of Executive Order 13132, SBA has determined that this final rule has no federalism implications.
For purposes of Executive Order 12988, SBA certifies that this final rule is drafted, to the extent practicable, to accord with the standards set forth in section 3 of that Order.
Loan programs—business.
15 U.S.C. 634(b)(6) and 636(a) and (h).
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Its average annual loss rate during the preceding five years is less than fifteen percent, and
(2) No other factors exist that may impair the Intermediary's ability to repay all obligations which it owes to the SBA under the Microloan program.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Correction to final regulations.
This document contains corrections to the final regulations (DEA-200F) which were published on Monday, March 13, 2000 (65 FR 13235). These regulations relate to the placement of gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) and its salts, isomers and salts of isomers into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act pursuant to Public Law 106-172.
April 3, 2000.
Frank Sapienza, Chief, Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537, (202) 307-7183.
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections amend title 21, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), chapter II. As published, the final regulations contained errors that could cause confusion. Specifically, the final regulations published on March 13, 2000 (65 FR 13235) did not take into account the amendment of 21 CFR 1308.13 that was included in a Final Rule published by DEA on July 13, 1999 (64 FR 37673), which became effective on August 12, 1999.
21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b) unless otherwise noted.
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, DOD.
Final rule.
This final rule is a revision of the regulation on the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. This revision updates information on the policy and procedures for the operation of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records; implements that portion of 10 U.S.C. 1034, and that portion of Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 7050.6, Military Whistleblower Protection, that pertain to actions by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records; implements Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1336.6, Correction of Military Records; prescribes DD Form 149, Application for Correction of Military Record, under the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1552 and eliminates those portions pertaining to the process of applying to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, transferring them to a Department of the Army Pamphlet.
March 29, 2000.
Department of the Army, The Army Review Boards Agency, ATTN: SFMR-RBR, 1941 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-4508.
Ms. Mary L. Howell, Military Personnel Management Specialist, 703-607-1612, FAX 703-602-0935, email address: howelml@hqda.army.mil.
Basic revised information on Army Board for Correction of Military Records was previously published in the
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
In compliance with The Paperwork Reduction Act, information collection is required on Department of Defense Form 149 titled “Application for Correction of Military Record”. The form is necessary to identify specific types of information in support of the Army Board requirements. The form was approved previously by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB Control No. 0704-0003.
This final rule has no significant federalism implications to warrant preparation of a Federalism Assessment under the principles and criteria in E.O. 12612.
This final rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of E.O. 12630 or the Private Property Rights Act do not apply.
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action pursuant to Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993.
This final rule does not impose non statutory unfunded mandates on small governments and is not subject to the requirements of the executive order.
This final rule is in compliance with the provisions and requirements of E.O. 12988.
This final rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of E.O. 13045 do not apply.
This final rule does not impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector nor does it impose unfunded mandates on small governments and is not subject to the requirements of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
This final rule will not have a significant impact to the human environment, and preparation of an environmental impact statement is not required.
Pursuant to Section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the Army will submit a report containing this rule to the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting Office. This rule is not a major rule within the meaning of Section 804(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended.
Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and Records, Military Personnel.
1. The authority citation for part 581 is revised to read as follows:
10 U.S.C. 1552, 1553, 1554, 3013, 3014, 3016; 38 U.S.C. 3103(a).
(a)
(2)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) Review all applications that are properly before them to determine the existence of error or injustice.
(ii) If persuaded that material error or injustice exists, and that sufficient evidence exists on the record, direct or recommend changes in military records to correct the error or injustice.
(iii) Recommend a hearing when appropriate in the interest of justice.
(iv) Deny applications when the alleged error or injustice is not adequately supported by the evidence, and when a hearing is not deemed proper.
(v) Deny applications when the application is not filed within prescribed time limits and when it is not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to file in a timely manner.
(5)
(i) Take appropriate action on routine issues that may be administratively corrected under authority inherent in the custodian of the records and that do not require ABCMR action.
(ii) Furnish all requested Army military records to the ABCMR.
(iii) Request additional information from the applicant, if needed, to assist the ABCMR in conducting a full and fair review of the matter.
(iv) Take corrective action directed by the ABCMR or the Secretary of the Army.
(v) Inform the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS), when appropriate; the applicant; applicant's counsel, if any; and interested Members of Congress, if any, after a correction is complete.
(vi) Return original records of the soldier or former soldier obtained from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
(6)
(i) Furnish advisory opinions on matters within their areas of expertise upon request of the ABCMR, in a timely manner.
(ii) Obtain additional information or documentation as needed before providing the opinions to the ABCMR.
(iii) Provide records, investigations, information, and documentation upon request of the ABCMR.
(iv) Provide additional assistance upon request of the ABCMR.
(v) Take corrective action directed by the ABCMR or the Secretary of the Army.
(7)
(i) Furnish advisory opinions on matters within the DFAS area of expertise upon request.
(ii) Obtain additional information or documentation as needed before providing the opinions.
(iii) Provide financial records upon request.
(iv) On behalf of the Army, settle claims that are based on ABCMR final actions.
(v) Report quarterly to the ABCMR Director on the monies expended as a result of ABCMR action and the names of the payees.
(c)
(2)
(ii) When an applicant has suffered reprisal under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act 10 U.S.C. 1034 and Department of Defense Directive (DODD) 7050.6, the ABCMR may recommend to the Secretary of the Army that disciplinary or administrative action be taken against any Army official who committed an act of reprisal against the applicant.
(iii) The ABCMR will decide cases on the evidence of record. It is not an investigative body. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing (sometimes referred to as an evidentiary hearing or an administrative hearing in 10 U.S.C. 1034 and DODD 7050.6) or request additional evidence or opinions.
(d)
(ii) Usually applicants are soldiers or former soldiers of the Active Army, the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR), and in certain cases, the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and other military and civilian individuals affected by an Army military record. Requests are personal to the applicant and relate to military records. Requests are submitted on DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of 10 U.S.C. 1552). Soldiers need not submit applications through their chain of command.
(iii) An applicant with a proper interest may request correction of another person's military records when that person is incapable of acting on his or her own behalf, missing, or deceased. Depending on the circumstances, a child, spouse, parent or other close relative, heir, or legal representative (such as a guardian or executor) of the soldier or former soldier may be able to demonstrate a proper interest. Applicants must send proof of proper interest with the application when requesting correction of another person's military records.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(ii) See DODD 7050.6 for provisions for counsel in cases processed under 10 U.S.C. 1034.
(e)
(i) The applicant fails to complete and sign the application.
(ii) The applicant has not exhausted all other administrative remedies.
(iii) The ABCMR does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.
(iv) No new evidence was submitted with a request for reconsideration.
(2)
(3)
(ii) The panel members may consider a case on the merits in executive session or may authorize a hearing.
(iii) Each application will be reviewed to determine—
(A) Whether the preponderance of the evidence shows that an error or injustice exists and—
(
(
(B) Whether to authorize a hearing.
(C) If the application is filed outside the statute of limitations and whether to deny based on untimeliness or to waive the statute in the interest of justice.
(f)
(g)
(2)
(A) Denies any application (except for actions based on reprisals investigated under 10 U.S.C. 1034).
(B) Grants any application in whole or in part without a hearing when—
(
(
(
(ii) The ABCMR will forward the decisional document to the Secretary of the Army for final decision in any case in which—
(A) A hearing was held.
(B) The facts involve reprisals under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, confirmed by the DOD Inspector General (DODIG) under 10 U.S.C. 1034 and DODD 7050.6.
(C) The ABCMR recommends relief but is not authorized to act for the Secretary of the Army on the application.
(3)
(ii) The Secretary of the Army will issue decisions on cases covered by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act (10 U.S.C. 1034 and DODD 7050.6). In cases where the DODIG concluded that there was reprisal, these decisions will be made within 180 days after receipt of the application and the investigative report by the DODIG, the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG), or other Inspector General offices. Unless the full relief requested is granted, these applicants will be informed of their right to request review of the decision by the Secretary of Defense.
(4)
(i) If the ABCMR receives the request within 1 year of the ABCMR's action and if the ABCMR has not previously reconsidered the matter, the ABCMR staff will review the request to determine if it contains evidence (including, but not limited to, any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the ABCMR's prior consideration. If new evidence has been submitted, the request will be submitted to the ABCMR for its determination of whether the new evidence is sufficient to demonstrate material error or injustice. If no new evidence is found, the ABCMR staff will return the application to the applicant without action.
(ii) If the ABCMR receives the request more than 1 year after the ABCMR's action or after the ABCMR has already considered one request for reconsideration, the ABCMR staff will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence is submitted showing fraud, mistake of law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or the existence of substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously or within a short time after the ABCMR's original consideration. If the ABCMR staff finds such evidence, it will be submitted to the ABCMR for its determination of whether a material error or injustice exists and the proper remedy. If the ABCMR staff does not find such evidence, the application will be returned to the applicant without action.
(h)
(ii) The Army may not pay any claim previously compensated by Congress through enactment of a private law.
(iii) The Army may not pay for any benefit to which the applicant might later become entitled under the laws and regulations managed by the VA.
(2)
(ii) The DFAS will settle claims on the basis of the corrected military record. The DFAS will compute the amount due, if any. The DFAS may require applicants to furnish additional information to establish their status as proper parties to the claim and to aid in deciding amounts due. Earnings received from civilian employment during any period for which active duty pay and allowances are payable will be deducted. The applicant's acceptance of a settlement fully satisfies the claim concerned.
(3)
(i)
(ii) Applicants who believe that they fall within the scope of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section should place the term “CATEGORY G” in block 11b of DD Form 149. Such applications should be expeditiously reviewed by a designated official, who will either send the individual an honorable discharge certificate if the individual falls within the scope of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section, or forward the application to the Discharge Review Board if the individual does not fall within the scope of paragraph (i)(1)(i) of this section. The action of the designated official will not constitute an action or decision by the ABCMR.
(2)
(ii) Under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), the ABCMR will not furnish to third parties information submitted with or about an application unless specific written authorization is received from the applicant or unless the Board is otherwise authorized by law.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.
The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations for the Washington Street S136 Bridge, mile 0.0, across the Norwalk River at Norwalk, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations allows the bridge owner to keep the S136 Bridge in the closed position Tuesday through Thursday each week from March 28 through April 20, 2000. These closures are necessary to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge.
This deviation is effective March 28, 2000, through April 20, 2000.
Mr. Joe Arca, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, at (212) 668-7165.
The Washington Street S136 Bridge, mile 0.0, across the Norwalk River at Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical clearance of 9 feet at mean high water, and 16 feet at mean low water in the closed position. The bridge owner, Connecticut Department of Transportation, requested a temporary deviation from the operating regulations to facilitate structural repairs at the bridge. The existing operating regulations listed at 33 CFR 117.217 require the bridge to open on signal, except that, from 7 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., 11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels that draw less than 14 feet of water.
This deviation to the operating regulations allows the owner of the bridge to keep the bridge in the closed position as follows:
These repairs are being performed during the time period that there have been few requests to open the bridge. Vessels that can pass under the bridge without an opening may do so at all times.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Finding of Failure to Submit.
EPA is taking final action in making a finding, under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), that Alaska failed to make a carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment area State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal required for Fairbanks under the Act. Under certain provisions of the Act, states are required to submit SIPs providing for, among other things, reasonable further progress and attainment of the CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in areas classified as serious. The deadline for submittal of this plan for Fairbanks was October 1, 1999. This action triggers the 18-month time clock for mandatory application of sanctions and 2-year time clock for a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) under the Act. This action is consistent with the CAA mechanism for assuring SIP submissions.
This action is effective as of April 3, 2000.
Written comments should be addressed to: Ms. Debra Suzuki, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
John Pavitt, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Alaska Operations Office, 222 W. 7th Avenue, #19, Anchorage, Alaska, 99513-7588, Telephone (907) 271-5083.
The CAA Amendments of 1990 were enacted on November 15, 1990. Under Section 107(d)(1)(c) of the amended CAA, each CO area designated nonattainment prior to enactment of the 1990 Amendments, such as the Fairbanks area, was designated nonattainment by operation of law upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments. Under section 186(a) of the Act, each CO area designated nonattainment under section 107(d) was also classified by operations of law as either “moderate” or “serious” depending on the severity of the area's air quality problem. CO areas with design values between 9.1 and 16.4 parts per million (ppm), such as the Fairbanks area, were classified as moderate. These nonattainment designations and classifications were codified in 40 CFR part 81. See 56 FR 56846 (November 6, 1991).
(1) The CO nonattainment area is the “Fairbanks Area, Fairbanks Election District (part), Fairbanks nonattainment area boundary.” 40 CFR 81.302.
States containing areas that were classified as moderate nonattainment by operation of law under section 107(d) were required to submit SIPs designed to attain the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 1995.
(2) The moderate area SIP requirements are set forth in section 187(a) of the Act and differ depending on whether the area's design value is below or above 12.7 ppm. The Fairbanks area has a design value below 12.7 ppm. 40 CFR 81.302.
On February 27, 1998 EPA made a final finding that the Fairbanks CO nonattainment area did not attain the CO NAAQS under the CAA mandated attainment date of December 31, 1995 for moderate nonattainment. As a result of that finding, which went into effect on March 30, 1998, (63 FR 9945 February 27, 1998) the Fairbanks, Alaska CO nonattainment area was reclassified as serious. The State had 18 months or until October 1, 1999 to submit a new State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating attainment of the CO NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31, 2000, the CAA attainment date for serious areas. The Fairbanks area continues to exceed the CO standard with three exceedances in 1997, three in 1998, two in 1999 and, based upon preliminary review of the data, at least one in 2000. Notwithstanding significant efforts by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to complete their CO SIP, the state has failed to meet the October 1, 1999 deadline for the required SIP submission. EPA is therefore compelled to find that the State of Alaska has failed to make the required SIP submission for Fairbanks. The CAA established specific consequences if EPA finds that a State has failed to meet certain requirements of the CAA. Of particular relevance here is CAA section 179(a)(1), the mandatory sanctions provisions. Sections 179(a) sets forth four findings that form the basis for applications of a sanction. The first finding, that a State has failed to submit a plan required under the CAA, is the finding relevant to this rulemaking.
If Alaska has not made the required complete submittal by October 3, 2001, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b) will be applied in the affected area. If the State has still not made a complete submission by April 3, 2002, then the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected area, in accordance with 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, CAA section 110(c) provides that EPA must promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).
(3) In a 1994 rulemaking, EPA established the Agency's selection of the sequence of these two sanctions: the offset sanction under section 179(b)(2) shall apply at 18 months, followed 6 months later by the highway sanction under section 179(b)(1) of the Act. EPA does not choose to deviate from this presumptive sequence in this instance. For more details on the timing and implementation of the sanctions, see 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994), promulgating 40 CFR 52.31, “Selection of sequence of mandatory sanctions for findings made pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air Act.”
The sanctions will not take effect if, before October 3, 2001, EPA finds that the State has made a complete submittal of a plan addressing the serious area CO requirements for Fairbanks. In addition, EPA will not promulgate a FIP if the State makes the required SIP submittal and EPA takes final action to approve the submittal before April 3, 2002, (section 110(c)(1) of the Act). EPA encourages the responsible parties in Alaska to continue working together on the CO Plan which can eliminate the need for potential sanctions and FIP.
Today, EPA is making a finding of failure to submit for the Fairbanks CO nonattainment area, due to failure of the State to submit a SIP revision addressing the serious area CO requirements of the CAA.
EPA has issued this action as a rulemaking because the Agency has treated this type of action as rulemaking in the past. However, EPA believes that it would have the authority to issue this action in an informal adjudication, and is considering which administrative process-rulemaking or informal adjudication-is appropriate for future actions of this kind. Because EPA is issuing this action as a rulemaking, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) applies. Today's action is effective as of April 3, 2000. Under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553 (d)(3), agency rulemaking may take effect before 30 days after the date of publication in the
This document is a final agency action, but is not subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 533(b). EPA believes that because of the limited time provided to make findings of failure to submit regarding SIP submissions, Congress did not intend such findings to be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, to the extent such findings are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, EPA invokes the good cause exception pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). Notice and comment are unnecessary because no EPA judgment is involved in making a nonsubstantive finding of failure to submit SIPs required by the CAA. Furthermore, providing notice and comment would be impracticable because of the limited time provided under the statute for making such determinations. Finally, notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would divert Agency resources from the critical substantive review of submitted SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272, note 17 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR 39832, 39853 (August 4, 1994).
As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this notice, 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 action 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 action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rule) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the reasons therefore, and established an effective date of April 3, 2000. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the
Under section 307(b)(1) of the 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 June 2, 2000. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Commission adopts rules to maximize the use of spectrum designated for Multiple Address Systems (MAS) in the Fixed Microwave Services. Specifically, the Commission lifts the application freeze for the 928/952/956 MHz bands and twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands; designates the 928/952/956 MHz bands and twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands for public safety and/or private internal services, indicating that these channels will be licensed on a first-come, first-served site-by-site basis; designates five of the twenty channel pairs for public safety/Federal Government use; will license the 928/959 MHz bands and the remaining twenty of the forty paired channels in the 932/941 MHz bands on a geographic-area basis; increases the licensees' technical and operational flexibility in order to allow licensees to provide services that are responsive to market demands; and provides incumbents with sufficient protection to avoid disruption of the marketplace or any undue unfairness.
Effective June 2, 2000 (except for § 101.1327 which contains an information collection that has not been
Shellie Blakeney, Michael Sozan, or Guy Benson at (202) 418-0680, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, or Les Smith, AMD-PERM, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0217. In addition to filing comments with the Office of the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
1. This is a summary of the Commission's
2. The
3. Specifically, the Commission designates the 928/952/956 MHz bands and twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands for public safety and/or private internal services, and provides that these bands will be licensed on a site-by-site basis. The Commission reserves five of the twenty channel pairs in the 932/941 MHz bands for public safety/Federal Government Services. Additionally, the Commission will license the 928/959 MHz bands and twenty of the forty paired channels in the 932/941 MHz bands on a geographic area basis; grandfathers existing operations on the MAS bands and restricts expansion in the 928/959 MHz bands; establishes service areas based on the Federal Communications Commission's definition of Economic Areas (EAs) and on the U.S. Department of Commerce's definition of EAs; establishes construction/coverage requirements for EA licensees—specifically, coverage to at least one-fifth of the population in their service areas or substantial service within five years of the license grant—and a showing of substantial service within ten years of being licensed; allows licensees to provide mobile and fixed operations on a co-primary basis for point-to-point and point-to-multipoint operations; adopts a flexible approach for defining the regulatory status of MAS licensees by allowing the licensee to indicate its regulatory status; lifts the suspension on the acceptance of applications for the 928/952/956 MHz bands and the twenty channels in the 932/941 MHz bands designated for public safety/Federal Government and/or private internal services upon the release of the
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) were incorporated in the Amendment of the Commission's rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems,
2. These proceedings were initiated to secure public comment on proposals to maximize the efficient and effective use of spectrum allocated to Multiple Address Systems (MAS) in the Microwave Services and to analyze the impact of the Balanced Budget Act on these proposals. In attempting to maximize the use of MAS spectrum, we continue our efforts to improve the efficiency of spectrum use, reduce the regulatory burden on spectrum users, facilitate technological innovation, and provide opportunities for development of competitive new service offerings. The rules adopted in this
3. No petitions/comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA. In general, commenters and reply commenters supported our proposals to provide additional flexibility in the MAS Service. Moreover, many of the commenters and reply commenters were existing MAS licensees many of whom qualify as small businesses. These commenters overwhelmingly supported proposals that would permit (1) acquisitions by partitioning or disaggregation; and (2) MAS licensees and applicants to choose their regulatory status. Commenters generally supported our proposed definitions for “small business” and “very small business” and did not oppose our proposal to use “tiered” bidding credits for these entities. One commenter specifically suggested that the Commission recognize rural phone companies in the category of “designated entities” and create for rural telephone companies specific preferences that would enable them to participate in the provision of MAS services to rural parts of the country.
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small
5. Last, the definition of “small governmental entity” is one with populations of fewer than 50,000. There are 85,006 governmental entities in the nation. This number includes such entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts and school districts. There are no figures available on what portion of this number has populations of fewer than 50,000. However, this number includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns, and of those, 37,556, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, or about 81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules. We further describe and estimate the number of small business licensees and regulatees that may be affected by the rules.
6. The rules adopted in this
7. With respect to the first category, the Commission has developed and received approval from the Small Business Administration for two definitions of small entities applicable to MAS licensees that do not provide private internal service. The Commission defines a small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million. We define a very small business as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million. These tiers are consistent with those set forth in part 1, subpart Q. The majority of these entities will most likely be licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing approach that would require the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications. The Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, there were a total of 8,670 MAS station authorizations. Of these, 260 authorizations were associated with common carrier service.
8. With respect to the second category, which consists of entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal communications needs, we note that MAS serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all types of public safety entities. We note that some of these entities may seek to use spectrum in which geographic area licensing is implemented to satisfy their internal purposes, in which case they will be subject to the definitions for small business described herein. For the majority of private internal users, the definitions developed by the SBA would be more appropriate. The applicable definition of small entity in this instance appears to be the definition under the SBA rules applicable to establishments engaged in radiotelephone communications. This definition provides that a small entity is any entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, of the 8,670 total MAS station authorizations, 8,410 authorizations were for private radio service, and of these, 1,433 were for private land mobile radio service.
9. Given that we are using competitive bidding to award certain MAS licenses and have established a small business definition for competitive bidding purposes, then all small businesses that choose to participate in these services will be required to demonstrate that they meet the criteria set forth to qualify as small businesses. Any small business applicant wishing to avail itself of small business provisions will need to make the general financial disclosures necessary to establish that the small business is in fact small.
10. Prior to auction, each small business applicant will be required to submit an FCC Form 175, OMB Clearance Number 3060-0600. The estimated time for completing an FCC Form 175 is forty-five minutes. In addition to filing an FCC Form 175, each applicant must submit information regarding the ownership of the applicant, any joint venture arrangements or bidding consortia that the applicant has entered into, and financial information which demonstrates that a business wishing to qualify for bidding credits is a small business. Applicants that do not have audited financial statements available will be permitted to certify to the validity of their showings. While many small businesses have chosen to employ attorneys prior to filing an application to participate in an auction, the rules are proposed so that a small business working with the information in a bidder information package can file an application on its own. When an applicant wins a license, it will be required to submit an FCC Form 601 (Long-form Application for Authorization), which will require technical information regarding the applicant's proposals for providing service. This application, and any appropriate schedules and attachments, will require information provided by an engineer who will have knowledge of the system's design. MAS applicants and/or licensees will be required to submit certain showings to indicate compliance with the Commission's rules.
11. We have reduced the economic burden placed on small business where possible. In response to general comments filed in this proceeding, we have adopted final rules designed to maximize opportunities for participation by, and growth of, small businesses in providing wireless services. Specifically, we expect that allowing partitioning and disaggregation of licenses and bidding credits will specifically assist small businesses.
12. There were some entities that opposed our proposals related to implementing geographic area licensing in certain MAS bands because the filing of any mutually exclusive applications would require them to participate in auctions. However, we determined that the public interest would be best served by adopting our proposal. Many of the potentially affected entities would have
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.
The following channels are allocated for assignment to transmitters utilized within point-to-multipoint systems that support transmitters that provide public mobile service. Unless otherwise indicated, all channels have a bandwidth of 20 kHz and are designated by their center frequencies in MegaHertz. No new licenses will be issued for any 900 MHz frequencies in this section. See part 101, subpart O of this chapter for treatment of incumbents and for new licensing procedures. Incumbents under part 22 are subject to the restrictions of part 101, subpart O of this chapter but may make permissible modifications, transfers, assignments, or renew their licenses using procedures, forms, fees, and filing requirements of part 22.
47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(c) The frequencies associated with all point-to-multipoint authorizations which have cancelled automatically or otherwise been recovered by the Commission will again be made available for reassignment on a date and under terms set forth by Public Notice. See § 101.1331(d) for treatment of MAS incumbent site-by-site licenses recovered in EAs.
(c) * * *
(3) Applicants for site-based frequencies listed in § 101.147 paragraph (b)(1) must make the following showings that protection criteria have been met over the entire service area of existing systems. Such showings may be made by the applicant or may be satisfied by a statement from a frequency coordinator.
(i) For site-based multiple address stations in the 928-929/952-960 MHz and the 932-932.5/941-941.5 MHz bands, a statement that the proposed system complies with the following co-channel separations from all existing stations and pending applications:
(ii) In cases where the geographic separation standard in paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section is not followed, an engineering analysis must be submitted to show the coordination of the proposed assignment with existing systems located closer than those standards. The engineering analyses will include:
(A) Specification of the interference criteria and system parameters used in the interference study;
(B) Nominal service areas of each system included in the interference analysis;
(C) Modified service areas resulting from the proposed system. The propagation models used to establish the service boundary limits must be specified and any special terrain features considered in computing the interference impact should be described; and
(D) A statement that all parties affected have agreed to the engineering analysis and will accept the calculated levels of interference.
(iii) MAS EA licensees shall provide protection in accordance with § 101.1333.
(5) Mobile operation is permitted on any of the MAS frequency bands on a primary basis.
(c) * * *
(e) Applicants licensed in the MAS frequencies after June 2, 2000, shall not provide service to others on a non-profit, cost-shared basis or on a for-profit private carrier basis in the 928-928.85/952-952.85/956.25-956.45 MHz bands and the 932.25625-932.49375/941.25625-941.49375 MHz bands.
a. In paragraph (a), revise the numbers in parentheses after the frequency bands; and
b. In paragraph (a), revise note (27) and add note (28).
c. Revise paragraph (b);
d. Revise the text in paragraph (b)(1) and remove the footnotes in Table 1 and Table 2;
e. Revise the text in paragraph (b)(2);
f. Revise the text in paragraph (b)(3) and revise the headings of Table 5 to read “TABLE 5—PAIRED FREQUENCIES (MHz)” and Table 6 to read “TABLE 6—PAIRED FREQUENCIES (MHz)”; and
g. Revise paragraph (b)(4).
(a) * * *
(27) Frequencies in the 932 to 932.5 MHz and 941 to 941.5 MHz bands are shared with Government fixed point-to-multipoint stations. Frequencies in these bands are paired with one another and are available for flexible use for transmission of the licensee's products and information services, excluding video entertainment material. 932.00625/941.00625 MHz to 932.24375/941.24375 MHz is licensed by Economic Area. 932.25625/941.25625 MHz to 932.49375/941.49375 MHz is licensed on a site-by-site basis.
(28) Subsequent to July 1, 1999, MAS operations in the 928/952/956 MHz bands are reserved for private internal use. The 928.85-929.0 MHz and 959.85-960.0 MHz bands are licensed on a geographic area basis with no eligibility restrictions. The 928.0-928.85 MHz band paired with the 952.0-952.85 MHz band, in additional to unpaired frequencies in the 956.25-956.45 MHz band, are licensed on a site-by-site basis and used for terrestrial point-to-point and point-to-multipoint fixed and mobile operations. The 928.85-929.0 MHz band paired with the 959.85-960.0 MHz band is licensed by Economic Area and used for terrestrial point-to-point and point-to-multipoint fixed and mobile operations.
(b) Frequencies normally available for assignment in this service are set forth with applicable limitations in the following tables: 928-960 MHz Multiple address system (MAS) frequencies are available for the point-to-multipoint and point-to-point transmission of a licensee's products or services, excluding video entertainment material, to a licensee's customer or for its own internal communications. The paired frequencies listed in this section are used for two-way communications between a master station and remote stations. Ancillary one-way communications on paired frequencies are permitted on a case-by-case basis. Ancillary communications between interrelated master stations are permitted on a secondary basis. The normal channel bandwidth assigned will be 12.5 kHz. EA licensees, however, may combine contiguous channels without limit or justification. Site-based licensees may combine contiguous channels up to 50 kHz, and more than 50 kHz only upon a showing of adequate justification. When licensed for a larger bandwidth, the system still is required to use equipment that meets the ±0.00015 percent tolerance requirement. (See § 101.107). Any bandwidth (12.5 kHz, 25 kHz or greater) authorized in accordance with this section may be subdivided into narrower bandwidths to create additional (or sub) frequencies without the need to specify each discrete frequency within the specific bandwidth. Equipment that is used to create additional frequencies by narrowing bandwidth (whether authorized for a 12.5 kHz, 25 kHz or greater bandwidth) will be required to meet, at a minimum, the ± 0.00015 percent tolerance requirement so that all subfrequencies will be within the emission mask. Systems licensed for frequencies in these MAS bands prior to August 1, 1975, may continue to operate as authorized until June 11, 1996, at which time they must comply with current MAS operations based on the 12.5 kHz channelization set forth in this paragraph. Systems licensed between August 1, 1975, and January 1, 1981, inclusive, are required to comply with the grandfathered 25 kHz standard bandwidth and channelization requirements set forth in this paragraph. Systems originally licensed after January 1, 1981, and on or before May 11, 1988, with bandwidths of 25 kHz and above, will be grandfathered indefinitely.
(1) Frequencies listed in this paragraph are designated for private internal use and are subject to site-based licensing.
(2) Frequencies listed in this paragraph are designated for private internal use and are subject to site-based licensing.
(3) Frequencies listed in this paragraph are not restricted to private internal use and are licensed by geographic area. Incumbent facilities must be protected.
(4) Frequencies listed in this paragraph are licensed by either economic area or on a site-by-site basis.
This subpart sets out the regulations governing the licensing and operation of Multiple Address Systems (MAS). The rules in this subpart are to be used in conjunction with applicable requirements contained elsewhere in the Commission's rules, such as those requirements contained in parts 1 and 22 of this chapter.
Authorizations for stations in this service will be granted in cases where it is shown that:
(a) The applicant is legally, financially, technically and otherwise qualified to render the proposed service;
(b) There are frequencies available to enable the applicant to render a satisfactory service; and
(c) The public interest, convenience or necessity would be served by a grant thereof.
A private internal service is a service where entities utilize frequencies purely for internal business purposes or public safety communications and not on a for-hire or for-profit basis.
MAS users may engage in terrestrial point-to-point and point-to-multi-point fixed and mobile operations.
(a) The Commission will rely on each applicant to specify on FCC Form 601
(b) Any interested party may challenge the regulatory status granted an MAS licensee.
(a) Winning bidders must file an application (FCC Form 601) for an initial authorization in each market and frequency block.
(b) Blanket licenses are granted for each market and frequency block. Applications for individual sites are not required and will not be accepted, except as specified in § 101.1329.
The license term for stations authorized under this subpart is ten years from the date of original issuance or renewal.
In the frequency bands not licensed on a site-by-site basis, the geographic service areas for MAS are Economic Areas (EAs). EAs are 175 areas, including U.S. territories and possessions, defined by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, as modified by the Commission.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for licenses in the portions of the MAS bands licensed on a geographic area basis are subject to competitive bidding procedures. The procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this part.
For the purpose of establishing eligibility requirements and bidding credits for competitive bidding for MAS licenses, pursuant to § 1.2110 of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a)
(1) A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million, as determined pursuant to § 1.2110 of this chapter.
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such entity and their affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million, as determined pursuant to § 1.2110 of this chapter.
(b)
(c)
(a) An MAS system license acquired through competitive bidding procedures (including licenses obtained in cases of no mutual exclusivity), together with all appurtenances may be transferred, assigned, sold, or given away only in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in § 1.2111 of this chapter.
(b) An MAS system license obtained through site-based licensing procedures, together with all appurtenances may be transferred, assigned, sold, or given away, to any other entity in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in § 1.948 of this chapter.
(a)
(2) Eligible MAS licensees may apply to the Commission to partition their licensed geographic service areas to eligible entities and are free to determine the portion of their service areas to be partitioned. Eligible MAS licensees may aggregate or disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the grant of a license.
(b)
(ii) Spectrum licensed to MAS licensees does not count toward the CMRS spectrum cap discussed in § 20.6 of this chapter.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
(d)
(2)
(3) All applications requesting partial assignments of license for partitioning or disaggregation must certify in the appropriate portion of the application which construction option is selected.
(4) Responsible parties must submit supporting documents showing compliance with the respective construction requirements within the appropriate construction benchmarks set forth in § 101.1325.
(e)
(a) Incumbent site-based licensees are subject to the construction requirements set forth in § 101.63 of subpart B (Applications and Licenses).
(b) Each MAS EA licensee must provide service to at least one-fifth of the population in its service area or “substantial service” within five years of the license grant. In addition, MAS EA licensees must make a showing of continued “substantial service” within ten years of the license grant. Licensees must file maps and other supporting documents showing compliance with the respective construction requirements within the appropriate five- and ten-year benchmarks of the date of their initial licenses.
(c) Failure by any licensee to meet these requirements will result in forfeiture or non-renewal of the initial license, and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
(a) A renewal applicant shall receive a renewal expectancy at the end of the license period as long as the applicant:
(1) Demonstrates that the licensee has provided continued “substantial service,”
(2) Demonstrates that the licensee has substantially complied with applicable Commission Rules, policies, and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended;
(3) Provides an explanation of the licensee's record of expansion, including a timetable of the construction of new facilities to meet changes in demand for services provided by the licensee; and (4) Provides a description of investments made by the licensee in its system.
(b) In determining whether a renewal applicant has complied with the “substantial service” requirement by the end of the ten-year initial license term, the Commission may consider factors such as:
(1) Whether the licensee is offering a specialized or technologically sophisticated service that does not require a high level of coverage to be of benefit to customers; and (2) Whether the licensee's operations service niche markets or focus on serving populations outside of areas served by other licensees. The “substantial service” requirement can, however, be met in other ways, and the Commission will review each licensee's showing on a case-by-case basis.
(c) A “substantial service” assessment will be made at renewal pursuant to the procedures contained in § 1.949 of this chapter.
EA licensees may construct master and remote stations anywhere inside the area authorized in their licenses, without prior approval, so long as the Commission's technical and other Rules are complied with, except that individual licenses are required for any master station that:
(a) Requires the submission of an environmental assessment under § 1.1307 of this chapter;
(b) Requires international coordination; or
(c) Would affect the radio frequency quiet zones described in § 1.924 of this chapter.
(a) Any station licensed by the Commission prior to July 1, 1999, as well as any assignments or transfers of such station as of January 19, 2000, shall be considered incumbent.
(b) Incumbent operators in the 928.0-928.85/952.0-952.85/956.25-956.45 MHz bands are grandfathered as of January 19, 2000, and may continue to operate and expand their systems pursuant to the interference protection and co-channel spacing criteria contained in § 101.105.
(c) Incumbent operators in the 928.85-929.0/959.85-960.0 MHz bands are grandfathered as of January 19, 2000, and may expand their systems provided that the signal level of the additional transmitter(s) does not increase the composite contour that occurs at a 40.2 kilometer (25-mile) radius from the center of each master station transmitter site. Incumbent operators and geographic area licensees may negotiate alternative criteria.
(d) The frequencies associated with incumbent authorizations in the 928/959 MHz bands that have cancelled automatically or otherwise been recovered by the Commission will automatically revert to the applicable EA licensee.
(e) The frequencies associated with incumbent authorizations in the 928/952/956 MHz bands that have cancelled automatically will revert to the Commission.
(a)
(b) EA licensees are prohibited from exceeding a signal strength of 40 dB
(c) EA licensees are prohibited from exceeding a signal strength of 40 dBμV/m at incumbent licensees' 40.2 kilometer (25-mile) radius composite contour specified in § 101.1329(b).
(d) In general, licensees shall comply with the appropriate coordination agreements between the United States and Canada and the United States and Mexico concerning cross-border sharing and use of the applicable MAS frequencies.
(1)
(i) Within Lines A, B, C, and D, as defined in § 1.928(e) of this chapter, along the U.S./Canada border, U.S. stations operating in the 932.0-932.25 MHz and 941.0-941.25 MHz bands are on a secondary basis and may operate provided that they shall not transmit a power flux density (PFD) at the border greater than −100 dBW/m
(ii) Maximum antenna height above average terrain for master stations operating at a maximum power shall not exceed 150 meters. Above 150 meters, the power of master stations shall be in accordance with following table:
(2)
Between Lines A and B and between Lines C and D, as defined in § 1.928(e) of this chapter, along the U.S./Canada border, U.S. stations operating in the 928.50-928.75 MHz and 952.50-952.75 MHz bands are on an unprotected basis and may operate provided that they shall not transmit a power flux density (PFD) at or beyond the border greater than −100 dBW/m
(3)
Within 113 kilometers of the U.S./Mexico border, U.S. stations operating in the 932.0-932.25 MHz and 941.0-941.25 MHz bands are on a secondary basis (non-interference to Mexican primary licensees) and may operate provided that they shall not transmit a power flux density (PFD) at or beyond the border greater than −100 dBW/m
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations that govern the importation of Spanish Pure Breed horses from Spain, a country in which contagious equine metritis, a venereal disease of horses, may exist. We would allow Spanish Pure Breed horses to be imported from Spain into the United States under the same conditions that apply to thoroughbred horses from certain other regions in which contagious equine metritis either exists or may exist. We are proposing this action because Spanish Pure Breed horses, like thoroughbred horses from those other regions, are less likely to be infected with contagious equine metritis than other horses, largely because the life history and medical records of each horse is known and can be certified by a veterinarian of the national government of the region of origin. This action would relieve some restrictions on the importation of Spanish Pure Breed horses into the United States.
We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all comments that we receive by June 2, 2000.
Please send your comment and three copies to:
Docket No. 99-054-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 99-054-1.
You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the
Dr. Morley Cook, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Animals Program, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-6479.
The animal importation regulations (contained in 9 CFR part 93 and referred to below as the regulations), among other things, prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals, including horses, into the United States to protect U. S. livestock from communicable diseases, including contagious equine metritis (CEM). CEM is a contagious venereal disease of horses and other equidae that affects breeding and fertility.
To prevent the introduction of CEM, § 93.301(c)(1) lists regions in which CEM exists or in which CEM may exist because those regions have traded horses freely with regions in which CEM exists without testing for CEM. These regions are referred to below as listed regions. Paragraph (c)(1) prohibits the importation of horses into the United States from listed regions unless the horses are imported in accordance with certain requirements. The horses must be:
• Wild species of equidae if captured in the wild or imported from a zoo or other facility where it would be unlikely that the animal would come in contact with domesticated horses used for breeding;
• Geldings;
• Weanlings or yearlings;
• Horses imported in specific cases under conditions prescribed by the Administrator of APHIS as provided in § 93.301(a);
• Thoroughbred horses imported for permanent entry from France, Germany, Ireland, or the United Kingdom as provided in § 93.301(d);
• Stallions or mares over 731 days of age for permanent entry as provided in § 93.301(e) (which requires pre-export testing, Federal quarantine upon arrival, and post-entry quarantine in a State approved to receive horses from listed regions);
• Horses over 731 days of age imported for no more than 90 days to compete in specified events as provided in § 93.301(f); or
• U.S. horses returning to the United States as provided in § 93.301(g).
The Equine Breeding Service of the Spanish Government has requested that we amend the regulations to allow Spanish Pure Breed horses to be imported into the United States from Spain under the same conditions that apply to thoroughbred horses from France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Currently, Spanish Pure Breed horses other than weanlings and yearlings may be imported for permanent entry into the United States only in accordance with § 93.301(e). France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom are listed regions, as is Spain. However, the requirements in § 93.301(d) for importing thoroughbred horses from France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom are less restrictive than the requirements in § 93.301(e) because the life history and medical records of each thoroughbred horse imported from these countries is known and can be certified by a veterinarian of the national government of the region of origin.
Under § 93.301(d), each thoroughbred horse from France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom must be accompanied at the time of importation by an import permit and an import health certificate. The requirements related to import permits are contained in § 93.304 of the regulations. The requirements related to import health certificates are contained in § 93.314 of the regulations.
According to § 93.314, an import health certificate must be issued by a salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the region of origin, and it must certify that each horse has been in that region for the 60 days preceding exportation; that each horse has been inspected on the premises of origin and has been found free of evidence of communicable disease, and exposure to communicable disease, during the 60 days preceeding exportation; and that each horse has not
Paragraph (d) of § 93.301 requires that the veterinarian signing and issuing the import health certificate also certify that he or she has examined the daily records of the horse's activities maintained by the trainer and the records of the horse's activities maintained by a breed association that is specifically approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The veterinarian must certify that the information in these records is consistent and current.
For thoroughbred horses over 731 days of age, the import health certificate must also certify that cultures negative for CEM have been obtained from sets of specimens collected from each horse on 3 separate occasions within a 7-day period. The last set of specimens must have been collected within 30 days of exportation. All specimens must have been received within 48 hours of collection by a laboratory approved to culture for CEM by the national veterinary service of the region of export. All specimens must have been accompanied by a statement indicating the time and date of their collection.
Under § 93.301(d), if any specimen is found positive for CEM, the horse it was collected from must be treated for CEM in a manner approved by the national veterinary service of the region of export. After the treatment is completed, at least 21 days must pass before the horse is eligible to be tested again.
Additionally, § 93.301(d) requires that thoroughbred horses imported from France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom complete the Federal quarantine required under § 93.308 before they can be released in the United States. Thoroughbred horses that were found positive for, and were treated for, CEM in the region of export must be further quarantined under State or Federal supervision until they have met the additional testing and treatment requirements in § 93.301(e)(3) for stallions or § 93.301(e)(5) for mares.
Under § 93.301(e)(3), specimens must be collected from each stallion's prepuce, urethral sinus, and fossa glandis, including the diverticulum of the fossa glandis, and must be cultured for CEM. If the results are negative, the stallion must be test bred to two mares, after which the stallion must undergo the following treatment for 5 consecutive days: the prepuce, the penis, including the fossa glandis, and the unrethral sinus of the stallion must be thoroughly cleaned and scrubbed with a solution of not less than 2 percent surgical scrub chlorhexidine, while the stallion is in full erection, and then thoroughly coated with an ointment effective against the CEM organism.
Cultures must be made from sets of specimens collected from the mucosal surfaces of the clitoral fossa and clitoral sinuses of each test mare on the third, sixth, and ninth days after test breeding. A complement fixation test for CEM must be performed on each test mare on the fifteenth day after the test breeding. If the result of any culture taken from either of the test mares or from the stallion is positive for CEM, the stallion must undergo the treatment described above and then be test bred again to two mares no sooner than 21 days after the last day of the treatment. Treatment and test breeding must be repeated until all tests are negative for CEM.
Under § 93.301(e)(5), sets of specimens must be taken from mares on days 1, 4, and 7 of a 7-day period. The specimens must be taken from the mucosal surfaces of the clitoral fossa and the clitoral sinuses and cultures must be made. After the three sets of specimens have been taken, organic debris must be manually removed from the clitoral sinuses of each mare and the sinuses must be flushed with a cerumalytic agent. For 5 consecutive days after the sinuses of the mare have been cleaned, the external genitalia and vaginal vestibule, including the clitoral fossa, must be aseptically cleaned and washed with a solution of not less than 2 percent chlorhexidine in a detergent base, and then the clitoral fossa and the clitoral sinuses must be filled and the external genitalia and vaginal vestibule must be coated with an antibiotic ointment effective against the CEM organism. All test results must be negative for CEM before the mare may be released from quarantine. If any test is positive, the mare must be treated again and then tested no less than 21 days after the last day of the treatment described above. Treatment and testing must be repeated until all tests are negative for CEM.
All specimen collections, test breeding, and treatments required under § 93.301(e)(3) and § 93.301(e)(5) must be performed by an accredited veterinarian. All specimens must be submitted to the National Veterinary Services Laboratories, Ames, IA, or to a laboratory approved by the Administrator to conduct CEM cultures and tests. All test results must be negative for CEM before the horses may be released from quarantine.
These conditions ensure that thoroughbred horses imported into the United States from France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom are free of CEM.
At the request of the Equine Breeding Service of the Spanish Government, we are proposing to allow Spanish Pure Breed horses to be imported from Spain into the United States under the same conditions that apply to thoroughbred horses from France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. We would add the Servicio de Cria Caballar y Remonta as the breed association that is specifically approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the purposes of § 93.301(d).
The Spanish Pure Breed horse is only one of seven or eight breeds of purebred horses originating in Spain, but current and accurate historical and medical information is not readily available for the other breeds, so they are not included in this proposed rule. This action would relieve some restrictions on the importation of Spanish Pure Breed horses from Spain (i.e., the horses would not have to undergo the testing and treatment requirements in § 93.301(e)(3) and § 93.301(e)(5) unless they were found positive for, and were treated for, CEM prior to exportation).
We have conducted a risk assessment for this proposed rule to ensure that this action would pose a negligible risk of introducing CEM into the United States. The risk assessment contains a qualitative analysis of 11 risk factors, which are listed in 9 CFR part 92, “Importation of Animals and Animal Products: Procedures for Requesting Recognition of Regions,” and a quantitative analysis that evaluates the frequency with which a Spanish Pure Breed horse infected with CEM might be imported from Spain into the United States if this proposed rule were adopted.
According to the qualitative analysis of the risk assessment, Spain is likely to be free of CEM. Additionally, Spanish veterinary authorities have the capabilities needed to culture and diagnose CEM. Routine breeding soundness examinations and investigations of reproductive diseases and reproductive failures conducted by the Spanish Government and military veterinarians would detect CEM if it were to occur in Spanish Pure Breed horses. There has never been a reported case of CEM in Spain. However, even if CEM were introduced into Spain, there is very little chance that it would affect the Spanish Pure Breed population since Spain does not import Spanish Pure Breed horses and Spanish Pure Breed horses are not bred with other breeds.
The quantitative analysis evaluates the number of Spanish Pure Breed horses that are likely to be imported from Spain, the probability that a randomly selected horse would be infected with CEM, and the probability that the infection would be detected by the testing required under this proposed rule.
According to the quantitative analysis, the predicted average frequency, with a 95 percent confidence level, with which a Spanish Pure Breed horse infected with CEM would be released into the United States is once every 700 years or less often. With a 50 percent confidence level, the predicted average frequency is one release every 2,300 years or less often.
Thus, based on the risk assessment, we have determined that this action would pose a negligible risk of introducing CEM into the United States.
The complete risk assessment for this proposed rule may be obtained by contacting the person listed under
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule would allow Spanish Pure Breed horses to be imported from Spain into the United States under the same conditions that apply to thoroughbred horses from France, Germany, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. We are considering this action in response to a request we have received from Spain's Equine Breeding Service to relieve some of the restrictions on the importation of Spanish Pure Breed horses from Spain since the life histories and medical records of these horses can be certified by Spanish Government veterinarians.
The following analysis addresses the economic effect the proposed rule would have on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
In 1997, there were 375,218 farms in the United States keeping 2,427,277 horses of all kinds. Approximately 79,516 farms sold 325,306 horses, receiving $1.03 billion in sale revenues. Approximately 98 percent of the farms that sold horses have less than $500,000 in annual revenue and, therefore, are considered small entities by the U.S. Small Business Administration.
U.S. importers and breeders of Spanish Pure Breed horses would be affected by this rule. This rule would make it less expensive for importers to import Spanish Pure Breed horses from Spain.
There are approximately 270 domestic breeders of Spanish Pure Breed horses in the United States, most of which are likely to be small entities. In 1998, there were approximately 2,500 Spanish Pure Breed horses in the United States and only 225 foals were registered that year.
In 1995 and 1996, 4 horses (not all of which were Spanish Pure Breed horses) were imported into the United States from Spain; there were 21 horses in 1997, 39 in 1998, and 46 in 1999. If the proposed rule is adopted, we estimate that the number of Spanish Pure Breed horses imported into the United States from Spain will most likely increase to an average of about 60 per year, for the next 3 to 5 years, with a maximum of 100 in any given year.
Currently, the demand for Spanish Pure Breed horses in the United States is greater than can be supplied by domestic breeders and the small number of these horses imported from Costa Rica, Mexico, and Spain. In 1997, 225 Spanish Pure Breed foals were registered in the United States, while a total of 50 were imported into the United States from all over the world, despite the high costs of shipping (approximately $5000 per horse for air freight plus insurance against mortality, figured at 1 percent of the horse's declared value), quarantine, and testing. Because domestic Spanish Pure Breed horses are less expensive than imports, the demand for domestic Spanish Pure Breed horses would not decrease as a result of this rule. This rule would help satisfy the growing demand for the horses in the United States, and make it less expensive for U.S. breeders and importers to obtain them from Spain.
We do not expect domestic breeders of Spanish Pure Breed horses to be affected by this rule if it is adopted, since the demand in the United States for Spanish Pure Breed horses is greater than the domestic supply and since domestic Spanish Pure Breed horses will still be less expensive than imported ones.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This proposed rule may increase the number of import permits and import health certificates that will be issued for the importation of thoroughbred horses into the United States.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses).
(Due to rounding, the total annual burden may not equal the product of the annual responses multiplied by the average reporting burden per response.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from: Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250.
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 93 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105, 11, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. In § 93.301, footnote 6 would be amended by adding the words “Servicio de Cria Caballar y Remonta for Spain;” immediately after the word “Department:”.
3. In § 93.301, paragraph (c)(2)(v), the heading to paragraph (d), and the introductory text in paragraph (d)(1) would be revised to read as follows:
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
(v) Spanish Pure Breed horses imported for permanent entry from Spain or thoroughbred horses imported for permanent entry from France, Germany, Ireland, or the United Kingdom if the horses meet the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section;
(d)
4. In § 93.301, in paragraph (d)(1)(ii)(D), the first sentence, the words “For thoroughbred horses” would be removed and the words “For Spanish Pure Breed horses and thoroughbred horses” would be added in their place.
5. In § 93.301, in paragraph (d)(3), the words “Thoroughbred horses” would be removed and the words “Spanish Pure Breed horses and thoroughbred horses” would be added in their place each time they appear.
Federal Housing Finance Board.
Proposed rule.
The Federal Housing Finance Board (Finance Board) is proposing to amend its regulations to address the status of the 1999 and 2000 elections of directors at each Federal Home Loan Bank (Bank), and to provide standards regarding the manner in which the Banks must stagger their boards. The proposed rule also would address the consequences to an incumbent director whose directorship is eliminated or is redesignated as representing Bank members located in a different state before the end of his or her term.
The Finance Board will accept written comments on the rule until May 3, 2000.
Neil R. Crowley, Deputy General Counsel, (202) 408-2990, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
During 1999, each Bank conducted elections in which the members voted to elect approximately one-half of the elected directors of the Bank. The directors-elect were to have assumed office for two-year terms, commencing on January 1, 2000. On November 12, 1999, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, Pub. Law No. 106-102, 133 Stat. 1338, 1453 (Nov. 12, 1999) (GLB Act), became law, amending Section 7(d) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (Bank Act) to establish 3-year terms for all Bank directors. 12 U.S.C. 1427(d), as amended. Because the GLB Act amendments became law upon enactment, they had the effect of extending the two-year terms of all incumbent elected directors by one year.
In previously addressing the effect of the GLB Act on the terms of Bank directorships, the Finance Board expressed its intent to authorize the board of directors of each Bank to decide whether to conduct new elections in 2000 or to adopt the tabulation of votes cast in the 1999 elections for use in the 2000 elections. Finance Board Resolution No. 99-65 (Dec. 14, 1999). The Finance Board indicated that it subsequently would establish the criteria by which the board of each Bank could make that decision, which is one issue addressed in this proposed rulemaking.
The GLB Act also provides that the Finance Board and the board of directors of each Bank shall adjust the term of any director first appointed or elected after enactment of the GLB Act, as necessary to cause the board of each Bank to be staggered into three approximately equal classes. 12 U.S.C. 1427(d), as amended. The GLB Act, however, imposed the staggering requirement without amending existing law, under which the directorships of the Banks are allocated among the states based in part on the amount of Bank stock held by the members located in each state and in part on the number of directorships designated to each state in
Section 7(b) of the Bank Act requires that the Finance Board designate “[e]ach elective directorship * * * as representing the members located in a particular State” and provides that the seat “shall be filled by a person who is an officer or director of a member located in that State.” 12 U.S.C. 1427(b) (1994). Section 7(c) of the Bank Act requires that the designation of directorships “be determined * * * in the approximate ratio of the percentage of the * * * stock [required to be held by] * * * the members located in * * * [a particular] State at the end of the * * * [prior year] to the total required stock * * * of all members of such bank at the end of such year.” 12 U.S.C. 1427(c) (1994). Under the stock-based allocation formula, each state must be allocated at least one directorship, but no state can be allocated more than six directorships. Section 7(c) also includes a “grandfather provision,” however, under which each state may not be allocated fewer directorships than were allocated to it as of December 31, 1960, without regard to the amount of Bank stock currently held by the members in that state. The effect of the grandfather provision is that the members in 20 states are entitled to a minimum number of directorships that ranges from two to six seats per state.
The stock-based designation of the elective directorships is done annually. Because the allocation of directorships depends on the amount of Bank stock held by the members located in each state, the state to which a directorship is designated can change from one year to the next as the relative stockholdings of the members change. Because the constituency of a directorship could “migrate” to another state as a result of a redesignation, the incumbent would no longer be an officer or director of a member located in the designated state, as is required by Section 7(b), and thus would become ineligible to remain in office as a result of the redesignation. If such a redesignation were to occur mid-term, the board of directors of the Bank would be required to fill the resulting vacancy for the remainder of the unexpired term with an eligible successor,
Apart from the possibility that a given directorship may be redesignated to another state, it is possible that an elected directorship could disappear entirely as a result of a shift in the relative amounts of Bank stock held by the members located in different states. For example, in the New York Bank district an allocation of directorships based solely on the relative stockholdings of the members in New York and New Jersey at the end of 1998 would have resulted in the designation of six directorships to New York and two directorships to New Jersey. Because of the grandfather provision, however, the Finance Board cannot allocate fewer than four directorships to the New Jersey members, which results in four directorships being designated to New Jersey and six directorships being designated to New York. The members located in New York also are entitled to four seats under the grandfather provision. Thus, the fifth and sixth directorships that currently are designated to New York would continue to be designated to New York only if the relative amounts of Bank stock held by the members in each state remains unchanged in subsequent years.
If the amount of stock held by the New York members were to decrease sufficiently, the stock-based allocation might result in the New York members being allocated only five directorships, rather than their current six seats, with the New Jersey members being allocated three directorships. Although the grandfather provision again would result in New Jersey being allocated four seats, there no longer would be any basis for the New York members to retain the sixth directorship, which would be eliminated. There are at present nine states in eight of the Banks that are allocated one or more directorships in excess of the number guaranteed by the grandfather provision in which a directorship could be eliminated as a result of such a scenario.
Separately, Section 7(a) of the Bank Act allows the Finance Board to create additional elected directorships—“discretionary directorships”—for any Bank in which the district includes five or more states. 12 U.S.C. 1427(a), as amended. There are five such Bank districts: Boston, Atlanta, Dallas, Des Moines, and Seattle. The Finance Board has established a total of five discretionary seats for four of those Banks, which are designated to the following states: Massachusetts (1), North Carolina (1), Missouri (1), and Washington (2). The designation of those discretionary directorships is done at the same time as the annual designation of directorships, but is not dependent on the amount of Bank stock held by the members in a particular state, or on any other factor. The existence of the additional elected directorships created pursuant to Section 7(a) is purely a matter of discretion for the Finance Board.
In addition, for any Bank district in which the Finance Board has established a discretionary elected directorship pursuant to Section 7(a), the Bank Act authorizes the Finance Board to establish a limited number of discretionary appointed directorships. The Finance Board has established a total of seven discretionary appointed directorships in the four districts that have discretionary elected seats: Boston (2), Atlanta (1), Des Moines (2), and Seattle (2). The authority to create a discretionary appointed directorship exists only if the Finance Board has exercised its discretion under Section 7(a) to create discretionary elected directorships. Thus, if the Finance Board were to eliminate the existing discretionary elected directorships, the discretionary appointed directorships would cease to exist at the same time. If the Finance Board were to eliminate all of the discretionary elected directorships that it has established, each of the four Banks noted above could lose a total of between two and four directorships at once.
Because of the possibility that a Bank might lose a number of directorships under one or more of the above provisions, the boards of the Banks could become un-staggered over time regardless of the GLB Act, particularly if all directorships are lost from the same class. Because the GLB Act authorizes the adjustment only of the terms of the persons first appointed or elected after enactment, once the initial staggering is accomplished it is not clear that either the Banks or the Finance Board would be authorized subsequently to adjust the terms of the remaining directors, even if only to “re-stagger” a board that has become un-staggered due to a loss of directorships. The Finance Board believes that it is
The first issue addressed by this proposed rule concerns the manner in which the members of each Bank are to elect successors to those directors whose terms will expire on December 31, 2000. The proposed rule generally would allow the board of directors of each Bank two alternatives: (i) conduct new elections during the year 2000 for all states for which an elected directorship is to commence on January 1, 2001, or (ii) adopt the results of the balloting from the 1999 elections for any state that qualifies under the requirements of this proposed rule, and conduct new elections only in those states for which the proposed rule would require a new election to be held. In either case, the designation of directorships conducted by the Finance Board in 2000 is to control as to the number of directorships to be allocated to the individual states.
Before a Bank could decide which alternative to adopt, it would have to comply with two requirements in the proposed rule that are procedural in nature. First, the board of directors of each Bank would have to wait until after receiving from the Finance Board the annual designation of directorships among the states within the Bank's district, in accordance with § 915.3(b). Second, the board would have to determine which states are to be assigned reduced terms in order to implement the staggering provisions of the GLB Act and this proposed rule, as described below.
By regulation, the Finance Board must complete the annual designation of directorships and notify the Banks of the results no later than June 1 of each year. Because the allocation of directorships might vary from year to year, the boards of the Banks cannot know whether the designation of directorships occurring in 2000 will be the same as the designation done in 1999. Mergers, acquisitions, and interstate relocations occurring during 1999, as well as the repeal by the GLB Act of Section 10(e) of the Bank Act (which imposes certain capital-based sanctions on non-qualified thrift lender members), could cause the 2000 designation of directorships to allocate a greater or lesser number of seats to particular states than were allocated to those states in 1999. The proposed rule would provide that the designation of directorships to be provided by the Finance Board in 2000 would be controlling with respect to the states to which the directorships are to be assigned. To avoid the possibility that the Banks might have to revisit the issue yet again if they were to ratify the 1999 election results before knowing whether the designations in 2000 had changed, the Finance Board believes that it would be appropriate for the Banks to await the results of the next annual designation of directorships before deciding how to proceed with the 2000 elections.
The second provision would apply only to those Banks whose boards of directors must decide which of two or more states is to be assigned a directorship with a shortened term. In order to create the third class of directorships required by the GLB Act, certain directorships must be assigned shortened terms in connection with the next two elections. Where the board of directors of a Bank is required to choose among several different states in assigning the shortened term, the proposed rule would require that the board make that determination before considering how to proceed with the 2000 election of directors. For example, the Atlanta Bank has one class of four elected directorships with terms commencing on January 1, 2001, in which each directorship represents a different state. It also has a second class of five elected directorships with terms commencing on January 1, 2002, in which four of the directorships represent different states. For each class, the board of the Atlanta Bank would be required to assign to one state a term of less than three years, and the proposed rule would require the board to make that assignment for both classes before determining how to conduct the 2000 election. The Finance Board believes that the better approach would be for this determination to be made at the outset, so that individuals running for the directorship from the affected states will know beforehand that they will not be serving a full three-year term.
As to the election, although the Finance Board intends to vest the decision regarding the method of selecting directors whose terms will commence on January 1, 2001 with the board of directors of each Bank, the proposed rule would require the Banks to conduct new elections in one case. If the designation of directorships conducted in 2000 were to result in a state being allocated a number of directorships that is greater than the number of nominees from that state in the 1999 election, then the Bank would be required to conduct an election in that state. For example, in the 1999 election the Finance Board had designated one directorship to the members in the state of Rhode Island, and there was only one candidate for that directorship. If the 2000 designation of directorships were to result in Rhode Island being allocated two elected directorships, the proposed rule would require the Boston Bank to conduct a new election in 2000 for both of the Rhode Island directorships. The requirement to conduct a new election in Rhode Island would apply on a state-by-state basis; it would not, for example, require that the Bank conduct a new election in any other states. In this example, had there been additional nominees for the Rhode Island directorship in the 1999 election, the board of directors would not be required to conduct a new election, but could declare elected the nominee who had received the next highest number of votes, assuming he or she remained eligible to serve.
If the proposed rule would not require a Bank to conduct a new election for a particular state, the board of directors of the Bank could decide whether to do so. If the board were to determine that the Bank should conduct new elections in 2000, the Bank would be required to conduct elections for every state for which a directorship is to commence on January 1, 2001, in accordance with the 2000 designation of directorships. In most instances, that would mean that the Bank would conduct elections in all states in which it conducted an election in 1999. The language also would require an election to be held for any other states for which an election may be required by the 2000 designation of directorships, and would require that no election be held in any state for which the Bank held an election in 1999 if none were required by the 2000 designations. If the board of directors of a Bank were to require new elections, the Bank would follow the normal procedures for conducting an election, in accordance with Part 915 of the Finance Board regulations, and the 1999 election results would be given no effect.
If a Bank would not be required to conduct new elections and its board of directors did not opt to do so, the proposed rule would allow the board to adopt the votes cast by the members in 1999 as the basis for electing the directors who are to commence their terms on January 1, 2001. The proposed rule would require that the use of the 1999 elections results be consistent with the 2000 designation of directorships and that there be sufficient eligible nominees remaining from the 1999 elections available to fill the designated seats. The board of each Bank would be required to confirm, on a state-by-state basis, that the use of the 1999 election results would be permissible,
If the 2000 designation of directorships among the states proves to be the same as the 1999 designation of directorships, then the proposed rule would allow the board of directors of a Bank to ratify the results of the 1999 election, subject to confirming the eligibility of the directors-elect to serve. If the 2000 designation of directorships were to differ from the 1999 designation, the board of directors still would be able to ratify the results of the 1999 elections, provided that doing so would be consistent with the 2000 designations of directorships. For example, if the number of eligible nominees remaining from the 1999 election for a particular state were to equal or exceed the number of directorships allocated to that state in 2000, the board of directors would be able to adopt the 1999 election results to fill the directorships designated to that state in 2000. In that case, the board would follow the normal elections procedure of declaring elected the nominee who received the greatest number of votes in the 1999 election, as well as each successive nominee until all of the directorships designated to that state have been filled.
If the number of directorships designated to a state in 2000 were to be less than the number of directorships designated to that state in 1999, the proposed rule would allow the board of directors to declare elected only the number of nominees that is required to fill all seats open under the 2000 designation. Thus, if a state in which three directorships were to be filled in the 1999 election were allocated only two directorships in the 2000 designation of directorships, only the two nominees from that state receiving the most votes would be declared elected. Similarly, if the number of directorships designated to a state in 2000 is greater than the number of directorships designated to that state in 1999, the board would declare elected however many nominees from the 1999 election as are required to fill all of the seats allocated to that state under the 2000 designation. Thus, if a state in which two directorships were to be filled in 1999 were allocated three directorships in 2000, and there were other nominees who were not elected in 1999, the board of directors could declare the nominee who received the next highest number of votes elected to the newly created seat.
If the board of directors were to ratify the 1999 election results, the proposed rule would require it to notify the Finance Board, the directors-elect, and each member in the affected state. The notice also would be required to indicate which, if any, terms have been adjusted in order to achieve the staggering required by the GLB Act. This requirement would apply to any directorship with a reduced term. Any such term adjustments must comply with § 915.17 of the proposed rule, described below, which addresses staggering the board of directors.
The GLB Act imposed what appears to be a straightforward requirement that the board of directors of each Bank be staggered into three approximately equal classes,
The Bank Act guarantees that the members in each state are to be allocated a certain minimum number of Bank directorships. For most states, the Bank Act guarantees each state one directorship. Under the grandfather provision, however, 20 states are guaranteed a minimum number of seats that ranges from two to six directorships.
The Bank Act also contemplates that certain states may be allocated directorships beyond the minimum number guaranteed by the Bank Act. The additional directorships result either from the amount of Bank stock held by the members located in a particular state or from the Finance Board's exercise of its authority to create discretionary directorships pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Bank Act. Those seats are not permanently allocated to a particular state and may be redesignated from year to year as representing members in another state; they also could be eliminated entirely. Most of the Banks have such directorships allocated to one or more states within their district, which the proposed rule would define as “non-guaranteed directorships”. The proposed rule also would define the two distinct sub-groups of non-guaranteed directorships as: (1) “discretionary directorships,”
The GLB Act requires that the board of each Bank be staggered into three approximately equal classes. Based on that directive, the proposed rule would first divide the guaranteed directorships at each Bank into three groups that are as nearly equal as possible. For the ten Banks that each have eight guaranteed directorships, that would result in three classes with: two directors, three directors, and three directors, respectively. For the New York Bank, with nine guaranteed directorships, the result would be three classes, each with three directorships; for the San Francisco Bank, with five guaranteed directorships, there would be three classes with one, two, and two directorships, respectively. Accordingly, for eleven of the Banks the maximum number of guaranteed directorships that could be grouped into a single “class”,
The Finance Board considered attempting to establish a staggering methodology that could apply to the entire board of both appointed and elected directors, rather than the proposed method that focuses on the guaranteed directorships. Because of the differences between the two types of directors,
With regard to both the non-guaranteed and the appointed directorships, the terms would be adjusted only as necessary to achieve the appropriately staggered board. For example, eight of the Banks have six appointed directorships each. As the terms for the existing appointed directorships expire over the next two years,
Based initially on the maximum number of guaranteed directorships that may be included in a single class, the Finance Board has created a matrix for each Bank that indicates how the existing classes of elected directorships would be divided in order to create three classes of directorships of approximately equal size. The proposed rule would require the board of directors of each Bank to adjust the terms of directorships that commence on January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2002 in accordance with the matrix for that Bank, as described below. Each matrix groups the directorships based on their current status,
With regard to the directorships commencing on January 1, 2001, each matrix assigns, or requires the board of directors of the Bank to assign, a three-year term to three of the guaranteed directorships (two directorships, in the case of San Francisco), which is the maximum number of guaranteed directorships allowed for any one class of directors. Each of the remaining guaranteed directorships with terms commencing on January 1, 2001 is assigned a two-year term; those directorships would establish, at least in part, the third class of directorships required by the GLB Act. The matrix applies the same methodology to the class of guaranteed directorships with terms commencing on January 1, 2002, except that the shortened terms would be for one year, rather than for two years. The Finance Board believes that assigning the three-year terms to the maximum number of guaranteed directorships possible in any one class is consistent with the GLB Act, which authorizes the adjustment of the term of a directorship only as necessary to achieve the required one-third staggering of the board.
For example, the Pittsburgh Bank has four guaranteed directorships with terms commencing on January 1, 2001. The matrix indicates that three of those seats—the maximum number of guaranteed directorships in any one class—are to have the full three-year term and the one remaining directorship is to have a two-year term. The Pittsburgh Bank also has four other guaranteed directorship with terms commencing on January 1, 2002. Again, the matrix indicates that three of those seats—the maximum number of guaranteed directorships per class—receive a full three-year term, with the fourth directorship receiving a one year term. As a result, the Bank would achieve the required “2-3-3” staggering of its guaranteed directorships by adjusting the terms of only two of the eight guaranteed directorships. Thus, the Bank would have one class of two directorships with terms expiring on December 31, 2002, one class of three directorships with terms expiring on December 31, 2003, and one class of three directorships with terms expiring on December 31, 2004. Though not indicated on the matrix, the Finance Board would adjust the terms of the appointed directorships for the Pittsburgh Bank as necessary to create three classes of two directors each, which would result in the entire board being grouped into classes of “4-5-5”, which is the closest to the one-third staggering that can be achieved with a fourteen director board.
The matrix for the Pittsburgh Bank also illustrates the different methods by which a directorship is to be assigned a shortened term, one of which is based on the votes cast by the members and the other of which is based on the number of states with directorships at issue. In the case of the four directorships commencing on January 1, 2001, each directorship is designated as representing the members located in
The methodology for assigning the one reduced term among the directorships with terms commencing on January 1, 2002, however, would differ somewhat from that used for the prior class. In this case, three of the four guaranteed directorships at issue would be from different states: West Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania (which has two guaranteed directorships in this class). Here, again, no more than three of the guaranteed directorships may be assigned a full three-year term, and one must receive a reduced term, which in this case would be for one year. Where the number of states is the same as the number of full-term directorships available, as is the case here, the matrix assigns one full term to each state. The matrices reflect a determination by the Finance Board that to the extent possible each state should be treated equally in the assignment of three-year terms. For that reason, the matrix does not allow both Pennsylvania directorships to receive a full term, as that could not occur unless one of the remaining states—Delaware or West Virginia—were to receive the one-year term. With regard to the two Pennsylvania directorships, the board of directors of the Bank would be required to assign the one-year term to the director-elect from Pennsylvania who receives the second highest number of votes, as described in the preceding paragraph.
For certain other Banks, the methods used for the Pittsburgh Bank would not work because the number of states with guaranteed directorships would be greater than the number of three-year terms that are available. In that case, the proposed rule would require the board of directors of the Bank to assign the full three-year terms and the reduced terms among the guaranteed directorships from the different states;
For example, the Atlanta Bank has four guaranteed directorships, representing the members in the District of Columbia, Alabama, Virginia, and South Carolina, with terms commencing on January 1, 2001. Only three of those seats may receive a full three-year term; the remaining directorship must receive a two-year term in order to comply with the staggering requirement. In this case, the matrix indicates that the board of the Atlanta Bank must decide which of those four directorships is to be assigned a two-year term. The proposed rule provides that the manner in which the board of directors assigns the reduced term to a particular state is entirely within its discretion, so long as the method is reasonable and is used consistently. Thus, the rule would allow the board to adopt some objective basis for making the determination or to assign the terms randomly, such as through a lottery among the affected states.
The Finance Board recognizes that certain directors may have an interest in which state's directorship is to be assigned a reduced term, but has not proposed to require that the decision be made only by the disinterested directors. In any case, the individuals who may be at risk of having their next term (or the term of their successors) reduced will likely be a minority not only of the elected directors but of the whole board as well. Moreover, all of the appointed directors, who are disinterested in these matters, must be involved in these determinations. The Finance Board believes that those factors, along with the fiduciary duties of all directors to act in the best interests of the Bank, are sufficient safeguards for the process. Nonetheless, the Finance Board requests comment on whether it would be advisable to require such determinations be made only by the disinterested directors, or to include a “safe harbor” proviso in the final rule that would allow an interested director,
For some Banks neither of the above scenarios will apply because the guaranteed directorships will consist in part of directorships representing different states and in part of multiple directorships from the same state;
With regard to the non-guaranteed directorships, the proposed rule also would provide that once a directorship is designated as non-guaranteed it
With regard to the non-guaranteed directorships, the matrices have assigned terms to those directorships in a manner that is consistent with the one-third staggering requirement of the GLB Act, as noted previously. For example, the two non-guaranteed directorships at the Boston Bank have been assigned two- and one-year terms, respectively, which both places them into the same class of directors and results in a “4-3-3” class structure, which is consistent with the GLB Act. In the event that one or both of those directorships were to be eliminated, the elected directorships would be grouped either into a “3-3-3” class structure or the “2-3-3” structure of the guaranteed directorships, thus maintaining the one-third staggering of the board.
The proposed rule also would amend provisions regarding the eligibility of directors to remain in office if the directorship to which they have been elected is redesignated as representing members in another state or is eliminated. As noted above, it is possible that shifting stock ownership among the members in different states could cause the designation of a directorship to change during the course of an incumbent's term of office, or for the seat to disappear. The proposed rule would provide that an elected director becomes ineligible to remain in office if the directorship is designated to another state during that director's term of office or if the directorship is eliminated. The loss of eligibility would take effect on December 31 of the year in which the redesignation occurs.
In the case of a redesignation to another state, the directorship would become vacant and the board of directors of the Bank would fill the vacant directorship for the remainder of the unexpired term in accordance with Section 7(f) of the Bank Act with an officer or director of a member located in the newly-designated state. The proposed rule would make a similar change to the provisions regarding appointed directors, providing that if an appointed directorship that has been created in conjunction with the creation of additional elected directorships in accordance with Section 7(a) of the Bank Act the term of office of the appointed director would terminate on December 31 of the year in which the directorship is terminated.
The proposed rule also includes a number of conforming amendments to other provisions of the regulations to remove references that no longer are accurate in light of the GLB Act and to be consistent with the other elements of the proposed rule.
The proposed rule would apply only to the Finance Board and to the Federal Home Loan Banks, which do not come within the meaning of small entities as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
The proposed rule does not contain any collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. See 44 U.S.C. 3501
Banks, banking, Conflict of interests, Elections, Ethical conduct, Federal home loan banks, Financial disclosure, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the Federal Housing Finance Board hereby amends title 12, chapter IX, part 915 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 915 continues to read as follows:
12 U.S.C. 1422a(a)(3), 1422b(a), 1426, 1427, and 1432.
2. Amend § 915.1 by revising the second paragraph of the definition of “bona fide resident of a Bank district” and by adding in alphabetical order definitions of “discretionary directorship”, “guaranteed directorship”, “non-guaranteed directorship”, and “stock directorship” to read as follows:
(2) If serving as an elective director, is an officer or director of a member located in a voting state within the Bank district; or
3. Amend § 915.3 by:
a. Revising the fourth sentence of paragraph (a);
b. Adding a new sentence at the end of paragraph (b)(5);
c. Revising the second sentence in paragraph (c); and
d. Removing paragraph (e) to read as follows:
(a) * * * The term of office of each elective director shall be three years, except as adjusted pursuant to Section 7(d) of the Act and § 915.17 of this chapter to achieve a staggered board, and shall commence on January 1 of the calendar year immediately following the year in which the election is held. * * *
(b) * * *
(5) * * * If, as part of the annual designation of directorships, the Finance Board eliminates or redesignates to another state an existing discretionary directorship, the term of the directors appointed or elected to the eliminated or redesignated directorship shall terminate on the immediately following December 31.
(c) * * * If the annual designation of elective directorships results in an existing directorship being redesignated
4. Amend § 915.7, by adding a new paragraph (d), to read as follows:
(d)
(2) In the case of a redesignation to another state, the directorship shall become vacant on December 31 of the year in which the directorship is redesignated and the resulting vacancy shall be filled by the board of directors of the Bank for the remainder of the unexpired term with a person who is an officer or director of a member located in the newly designated state, pursuant to Section 7(f) of the Bank Act.
5. Amend § 915.10, by revising paragraph (b), to read as follows:
(b)
6. Add new § 915.16 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(1) To conduct new elections for every state in the district for which an elected directorship is to commence on January 1, 2001, or
(2) To conduct new elections only in those states for which this section requires a new election to be held and, for all other states within the district, to use the results of the 1999 elections, for the purpose of electing directors whose terms are to commence on January 1, 2001.
(c)
(d)
(e)
7. Add new § 915.17 to read as follows:
(a)
(2) The board of directors of each Bank shall adjust the terms of any directorships that are to commence on January 1, 2001 or January 1, 2002, in accordance with this section and the matrix for that Bank set forth in the Appendix to this part.
(3) Where the matrix for a Bank indicates that two or more guaranteed directorships are to be filled by persons elected from different states in the same year, and which are to have different terms, the board of directors of the Bank shall assign the shorter terms among the states on any reasonable basis, as determined by Bank's board, provided that:
(i) It uses the same methodology in making all such adjustments; and
(ii) It assigns the terms to the respective states before determining whether to adopt the 1999 election results, in accordance with § 915.16(b).
(b)
(2) In the elections occurring in 2000 and 2001, if the matrix for any Bank indicates that both guaranteed and non-guaranteed directorships are to be filled from the same state in the same year, the board of directors shall assign directorships, among the eligible nominees who have received a sufficient number of votes to be elected, such that the nominees receiving the greatest number of votes are assigned the guaranteed directorships and those nominees receiving the fewest votes are assigned the non-guaranteed directorships.
(c)
8. Add a new appendix to part 915 to read as follows:
By the Board of Directors of the Federal Housing Finance Board.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness directive that would supersede two existing airworthiness directives (AD's), applicable to General Electric Company (GE) CT58 series turboshaft engines. The current AD's revised the counting method for hours in repetitive heavy-lift (RHL) service and reduced the life limit for rotating components. Life-limited rotating components must be removed from service in accordance with the multiplying factors and retirement lives contained in General Electric Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) CT58 A72-162 (CEB-258), dated July 9, 1979. This proposal would require applying an additional multiplying factor to life-limited rotating parts when the engine is used in heavy lifting operations. This proposal is prompted by a review of the current AD's, 69-23-02 and 79-23-04, and a determination that the requirements of those AD's may conflict. This AD would prevent RHL and utility service multiplier factors from being applied incorrectly. The actions specified in the proposed AD are intended to prevent low-cycle fatigue failure of rotating parts that could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the helicopter.
Comments must be received by June 2, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NE-13-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299. Comments may also be sent via the Internet using the following address: “9-ane-adcomment@faa.gov”. Comments sent via the Internet must contain the docket number in the subject line. Comments may be inspected at this location between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from GE Aircraft Engines, General Electric Company, 1000 Western Avenue, Lynn, MA 01910. This information may be examined at the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
Kevin Donovan, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (781) 238-7743, fax (781) 238-7199.
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, specified above, will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice 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 comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket Number 99-NE-13-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request to the FAA, New England Region, Office of the Regional Counsel, Attention: Rules Docket No. 99-NE-13-AD, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299.
On November 4, 1969, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued airworthiness directive (AD) 69-23-02, Amendment 39-870 (34FR 18296, November 15, 1969), to reduce the life limits for stage 2 compressor rotor disk shafts and to remove from service stage 2 compressor rotor disk shafts before reaching those reduced life limits. That action was prompted by analyses that indicated the need for a reduced life-limit for certain life-limited parts when the engine is used in repetitive heavy lift (RHL) operations. That condition, if not corrected, could result in low-cycle fatigue failure of rotating parts that could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the helicopter.
On December 13, 1979, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued airworthiness directive (AD) 79-23-04, Amendment 39-3610 (44 FR 72103, December 13, 1979), to require that the life-limits of certain life-limited rotating parts be revised based on multiplying factors specified in GEAE alert service bulletin (ASB) (CT58) 72-162 CEB 258, dated July 9, 1979, for RHL operations. That action was prompted by the need for lower life limits for life-limited rotating parts that are installed on engines used for RHL operations. That condition, if not corrected, could result in low-cycle fatigue failure of rotating parts that could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the helicopter.
Since the issuance of those AD's, the FAA has determined that some operators may be applying the multiplying factors for RHL operations incorrectly because the requirements of AD 79-23-04 apparently conflict with the requirements of AD 69-23-02. The requirements contained in AD 79-23-04 should have superseded the hourly life limits contained in AD 69-23-02 and should have specified the use of GEAE ASB (CT58) 72-162 CEB 258 for all CT58 series engines.
The FAA has reviewed and approved the technical contents of GEAE ASB (CT58) 72-162 CEB 258, revision 9, dated October 6, 1998, that describes procedures for calculating revised cyclic life limits from the hourly life limits based on multiplying factors when the engine is used in RHL and utility service operation.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other GEAE CT58 series turboshaft engines of the same type design, this AD supersedes AD 69-23-02 and AD 79-23-04 to require calculation of life cycles for life-limited rotating parts based on multipliers for RHL and utility service operation, and replacement of any part that exceeds the revised limits. The actions are required to be accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described previously.
There are approximately 380 engines of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 130
This proposed rule does not have federalism implications, as defined in Executive Order (EO) No. 13132, because it 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. Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted with state authorities prior to publication of this proposed rule.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under EO No. 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 removing Amendment 39-1086 (34 FR 18296, October 15, 1970) and Amendment 39-3610 (44 FR 72103, December 13, 1979), and by adding a new airworthiness directive,
This airworthiness directive (AD) applies to each engine identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For engines that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of thisAD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent low-cycle fatigue failure of rotating parts that could result in uncontained engine failure and damage to the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 50 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD, calculate the new cycles-since-new (CSN) for life-limited rotating parts in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, 2.A. through 2.G. of GEAE service bulletin (CT58)72-162 CEB-258, revision 9, dated October 6, 1998.
(b) Remove any part from service that exceeds the new caculated life limit and replace it with a serviceable part.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Engine Certification Office (ECO). Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, ECO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this airworthiness directive, if any, may be obtained from the ECO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with § § 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the helicopter to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
This document provides an additional 30 days for interested members of the public to submit comments on the proposal to restructure and clarify the country of origin marking rules set forth in Part 134 of the Customs Regulations. The proposal was published in the
Comments on the proposal must be received on or before April 26, 2000.
Comments may be submitted to and inspected at the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20229. All comments submitted will be available for public inspection in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), § 1.4, Treasury Department Regulations (31 CFR 1.4), and § 103.11(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 103.11(b)) between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on normal business days at the Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington, D.C.
Questions with regard to the following subject areas may be directed to the following staff attorneys of the Special Classification and Marking Branch, (202) 927-2310: Definitions of “country,” “country of origin” and “ultimate purchaser”—Kristen VerSteeg; Marking of containers—Monika Brenner; and Marking and certification requirements for processed and repackaged articles—Burton Schlissel.
Customs published a document in the
The document invited the public to comment on the proposal. Comments on the proposed rule were requested on or before March 27, 2000.
Customs has received a request to extend the comment period for an additional 30 days from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers to enable the organization to coordinate its comment with its member companies.
Customs has determined to grant the request for the extension. Accordingly, the period of time for the submission of comments is being extended 30 days. Comments are now due on or before April 26, 2000.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule; withdrawal in part.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that it is withdrawing certain provisions of a proposed rule that published in the
The proposed rule that published on June 4, 1997 (62 FR 30678) is withdrawn in part for § 111.100(a), (b), (c), (e), and (f) as of April 3, 2000.
Copies of the proposed rule and related comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Marquita B. Steadman, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-007), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-6733.
In the
The agency proposed these actions in response to reports of serious illnesses and injuries, including a number of deaths, associated with the use of dietary supplement products containing ephedrine alkaloids and the agency's investigations and assessment of these illnesses and injuries. This action was also supported by many of the recommendations made during the October 1995 meeting of an ad hoc Working Group of the FDA Advisory Committee (Working Group) and the August 1996 meeting of the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Working Group concerning the potential public health problems associated with the use of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids and the recommended steps FDA should take to address the serious health concerns associated with their use (see Refs. 25 and 27 of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal (Docket No. 95N-0304)).
The comment period for the June 4, 1997 (62 FR 30678), proposed rule closed on August 18, 1997. In a notice in the
The agency received approximately 350 letters regarding the use of ephedrine alkaloid-containing dietary supplements prior to publication of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal. These comments have been considered by the agency along with those commenting in response to the proposal. The agency received approximately 14,775 comments on the ephedrine alkaloids proposal. Individual consumers who use ephedrine alkaloid-containing dietary supplements and independent distributors of these products submitted most of the comments. Other comments were received from persons who had, or who knew persons who had, suffered adverse events or who were reporting adverse events associated with the use of an ephedrine alkaloid-containing dietary supplement. The remaining comments included those submitted by medical professionals, scientists, a scientific association, State and local health departments, medical associations, government agencies, dietary supplement manufacturers, Chinese medicine practitioners and associations, dietary supplement industry trade associations, public health associations, and consumer groups.
The House Committee on Science requested that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) examine the scientific bases for the ephedrine alkaloids proposal and the agency's adherence to the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements for Federal rulemaking. On August 4, 1999, GAO released its report entitled “Dietary Supplements: Uncertainties in Analyses Underlying FDA's Proposed Rule on Ephedrine Alkaloids.” A copy of this
Generally, GAO concluded that FDA was justified in determining that the number of adverse event reports relating to dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids warranted the agency's attention and consideration of steps to address safety issues. However, GAO expressed concerns about the use of the reported adverse events in supporting the proposed dosing level and duration of use limit, and concluded that the agency needed additional evidence to support these restrictions.
GAO also concluded that FDA's economic analysis contained the basic elements expected in a Federal agency's cost-benefit analysis, and the ephedrine alkaloids proposal complied with regulatory flexibility analysis requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. GAO noted, however, that FDA's cost-benefit analysis was not always transparent regarding why certain key assumptions were made, the degree of uncertainty involved in those assumptions, or the effect that alternative assumptions would have had on the agency's estimates of the costs and benefits of the proposed action.
GAO recommended that FDA “provide stronger evidence on the relationship between the intake of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids and the occurrence of adverse reactions that support the proposed dosing level and duration of use limits.” In addition, GAO recommended that FDA improve the transparency of its cost-benefit analysis in its final rulemaking.
In light of GAO's conclusions, comments from others on the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, and having further considered issues related to the proposed dietary ingredient level and the duration of use limit, FDA believes that these aspects of its proposed approach to regulating these products should be reassessed. Whether there are appropriate alternative approaches to these aspects of the proposal for regulating dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids will require evaluation of additional information not available to the agency when it issued the proposal. Accordingly, FDA is withdrawing the provisions of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal relating to the dietary ingredient level and duration of use limit for these products. This action will allow FDA to reconsider, with public input, whether any dietary ingredient level or duration of use limit for these products is appropriate or whether alternative measures should be considered. The withdrawn provisions are described briefly below.
As stated above, the agency tentatively concluded in the ephedrine alkaloids proposal that a dietary supplement is adulterated if it contains 8 mg) or more of ephedrine alkaloids per serving (§ 111.100(a)(1)), or if the labeling suggests or recommends conditions of use that would result in an intake of 8 mg or more within a 6-hour period or a total daily intake of 24 mg or more of ephedrine alkaloids (§ 111.100(b)). Having reconsidered the basis for these limits, including comments on that basis by GAO and others to the proposal, FDA believes that it should consider additional information not available to the agency when it issued the ephedrine alkaloids proposal to determine whether a dietary ingredient limit, or some alternative approach, would be appropriate to regulate these dietary ingredients. Therefore, FDA is withdrawing these provisions of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal.
FDA continues to be concerned about the potential risk for individuals who are particularly sensitive to the effects of ephedrine alkaloids, or whose sensitivity or likelihood for adverse effects may be increased through chronic use of these products or other means (e.g., physical exercise). FDA expressed this concern in the proposal, and noted that many members of the FAC agreed.
In the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, FDA stated that it would use a high performance liquid chromatography method as specified in Laboratory Information Bulletin No. 4053 to determine the level of ephedrine alkaloids in a dietary supplement. Without a requirement that would establish an unacceptable dietary ingredient level for dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, this provision, alone, is no longer necessary. Accordingly, the agency has determined that this provision should also be withdrawn.
FDA proposed in § 111.100(c) to require that the label of dietary supplements that contain ephedrine alkaloids state “Do not use this product for more than 7 days.” FDA intended to require this provision in conjunction with the 8 mg per serving dietary ingredient limit proposed in § 111.100(a)(1). FDA noted in the ephedrine alkaloids proposal that concern about serious adverse events with the long-term use of ephedrine alkaloids led several members of the Working Group (see Ref. 27 of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal) and of the FAC (see Ref. 25 of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal (Docket No. 95N-0304)) to recommend that, in conjunction with a per serving dietary ingredient limit, FDA require a statement on the label of ephedrine alkaloid-containing dietary supplements to warn consumers not to use the product for a period longer than 7 days. FDA also cited evidence from the scientific literature about the adverse effects of long-term use of ephedrine alkaloids (62 FR 30678 at 30695).
FDA remains concerned with the long-term use of such products and the potential adverse effects such use has in combination with the use of other ingredients that have a stimulant effect. However, having reconsidered the basis for the proposed duration of use limit, including the comments on that basis by GAO and others to the proposal, FDA believes that it should consider additional information not available to the agency when it issued the ephedrine alkaloids proposal to determine whether any duration of use limit, or some alternative approach, is appropriate to regulate these products. In addition, the agency is also withdrawing the proposed 8-mg dietary ingredient limit. Therefore, the agency has determined that the proposed labeling requirement concerning duration of use should also be withdrawn.
FDA stated in the proposal that restrictions on claims are necessary to maintain the integrity of the limit on the level of ephedrine alkaloids in dietary supplements that it proposed and of the other proposed restrictions on the conditions of use of these dietary supplements. For example, because safe and significant weight loss and body building cannot be achieved in a 7-day period, FDA tentatively concluded that claims that promote these uses promote long-term use of ephedrine alkaloid-containing dietary supplements, which have been associated with serious adverse events. For this reason, FDA tentatively concluded that any claims that promote long-term use of ephedrine
Similarly, many claims found on the labels of, or in the labeling for, ephedrine alkaloid-containing dietary supplements, including increased energy, increased mental concentration, and enhanced well-being, encourage the consumer to take more of the product than is indicated on the label to achieve more of the purported effect. Consequently, FDA tentatively concluded that claims that promote excessive consumption are inconsistent with the dietary ingredient limit for these products. Accordingly, FDA proposed in § 111.100(f)(1) that the label or labeling for dietary supplements that contain ephedrine alkaloids that purport to be or are represented, either expressly or implicitly, to be used for short-term effects, such as increased energy, increased mental concentration, or enhanced well-being, must state “Taking more than the recommended serving may cause heart attack, stroke, seizure or death.” FDA proposed in § 111.100(f)(2) certain requirements on the size, type, and placement of this statement on the label. Because FDA is withdrawing the proposed dietary ingredient limit and duration of use limit, FDA has determined that the proposed provisions in § 11.100(e) and (f) should also be withdrawn. FDA believes that it should consider additional information not available to the agency when it issued the ephedrine alkaloids proposal before finally determining whether such provisions with respect to claims, or some alternative approach, is appropriate to regulate these products. Nonetheless, FDA remains concerned that adverse effects are associated with long-term consumption of such products and with consumption of such products in excess of labeled serving sizes.
Despite this action to withdraw the proposed dietary ingredient level and duration of use limit, and related provisions of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, there remain provisions that the agency is not withdrawing in this notice. These provisions concern FDA's proposed prohibition on the use of ingredients with stimulant effects with dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids (§ 111.100(d)) and the proposed warning statement (§ 111.100(g)).
FDA proposed in § 111.100(d) to require that no ingredient, or ingredient that contains a substance, that has a known stimulant effect (e.g, sources of caffeine, yohimbine) may be included in a dietary supplement that contains ephedrine alkaloids. FDA proposed this provision in response to the many adverse events that had been reported to the agency. These adverse events involved the use of dietary supplements that contain ephedrine alkaloids in combination with other ingredients, some with known physiological or pharmacological effects, including kola nut, yohimbe, willow bark, senna, and Uva ursi (see Ref. 164 of the proposed rule (Docket No. 95N-0304)). These adverse events suggested that the other ingredients may act in combination with the ephedrine alkaloids to produce more frequent, more severe, or potentially different patterns of adverse effects than those noted with the use of ephedrine alkaloids alone.
In the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, FDA also tentatively concluded that a warning statement on the labels of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids is necessary, in conjunction with dietary ingredient limitations and other requirements proposed in that document, to protect the public health. The warning statements proposed in § 111.100(g) contained several elements, including cautions that consumers not use the product if they have certain diseases or health conditions or are using certain drugs, and to stop the use of the product if they develop certain signs or symptoms. As noted in the preamble to the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, persons having certain diseases or taking specific medications known to interact with ephedrine alkaloids are at risk of suffering adverse events with the use of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. Generally, use of ephedrine alkaloids at any intake level by these persons is contraindicated. For these persons a warning label statement can be a useful means of alerting them to potential consequences that can result from the use of the product. In addition, many consumers who are unaware that they are sensitive to the effect of ephedrine alkaloids may not recognize the significance of early warning signs and symptoms as potential indicators of more serious side effects (e.g., dizziness or severe headache may be early symptoms of hypertension or stroke). Under these circumstances, a warning statement could provide information on what actions the consumer should take if certain symptoms occur (62 FR 30678 at 30700).
The agency has not at this time concluded that it will finalize the provisions in § 111.100(d) and (g). Rather, the agency intends to consider whether to finalize these provisions, or take additional or alternative regulatory action, after it receives public input on the significance of new information collected by the agency about the safety of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids.
Although FDA is withdrawing certain provisions of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, FDA continues to have a public health concern with respect to the use of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. The agency will continue to monitor and provide appropriate followup on adverse events associated with the use of these products. In a notice of availability published elsewhere in this issue of the
Withdrawal of certain provisions of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal does not limit the agency's discretion to initiate enforcement actions with respect to ephedrine alkaloids containing dietary supplements. For example, circumstances may warrant enforcement action against a dietary supplement containing ephedrine alkaloids if an evaluation of the relevant facts show a health hazard or that the product is otherwise adulterated or misbranded.
FDA maintains its street drug alternative policy, as articulated in the preamble to the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, which states that because alternatives to illicit street drugs are not intended to supplement the diet, products that purport to be or that are represented, either expressly or implicitly, for use as alternatives to street drugs are not dietary supplements within the meaning of section 201(ff) of
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the proposed rule published on June 4, 1997 (62 FR 30678), is withdrawn in part for § 111.100(a), (b), (c), (e), and (f).
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Department of the Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.
This document reopens the comment period for Notice No. 888, a notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referenced to temporary regulations, published in the
Written comments must be received on or before May 3, 2000.
Send written comments to: Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221, Attention: Notice Number 888.
Clifford A. Mullen by writing to Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20226, by phone at 202-927-8210, or by e-mail at
On December 22, 1999, ATF published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) cross-referenced to temporary regulations in the
The comment period for Notice No. 888 was scheduled to close on February 22, 2000. Prior to the close of the comment period, ATF received a request from a manufacturer of tobacco products, RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company to extend the comment period. RJ Reynolds stated that it needed additional time to coordinate the comments of several departments within the company which have an interest in the importation of tobacco products.
In consideration of the above, ATF finds that a reopening of the comment period is warranted. Thus, the comment period is being reopened for an additional 30 days until May 3, 2000. The Bureau believes that a comment period totaling 90 days is a sufficient amount of time for all interested parties to respond.
Copies of this notice, Notice No. 888, and the written comments will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at: ATF Public Reading Room, Room 6480, 650 Massachussetts Avenue, NW, Washington DC.
Administrative practices and procedures, Authority delegations, Cigarette papers and tubes, Cigars and cigarettes, Claims, Customs duties and inspections, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Penalties, Reporting and record keeping requirements, Seizures and forfeitures, Surety bonds, U.S. Possessions, Warehouses.
This notice is issued under the authority in 26 U.S.C. 7805.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Proposed rule.
We propose to amend our educational assistance and educational benefit regulations concerning flight-training courses for which the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pays for eligible students. In this regard, we propose to require that flight schools offering such flight-training courses maintain records regarding students to whom VA makes payments. The proposed rule is intended to provide information to VA for determining compliance with requirements for VA payments to students for pursuing flight-training courses. Also, when VA, rather than a separate State entity, is the approving agency, the proposed rule is intended to provide information to VA for determining whether to approve a flight-training course.
Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2000.
Mail or hand-deliver written comments to: Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420; or fax comments to (202) 273-9289; or e-mail comments to “OGCRegulations@mail.va.gov”. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AJ23.” All comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulations Management, Room 1158, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays).
William G. Susling, Jr., Education
VA payments are provided to eligible individuals for pursuit of approved flight-training courses under the Montgomery GI Bill—Active Duty, Montgomery GI Bill—Selective Reserve, and Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance programs.
Educational institutions are required to make available for Government inspection records and accounts, pertaining to veterans who received VA educational assistance, which VA determines necessary to ascertain institutional compliance with requirements for assistance (38 U.S.C. 3676 and 3690(c)). We propose to add 38 CFR 21.4263(h)(3), which would require that flight schools offering approved flight-training courses maintain records as set out in the text portion of this document: i.e., various certificates, flight records, logs, invoices, account ledgers, instructor records, tuition records, and course and training records. It appears that these records regarding students receiving VA flight-training benefits are necessary to assist VA in determining that courses and students meet all requirements for payment of such benefits.
In addition, proposed § 21.4263(h)(3) requires flight schools to maintain those records under 38 U.S.C. 3676(b) and 3676(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(13) when VA, rather than a separate State approving agency, is the approving authority for flight-training courses. Maintaining the records specified in the proposed rule appears necessary to assist VA, when it is the approving authority, in determining whether it should approve a course.
This document also makes technical changes for purposes of clarification.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), a collection of information is set forth in the proposed 38 CFR 21.4263(h)(3). Accordingly, under section 3507(d) of the Act, VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review of the proposed collection of information.
OMB assigns control numbers to collections of information it approves. VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments on the proposed collection of information should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies mailed or hand-delivered to the Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AJ23.”
The Department considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—
Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs hereby certifies that the adoption of this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. Adoption of this proposed rule would have a minuscule monetary effect, if any, on affected entities. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule, therefore, is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers for programs affected by this proposed rule are 64.120 and 64.124. This proposed rule would also affect the Montgomery GI Bill—Selected Reserve program which has no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number.
Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights, Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflict of interests, Defense Department, Education, Employment, Grant programs-education, Grant programs-veterans, Health care, Loan programs-education, Loan programs-veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 21 (subparts D and L) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 21, subpart D continues to read as follows:
10 U.S.C. 2141 note, ch. 1606; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 21.4152, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is amended by removing “on VA.” and adding, in its place, “on VA:”; and paragraph (b)(4) is amended by removing “ § 21.4209.” and adding, in its place, §§ 21.4209 and 21.4263.”
3. In § 21.4263, paragraph (h)(3) is added to read as follows: § 21.4263 Approval of flight training courses.
(h)
(3) A flight school must keep at a minimum the following records for each eligible veteran, servicemember, or reservist pursuing flight training:
(i) A copy of his or her private pilot certificate;
(ii) Evidence of completion of any prior training which may be a prerequisite for the course;
(iii) A copy of the medical certificate required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section for the courses being pursued and copies of all medical certificates (expired or otherwise) needed to support all periods of prior instruction received at the current school;
(iv) A daily flight log or copy thereof;
(v) A permanent ground school record;
(vi) A progress log;
(vii) An invoice of flight charges for individual flights or flight lessons for training conducted on a flight simulator or advanced flight training device;
(viii) Daily flight sheets identifying records upon which the 85-15 percent ratio may be computed;
(ix) A continuous meter record for each aircraft;
(x) An invoice or flight tickets signed by the student and instructor showing hour meter reading, type of aircraft, and aircraft identification number;
(xi) An accounts receivable ledger;
(xii) Individual instructor records;
(xiii) Engine log books;
(xiv) A record for each student above the private pilot level stating the name of the course in which the student is currently enrolled and indicating whether the student is enrolled under 14 CFR part 61, part 63, part 141, or part 142;
(xv) Records of tuition and accounts which are evidence of tuition charged and received from all students; and
(xvi) If training is provided under 14 CFR part 141, the records required by that part, or if training is provided under 14 CFR part 142, the records required by that part.
4. The authority citation for part 21, subpart L continues to read as follows:
10 U.S.C. ch. 1606; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, ch. 36, unless otherwise noted.
5. Section 21.7807 is amended by removing § 21.4209 and adding, in its place, §§ 21.4209 and 21.4263.
Research, Education and Economics, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the USDA Advisory Committee on Small Farms.
Enrique Nelson Escobar, Executive Director of the USDA Advisory Committee on Small Farms, Research, Education and Economics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Mail Stop 2027, Room 1412, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. 20250-3810. Telephone: 202-720-9354, Fax: 202-720-0443, or e-mail: adrain@reeusda.gov.
The USDA Advisory Committee on Small Farms, consisting of 19 members, representing small farms, ranches, and woodlot owners and the diverse groups USDA programs serve, has scheduled a meeting for April 18-20, 2000. The Committee meeting will be held 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 18, on Wednesday, April 20, 8:00 a.m.-5 p.m., and on Thursday, April 20, 8 a.m.-12 p.m. During this time the Advisory Committee will: (1) Hear reports from working sub-committees, (2) hear comments from the general public, (3) finalize plans for achieving the committee objectives, and (4) determine how and when the Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice; availability of the Davis Land Exchange Environmental Assessment.
An Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Davis Land Exchange on the Aspen Ranger District of the White River National Forest is available for public review and comment.
Comments must be postmarked by May 3, 2000.
Send written comments to Davis Land Exchange Project Manager, White River National Forest, Aspen Ranger District, 806 West Hallam Street, Aspen, CO 81611. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying at the Aspen Ranger District office.
Requests for copies of the Environmental Assessment and questions about this project should be addressed to Allan Grimshaw, Aspen Ranger District, 806 West Hallam Street, Aspen CO, 81611, 970-925-3445.
The United States has entered into a settlement agreement which proposes the use of a land exchange to settle a title claim against the United States. The exchange would result in conveyance of 7.32 acres of Federal land for approximately 61 acres of non-Federal land. This environmental assessment has been prepared to evaluate the effects of such a land exchange. It also evaluates the effects of one alternative: Requesting the court release the United States from the settlement agreement and allow the litigation to continue. Comments will be considered in development of a decision.
Forest Service, USDA.
Supplement of a notice of intent to revise expected public comment availability, clarify the forest plans amended, and identify changes in the scope of the amendment.
This
In addition to comprehensive amendment of the Toiyabe Land and Resource Management plan for the Carson Ranger District, the EIS will address amendment of the Stanislaus Land and Resource Management Plan for management of that portion of the Carson Iceberg Wilderness Area in the Stanislaus National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Land and Resource Management Plan for management of that portion of the Mount Rose Wilderness Area in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit.
Based on public input and further analysis, the scope of the amendment for the Toiyabe Plan has been modified from that published in the original notice. Topics to be included are now: (1) Improving public access, (2) enhancing recreation opportunities and reducing user conflicts, (3) protecting scenery along scenic corridors and as a backdrop the areas communities, (4) preserving wilderness character, (5) protecting watersheds, (6) enhancing ecosystem integrity and biodiversity, (7) improving the landownership pattern, (8) protecting and interpreting heritage resources, (9) managing American Indian religious and cultural uses in a government-to-government relationship with tribes, (10) providing for harvest of forest products to achieve ecosystem integrity goals, (11) managing livestock grazing to ensure long-term ecological sustainability, (12) managing mining to protect scenic and other resources, and (13) providing for development of special use facilities compatible with scenic integrity and other resource objectives.
David Loomis, Sierra Ecosystem Planner, 1536 South Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701, phone 775 884-8132.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to provide timber for the Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Program. The Record of Decision will disclose how the Forest Service has selected harvest units, designed roads, and planned for future stand management activities. The proposed action is to harvest approximately 20 MMBF of timber on Tuxekan Island. A range of alternatives responsive to significant issues will be developed and include a no-action alternative. The proposed project is located on Tuxekan Island west of Prince of Wales Island in townships 69 and 70 east (T69E, T70E) and ranges 78 and 79 south (R78S, R79S), Copper River Meridian, on the Thorne Bay Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest.
Comments concerning the scope of this project should be received by May 31, 2000.
Please send written comments to District Ranger; Thorne Bay Ranger District; Tongass National Forest; Attn: Tuxekan Island Timber Sale EIS; P.O. Box 19001; Thorne Bay, AK 99919.
Questions about the proposal and EIS should be directed to: Stan McCoy, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, P.O. Box 19001, Thorne Bay, AK 99919, telephone (907) 828-3243 or E-mail: samccoy@fs.fed.us.
(1)
Based on results of scoping and the resource capabilities within the project area, alternatives including a “no action” alternative will be developed for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The Draft EIS filing date with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled for January 2001. Public comment on the Draft EIS will be solicited for a minimum of 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns of the proposed action, comments during scoping and comments on the Draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
In addition, Federal court decisions have established that reviewers of Draft EIS statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and concerns.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Requesters should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality might be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agencies decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 7 days. Permits required for implementation including the following:
1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2. Environmental Protection Agency
3. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources
4. State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
The Department of Agriculture, forest Service, will prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to provide timber for the Tongass National Forest Timber Sale Program. The Record of Decision will disclose how the Forest Service has selected harvest units, designed roads, and planned for future stand management activities. The proposed action is to harvest about 17 MMBF of old growth and second growth timber on Kosciusko Island and to improve wildlife habitat conditions with commercial thinning of second growth stands. A range of alternatives responsive to significant issues will be developed and include a no-action alternative. The project is located on the Tongass National Forest on the western peninsula of Kosciusko Island south of Shipley Bay within townships 67 and 68 south (T67S, T68S,) and ranges 75, 76, and 77 east (R75S, R76E, and R77E), Copper River Meridian, on the Thorne Bay Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest.
Comments concerning the scope of this project should be received by May 31, 2000.
Please send written comments to District Ranger; Thorne Bay Ranger District; Tongass National Forest; Attn: Kosciusko Island Timber Sale EIS; P.O. Box 19001; Thorne Bay, AK 99919.
Questions about the proposal and EIS should be directed to: Stan McCoy, Thorne Bay Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, P.O. Box 19001, Thorne Bay, AK 99919, telephone (907) 828-3243, or E-mail address: samccoy@fs.fed.us
(1)
Based on results of scoping and the resource capabilities within the project area, alternatives including a “no action” alternative will be developed for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The Draft EIS filing date with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scheduled for January 2001. Public comment on the Draft EIS will be solicited for a minimum of 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the
To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns of the proposed action, comments during scoping and comments on the Draft EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy of the Draft EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.
In addition, Federal court decisions have established that reviewers of Draft EIS statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and concerns.
Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR parts 215 or 217. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Requesters should be aware that, under FOIA, confidentiality might be granted in only very limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service will inform the requester of the agencies decision regarding the request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within 7 days.
Permits required for implementation include the following:
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Klamath Provincial Advisory Committee will meet on April 13 and 14, 2000, at the Miner's Inn Convention Center, 122 E. Miner, Yreka, California. The meeting on Thursday, April 13, will start at 1 p.m. and adjourn at 5 p.m. The meeting will reconvene on Friday, April 14 at 8 a.m. and will adjourn at 12 p.m. Agenda items for the meeting include: (1) Discussion of the Megram Fire rehabilitation; (2) A presentation of the development of Fire Management Strategies; and (3) Public Member Co-Chair for PAC. All Provincial Advisory Committee meetings are open to the public. Interested citizens are encouraged to attend.
Connie Hendryx, USDA, Klamath National Forest, 11263 N. Hwy 3, Fort Jones, California 96032; telephone 530-468-1281 (voice), TDD 530-468-2783.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Oregon Coast Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC) will meet on April 27, 2000, at the Siuslaw National Forest, 4077 S.W. Research Way, Corvallis, Oregon. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 3:30 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Watershed planning for Tillamook and Five Rivers EIS; (2) Joint meeting with the Willamette PAC in July; (3) Survey results for topics for future meetings; (4) Rechartering; and (5) Public comment period.
Interested citizens are encouraged to attend. The committee welcomes the public's written comments on committee business at any time.
Joni Quarnstrom, Public Affairs Specialist, Siuslaw National Forest, (541-750-7075) or write to the Forest Supervisor, Siuslaw National Forest, P.O. Box 1148, Corvallis, Oregon 97339.
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Southwest Oregon PIEC Advisory Committee will meet on April 12, 2000 in Medford, Oregon at the Medford Bureau of Land Management Office at 3040 Biddle Road. The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. and continue until 5 p.m. Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Cascade/Siskiyou Ecological Emphasis Area; (2) Public Comment; (3) Province Advisory Committee Recharter; and (4) Current issues as perceived by Advisory Committee members.
Direct questions regarding this meeting to Roger Evenson, Province Advisory Committee Coordinator, USDA, Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest, 2900
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Reviews.
In accordance with section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is automatically initiating five-year (“sunset”) reviews of the antidumping duty orders listed below. The International Trade Commission (“the Commission”) is publishing concurrently with this notice its notices of Institution of Five-Year Reviews covering these same orders.
Darla D. Brown, Office of Policy, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, at (202) 482-3207, or Vera Libeau, Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, at (202) 205-3176.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218 (see Procedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998)), we are initiating sunset reviews of the following antidumping duty orders:
Pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752 of the Act, an antidumping (“AD”) or countervailing duty (“CVD”) order will be revoked, or the suspended investigation will be terminated, unless revocation or termination would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of (1) dumping or a countervailable subsidy, and (2) material injury to the domestic industry.
The Department's procedures for the conduct of sunset reviews are set forth in Procedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) (“Sunset Regulations”). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98:3—Policies Regarding the Conduct of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders; Policy Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998) (“Sunset Policy Bulletin”).
As a courtesy, we are making information related to sunset proceedings, including copies of the Sunset Regulations and Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department's schedule of sunset reviews, case history information (
All submissions in the sunset review must be filed in accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, translation, service, and certification of documents. These rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303 (1999). Also, we suggest that parties check the Department's sunset website for any updates to the service list before filing any submissions. The Department will make additions to and/or deletions from the service list provided on the sunset website based on notifications from parties and participation in this review. Specifically, the Department will delete from the service list all parties that do not submit a substantive response to the notice of initiation.
Because deadlines in a sunset review are, in many instances, very short, we urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under administrative protective order (“APO”) immediately following publication in the
Domestic interested parties (defined in 19 CFR 351.102 (1999)) wishing to participate in the sunset review must respond not later than 15 days after the date of publication in the
If we receive an order-specific notice of intent to participate from a domestic interested party, the Sunset Regulations provide that
This notice of initiation is being published in accordance with section 751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of initiation of new shipper review.
The Department of Commerce has received a request for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on certain stainless steel flanges (stainless flanges) from India issued on February 9, 1994 (59 FR 5994). In accordance with our regulations, we are initiating a new shipper review covering Snowdrop Pvt. Ltd. (Snowdrop).
April 3, 2000.
Thomas Killiam or Michael Heaney, AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-5222 or (202) 482-4475, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR part 351 (1999).
On February 29, 2000, the Department received a timely request, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b) of the Department's regulations, for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless flanges from India, which has a February anniversary date. (
Pursuant to the Department's regulations at 19 CFR 351.214(b), Snowdrop certified in its February 29, 2000 submission that it did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the period of the investigation (POI), (July 1, 1992 through December 31, 1992), and that it was not affiliated with any exporter or producer of the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI . Snowdrop submitted documentation establishing the date on which it first shipped the subject merchandise for export to the United States, the volume shipped and the date of the first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United States.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act and section 351.214(d) of the Department's regulations, we are initiating a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on stainless flanges from India. The Department's regulations state that a new shipper review normally will cover entries, exports or sales during the twelve-month period immediately preceding the anniversary month if the review is initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month, as here. 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A). Thus, the review period for this case normally would be February 1, 1999-January 31, 2000. However, we are extending the review period by two months to ensure inclusion of the sale, export and shipment which Snowdrop has requested the Department to review. Thus, the review covers the period February 1, 1999-February 29, 2000. We intend to issue the preliminary results of the review no later than 180 days from the date of publication of this notice.
We will instruct the Customs Service to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise from Snowdrop, and allow, at the option of the importer, the posting, until completion of the review, of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the merchandise exported by Snowdrop, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e).
Interested parties may submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(b).
This initiation and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Publication of quarterly update to annual listing of foreign government subsidies on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty.
The Department of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, has prepared its quarterly update to the annual list of foreign government subsidies on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty during the period October 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999. We are publishing the current listing of those subsidies that we have determined exist.
April 3, 2000.
Russell Morris or Tipten Troidl, Officer of AD/CVD Enforcement VI, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230, telephone: (202) 482-2786.
Section 702(a) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(g)(b)(4) of the Act, and to publish an annual list and quarterly updates of the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the
The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies (as defined in section 702(g)(b)(2) of the Act) being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available.
The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.
The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230.
This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of full sunset review: welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey.
On November 30, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published a notice of preliminary results of the full sunset review of the countervailing duty order on welded carbon steel pipes and tubes from Turkey (64 FR 66895) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). We provided interested parties an opportunity to comment on our preliminary results. We did not receive comments from either domestic or respondent interested parties. As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of this order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels indicated in the Final Results of Review section of this notice.
Kathryn B. McCormick or Melissa G. Skinner, Office of Policy for Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1930 or (202) 482-1560, respectively.
April 3, 2000.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to 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 regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1999). Guidance on methodological or analytical issues relevant to the Department's conduct of sunset reviews is set forth in the Department's Policy Bulletin 98.3—
On November 30, 1999, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the
In addition, our preliminary results contained information on the nature of the subsidy. We did not receive a case brief on behalf of either domestic or respondent interested parties within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i).
This order covers shipments of Turkish welded carbon steel pipes and tubes, having an outside diameter of 0.375 inch or more, but not more than 16 inches, of any wall thickness. These products, commonly referred to in the industry as standard pipe and tube or structural tubing, are produced in accordance with various American Society Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications, most notably A-53, A-120, A-500, or A-501. The subject merchandise was originally classifiable under item number 416.30 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (“TSUSA”); currently, they are classifiable under item numbers 7306.30.10 and 7306.30.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the TSUSA and HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.
The Department did not receive case briefs from either domestic or respondent interested parties. Therefore, we have not made any changes to our preliminary results of November 30, 1999 (64 FR 66895).
As a result of this review, the Department finds that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the levels listed below:
In addition, we are providing information on the nature of the countervailable subsidy programs with respect to Article 3.1 (a) or Article 6 of the Subsidies Agreement as contained in our preliminary results.
The
The remaining programs, although not falling within the definition of an export subsidy under Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement, could be found to be inconsistent with Article 6 if the net countervailable subsidy exceeds five percent, as measured in accordance with Annex IV of the Subsidies Agreement. However, the Department has no information with which to make such a calculation, nor do we believe it appropriate to attempt such a calculation in the course of a sunset review. Rather, we are providing the Commission with the following program descriptions.
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 of the Department's regulations. 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 violation which is subject to sanction.
This five-year (“sunset”) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752, and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a public meeting via conference call of the Red Drum Stock Assessment Panel (RDSAP).
This meeting will be via conference call on April 17, 2000, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EST.
A listening station will be available at the following location:
NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 9721 Executive Center Drive, North, St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
Contact: Georgia Cranmore at 727-570-5305.
Peter Hood, Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813-228-2815.
The RDSAP will be convened via conference call on April 17, 2000, beginning at 10:00 a.m. EST. The RDSAP will continue their review of a stock assessment on the status of the red drum stocks in the Gulf of Mexico prepared by NMFS. The RDSAP will consider available information, including but not limited to, commercial and recreational catches, natural and fishing mortality estimates, recruitment, fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data, and data needs. These analyses will be used to determine the condition of the stocks and the levels of acceptable biological catch (ABC). The RDSAP may also review estimates of stock size (biomass at maximum sustainable yield [Bmsy]) and minimum stock size thresholds (MSST). Currently it is illegal to harvest or possess red drum in Federal waters.
The conclusions of the RDSAP will be reviewed by the Council's Standing and Special Red Drum Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), and Red Drum Advisory Panel (RDAP) at meetings held between May 3-5, 2000.
A copy of the agenda can be obtained by contacting the Council (see
Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the RDSAP for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the RDSAP will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.
The listening station is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see
Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA).
Issuing a directive to the Commissioner of Customs increasing limits.
April 4, 2000.
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.ustreas.gov. For information on embargoes and quota re-openings, call (202) 482-3715.
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being increased for carryover, carryforward and recrediting unused carryforward.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on December 10, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool and man-made fiber textile products, produced or manufactured in Cambodia and exported during the twelve-month period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000.
Effective on April 4, 2000, you are directed to increase the current limits for the following categories, as provided for under the terms of the current bilateral textile agreement between the Governments of the United States and Cambodia:
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 reducing limits.
April 4, 2000.
Ross Arnold, International Trade Specialist,
Section 204 of the Agricultural Act of 1956, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1854); Executive Order 11651 of March 3, 1972, as amended.
The current limits for certain categories are being reduced for carryforward used.
A description of the textile and apparel categories in terms of HTS numbers is available in the CORRELATION: Textile and Apparel Categories with the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (see
Dear Commissioner: This directive amends, but does not cancel, the directive issued to you on December 1, 1999, by the Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements. That directive concerns imports of certain cotton, wool, man-made fiber, silk blend and other vegetable fiber textiles and textile products, produced or manufactured in Korea and exported during the period which began on January 1, 2000 and extends through December 31, 2000.
Effective on April 4, 2000, you are directed to reduce the limits for the following categories, as provided for under the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing:
The Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements has determined that these actions fall within the foreign affairs exception of the rulemaking provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
Sincerely,
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0079).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Corporate Aircraft Costs. This OMB clearance expires on July 31, 2000.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before June 2, 2000.
Comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Jeremy Olson, Office of Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, (202) 501-3221.
Government contractors that use company aircraft must maintain logs of flights containing specified information to ensure that costs are properly charged against Government contracts and that directly associated costs of unallowable activities are not charged to such contracts.
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0079, Corporate Aircraft Costs, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0129).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Cost Accounting Standards Administration. This OMB clearance expires on July 31, 2000.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before June 2, 2000.
Comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Jeremy Olson, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, 501-3221.
FAR 30.6 and 52.230-5 include pertinent rules and regulations related to the Cost Accounting Standards along with necessary administrative policies and procedures. These administrative policies require certain contractors to submit cost impact estimates and descriptions in cost accounting practices and also to provide information on CAS-covered subcontractors.
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0129, Cost Accounting Standards Administration, in all correspondence.
Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0132).
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews. This OMB clearance expires on July 31, 2000.
Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments may be submitted on or before June 2, 2000.
Comments, including suggestions for reducing this burden, should be submitted to: FAR Desk Officer, OMB, Room 10102, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503, and a copy to the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405.
Linda Klein, Federal Acquisition Policy Division, GSA, (202) 501-3755.
The objective of a contractor purchasing system review (CPSR), as discussed in Part 44 of the FAR, is to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness with which the contractor spends Government funds and complies with Government policy when subcontracting. The review provides the administrative contracting officer a basis for granting, withholding, or withdrawing approval of the contractor's purchasing system.
Requester may obtain a copy of the proposal from the General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), Room 4035, Washington, DC 20405, telephone (202) 208-7312. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0132, Contractors' Purchasing Systems Reviews, in all correspondence.
Military Traffic Management Command, DOD.
Notice.
The Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), as the Department of Defense (DOD) Traffic Manager for surface and surface intermodal traffic management services (DTR vol. 1, pg. 101-113), hereby modifies the text of the existing rule, entitled “Computation of Freight Charges,” in MFTRP No. 4A, Item 255 and MGTRP No. 50, Item 715. The purpose of this modification is to change the basis of freight charge computation for bulk petroleum tank truck shipments from gross volume to a different methodology (sometimes referred to as “net” volume) in order to better conform to what has become an accepted industry practice as well as to comply with procedures and automated systems used by or being implemented by the Defense Energy Support Center.
This change is effective May 1, 2000.
Point of Contact: Headquarters, Military Traffic Management Command, ATTN: MTOP-JF, Room 608, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-5050, fax: 703-681-9871 attn: Jerome Colton, e-mail: coltonj@mtmc.army.mil.
For additional information contact Mr. Jerome Colton, MTMC at (703) 681-1417 or Mr. Keith Pladson, DESC at (703) 767-8381.
A notice proposing this change was published in the
2. While gross gallons was indeed the industry standard in the past, this standard has been changing in favor of net gallons. As temperature-compensating meters are now in common use, using net gallons is (a) easily determined; (b) the measurement of choice as volume fluctuations due to temperature are eliminated; and (c) used by the majority of transportation modes. DOD has therefore chosen net gallons to be the standard for its new automated system, which covers the transportation of bulk fuel by all modes. In those few instances or locations where temperature-compensating meters are unavailable, conversion tables can be used.
3. All discussions held with carriers both prior to and after the previous
4. Carriers are free to file rate changes if they believe the change will adversely affect their revenue.
It is therefore determined that this proposed change should be implemented, effective May 1, 2000. As this change may affect the revenue that bulk petroleum tank truck carriers receive for movements of DOD bulk petroleum shipments, carriers providing such services to DOD may wish to review their existing tenders to see if any further action on their part is in their interests. Effective May 1, 2000, paragraph 1 of the relevant item in the two rules publications (MFTRP No. 4A, Item 255 and MGTRP No. 50, Item 715) will read as follows: “Except as provided in paragraph 2, freight charges in DOD tenders governed by this publication will be the greater of:
a. The amount computed by multiplying the carrier's rate by the minimum gallonage stated in the carrier's applicable tender, or
b. The amount computed by multiplying the carrier's rate by the temperature-corrected gallonage placed in the vehicle at the time of loading. Temperature-corrected gallonage is defined as the volume correction to gallons at 60 degrees Fahrenheit (sometimes referred to as “net volume”) and will be determined by the loading facility through either the use of temperature-compensating meters or by manual conversion in accordance with the appropriate tables in the most recent edition of the API Manual of Petroleum Measurement Standards (MPMS).''
In general, changes to a rules publication (including this change) will no longer be accompanied by a mass mailing to carriers and other interested parties of the page containing the change. Instead, the rules publication will be updated on the MTMC website (www.mtmc.army.mil) to incorporate changes. From the MTMC website, click in succession on: Transportation Services, Freight Logistics, Freight Traffic Rules Publications, and then select the Rules Publication of your choice.
Regulatory Flexibility Act: This change is not considered rule making within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C 601-612.
Paperwork Reduction Act: The Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C 3051 et seq., does not apply because no information collection requirement or recordskeeping responsibilities are imposed on offerors, contractors, or members of the public.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) notice is hereby given of the following Advisory Committee meeting: Environmental
Wednesday, April 19, 2000: 6:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m. (MST)
Los Volcanes Senior Citizens Center, 6500 Los Volcanes Road, NW., Albuquerque, NM 87102, Phone: (505) 836-8745.
Mike Zamorski, Acting Manager, Department of Energy Kirtland Area Office, P.O. Box 5400, MS-0184, Albuquerque, NM 87185 (505) 845-4094.
Take notice that on March 8, 2000, Clear Creek Storage Company, L.L.C. filed revised standards of conduct in response to the Commission's February 11, 2000 Order. 90 FERC ¶ 61,143 (2000).
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D.C., 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before April 12, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.ud/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that on March 9, 2000, Commonwealth Edison Company and Commonwealth Edison Company of Indiana, Inc. (Commonwealth) submitted revised standards of conduct under Order No. 889
Commonwealth states that it served copies of the filing on the service list in this proceeding.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before April 12, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of Commonwealth's filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at
Take notice that on March 24, 2000, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (Niagara Mohawk) submitted a Complaint pursuant to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act against the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO). The Complaint concerns the NYISO's refusal to permit Niagara Mohawk to self-supply Operating Reserves and the recent increases in the prices for Operating Reserves in the NYISO.
Copies of the filing were served upon the NYISO and other interested parties.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before April 13, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before April 13, 2000.
The above-captioned applicants (Applicants) submitted for filing a rate schedule under which the Applicants will engage in wholesale electric power and energy transactions as a marketer. The Applicants also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, the Applicants requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by the Applicants.
Pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Rate Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulations, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the issuance of notices providing for an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly:
Within thirty days of the date of this notice, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by the Applicants should file a motion to intervene or protests 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).
Absent a request for hearing within this period, the Applicants are authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.
The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of the Applicants' issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protests, as set forth above, is April 28, 2000.
Copies of the full text of the Orders are available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at
Take notice that on March 21, 2000, TransEnergie U.S. Ltd. (TEUS) tendered for filing a supplemental statement to demonstrate how TEUS' proposed Cross Sound Cable (CSC) Interconnector advances the goals of Order No. 2000.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before April 7, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on March 20, 2000, Sun River Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SREC) filed a Request for Waiver of the requirements of Order No. 888 and Order No. 889.
Take notice that on March 23, 2000, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) tendered for filing a complaint with the Commission against Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM). In the complaint, SDG&E states that the demand rate charged SDG&E by PNM under a long-term 100-megawatt system power sale is excessive, unjust, unreasonable, unduly discriminatory, and contrary to the public interest. SDG&E asks the Commission to initiate a proceeding under Section 206(b) of the Federal Power Act to investigate the rate and establish a refund effective date of May 22, 2000. SDG&E asks that the complaint be consolidated for hearing and decision with the proceeding in Docket Nos. EL97-54-002 and EL99-21-000.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy Services), on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States, Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Inc., Entergy Mississippi, Inc., and Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (collectively, the Entergy Operating Companies), tendered for filing a new Attachment M to its Open Access Transmission Tariff, designated as FERC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 3, addressing transmission business practices related to source and sink information required for reserving and scheduling point-to-point transmission service.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Florida Power Corporation (Florida Power) tendered for filing a service agreement providing for non-firm point-to-point transmission service and a service agreement providing for short term firm point-to-point transmission service by Florida Power to TXU Energy Trading Company (TXU) pursuant to its open access transmission tariff.
Florida Power requests that the Commission waive its notice of filing requirements and allow the agreements to become effective on March 15, 2000.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc., on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Entergy Arkansas), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of the Electric Peaking Power Agreement between City of Campbell, Missouri and Entergy Arkansas.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Entergy Services, Inc. (Entergy), on behalf of Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (Entergy Arkansas), tendered for filing a Notice of Cancellation of the Electric Peaking Power Agreement between City of Osceola, Arkansas and Entergy Arkansas.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Southwest Power Pool, Inc. (SPP) tendered for filing executed service agreements for Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service, Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission and Loss Compensation Service with Eastex Cogeneration Limited Partnership, El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P., FPL Energy Power Marketing, Inc., and Sunflower Electric Power Corp., as well as executed service agreements for Non-Firm Point-to-Point Transmission and Loss Compensation Service with Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc.
SPP requests an effective date of March 8, 2000 for the agreements with Eastex, March 13, 2000 for the agreements with El Paso, February 25, 2000 for the agreements with FPL, March 13, 2000 for the agreements with Sunflower, and March 14, 2000 for the agreements with Conectiv.
Copies of this filing were served upon all signatories.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. submitted an Interconnection Agreement entered into by and between Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) and Duke Energy Madison, LLC (Duke Energy Madison) and a Facilities Construction Agreement by and between Cinergy and Duke Energy Madison, both of which are dated February 28, 2000.
The Interconnection Agreement between the parties provides for the interconnection of a generating station with the transmission system of The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company (CG&E), a Cinergy utility operating company, and further defines the continuing responsibilities and obligations of the parties with respect thereto. The Facilities Construction Agreement between the parties provides for the construction and installation of the interconnection facilities and the additions, modifications and upgrades to the existing transmission facilities of CG&E.
Cinergy requests an effective date of February 28, 2000 for the Interconnection Agreement and the Facilities Construction Agreement.
Cinergy states that it has served a copy of its filing upon the Public Utility Commission of Ohio and Duke Energy Madison.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Cinergy Services, Inc. submitted an Interconnection Agreement entered into by and between Cinergy Services, Inc. (Cinergy) and Duke Energy Vermillion, LLC (“Duke Energy Vermillion”), and a Facilities Construction Agreement by and between Cinergy and Duke Energy Vermillion, both of which are dated February 28, 2000.
The Interconnection Agreement between the parties provides for the interconnection of a generating station with the transmission system of PSI Energy, Inc. (PSI Energy), a Cinergy utility operating company, and further defines the continuing responsibilities and obligations of the parties with respect thereto. The Facilities Construction Agreement between the parties provides for the construction and installation of the interconnection facilities and the additions, modifications and upgrades to the existing transmission facilities of PSI Energy.
Cinergy requests an effective date of February 28, 2000 for both the Interconnection Agreement and the Facilities Construction Agreement.
Cinergy states that it has served a copy of its filing upon the Indiana
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Duquesne Light Company (DLC) filed a Service Agreement for Retail Network Integration Transmission Service and a Network Operating Agreement for Retail Network Integration Transmission Service dated March 21, 2000, Niagra Mohawk Energy Marketing, Inc. under DLC's Open Access Transmission Tariff (Tariff). The Service Agreement and Network Operating Agreement adds Niagra Mohawk Energy Marketing, Inc. as a customer under the Tariff.
DLC requests an effective date of March 21, 2000 for the Service Agreement.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Northern Maine Independent System Administrator, Inc. (NMISA) tendered for filing seven service agreements under the Northern Maine Independent System Administrator Tariff (Northern Maine ISA Tariff) for the following Market Participants: Maine Public Service Company, Inc., Houlton Water Company, Energy Atlantic LLC, Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative, Inc., WPS Energy Services, Inc., FPL Energy Power Marketing, Inc. and Alternative Energy. NMISA has determined that these applicants are qualified to become Market Participants under the Northern Maine ISA Tariff.
NMISA requests an effective date for implementation of these service agreements of March 1, 2000, to coincide with the date on which NMISA will commence commercial operation and retail access will begin in Northern Maine.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO) tendered for filing an estimated return on common equity (Estimated ROE) to be used in establishing estimated formula rates for wholesale service in Contract Year 2000 to Northeast Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc., the City of Bentonville, Arkansas, Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc., Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Tex-La Electric Cooperative of Texas, Inc., the City of Hope, Arkansas, and East Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. SWEPCO provides service to these Customers under contracts which provide for periodic changes in rates and charges determined in accordance with cost-of-service formulas, including a formulaic determination of the return on common equity.
Copies of the filing were served upon the affected wholesale Customers, the Public Utility Commission of Texas, the Louisiana Public Service Commission and the Arkansas Public Service Commission.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, LSP Energy Limited Partnership (LSP Energy) tendered for filing under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act a Power Purchase Agreement dated February 25, 2000 between LSP Energy and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, FirstEnergy System filed a Service Agreement to provide Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service for Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc., the Transmission Customer. Services are being provided under the FirstEnergy System Open Access Transmission Tariff submitted for filing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Docket No. ER97-412-000.
The proposed effective date for this Service Agreement is March 20, 2000.
Take notice that on March 22, 2000, Duquesne Light Company (Duquesne) tendered for filing under Duquesne's pending Market-Based Rate Tariff, (Docket No. ER98-4159-000) executed Service Agreement at Market-Based Rates with Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC (Customer).
Duquesne has requested the Commission waive its notice requirements to allow the Service Agreement to become effective as of March 21, 2000.
Copies of this filing were served upon Customer.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 4797), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original major license for the Carters Reregulation Dam Hydroelectric Project located on the Coosawatte River in Murray County, Georgia, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project. In the EA, the Commission's staff has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and has concluded that approval of the proposed project, with appropriate mitigative measures,
Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference Branch of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, N.E., Room 2A, Washington, D.C. 20426, and may also be viewed on the web at
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 application requesting the Commission's authorization to amend Article 33 (f) of the existing license and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed action.
Flashboards are needed to raise the existing North Battle Creek Reservoir to its full capacity, 1,039-acre-feet, for the recreation season. The proposed amendment to article 33(f) would allow the licensee to delay up to one month (from June 1 to July 1) the placement of flashboards at North Battle Creek dam when late runoff or heavy snow pack precludes road access to the dam by truck. During such years, the licensee: would install flashboards as soon as roads are passable by truck; and would notify the Forest Supervisor of Lassen National Forest five business days prior to June 1 and, subsequently, once the reservoir is at or above 1,039-acre-feet.
In the EA, Commission staff does not identify any significant impacts that would result from Commission's approval of the proposed modification to Article 33(f). Thus, staff concludes that approval of the proposed amendment of license would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
The EA has been attached to and made part of an Order Amending Article 33(f), issued March 22, 2000, for the Battle Creek Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 1121-052. See 90 FERC ¶ 62,201. Also, the EA is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Reference Room, Room 2A, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. Further, the document may be viewed on the Web at www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm. Call (202) 208-2222 for assistance.
For further information, please contact Jim Haimes at (202) 219-2780.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
It should be noted that Article 30 addresses flows during the initial filling of the project reservoir. Conditions contained under license articles for other projects issued by the Commission address temporary modifications to project flow. The language generally reads as follows: “These flows may be temporarily modified if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the licensee, or for short periods upon mutual agreement between the licensee and the appropriate agencies. If the flows are so modified, the licensee shall notify the Commission as soon as possible, but not later than 10 days after each such incident.”
The licensee has consulted with the Virginia Department of Fish and Game and Inland Fisheries and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to develop the following language to replace the currently contained language of Article 29: “Except as provided in Article 30, the licensee shall release from the Lower Development a minimum average weekly flow of 650 cubic feet per second. These flows may be temporarily modified if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the licensee, and/or for short periods of time (up to 45 days) during drought and/or low inflow conditions, upon mutual agreement between the licensee and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), in consultation with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, following appropriate public input as determined by the DEQ. If the flows are so modified, the licensee shall notify the Commission no later than 10 days after each such incident.”
l.
m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before July 3, 2000.
Jonathan S. Binder (2224A), U.S. EPA, 401 M St., S.W., Washington D.C. 20460. Interested persons may obtain a copy of the ICR without charge by calling Jonathan S. Binder at (202) 564-2516.
Jonathan S. Binder, (202) 564-2516. Facsimile number: (202) 564-0009.
Various federal environmental laws authorize the Administrator of EPA or her designee to monitor the regulated communities' compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. Through the development of standard procedures, EPA is planning to “authorize” or “duly designate” inspectors employed by tribes, states, territories, and inter-tribal consortia to conduct environmental compliance inspections (inspections) with federal credentials on behalf of EPA. The standard procedures will be designed to facilitate a partnership between EPA and tribes, states, territories, and inter-tribal consortia to protect human health and the environment.
With this initiative, EPA strives to build the capacity of regulating agencies and/or departments for more effective compliance monitoring of the regulated community. Under the draft national procedures, EPA retains sole responsibility for authorizing inspectors and issuing, replacing, renewing, and revoking federal credentials. EPA also retains decision-making authority for all federal enforcement and compliance assistance activities related to inspections conducted by authorized inspectors using federal credentials. As such, neither tribes, states, nor territories, nor authorized inspectors could take a federal enforcement action with information gathered during an inspection conducted with a federal credential unless otherwise authorized to do so by EPA.
The draft national standards seek to ensure the quality of inspectors who receive or retain authorization to conduct inspections on behalf of EPA. EPA needs to collect certain information that is currently not collected and which does not exist in our current databases. To meet this need, EPA designed a training requirements form that will make it easy for EPA, tribes, states, territories, and their employees to assess the qualifications of inspectors who receive or retain authorization to conduct inspections on EPA's behalf. There are three components to the collection of information on training taken by individual inspectors. First, the “ title of the training” is required. Second, the “completion date” of the training is required. Third and finally, the “training sponsor” is required. To ensure that the courses meet the requirements of the draft Inspector Credentials Authorization Procedures, EPA may also request the outline or other information on training courses sponsored by non-EPA entities; tribes, states, territories, and inter-tribal consortium are encouraged to attach this information when sending this form to EPA.
The training requirements form can be completed electronically and E-mailed to the appropriate Agency contact or sent in hardcopy via the postal service or express mail. Moreover, the training requirements form will be available via the Internet.
A Department or agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
The EPA is soliciting comments to:
(i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, ICR 1937.01. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection request and its expected burden and cost.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 3, 2000.
For a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone at (202) 260-2740, by email at farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or download a copy of the ICR off the Internet at
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The
Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1937.01 in any correspondence.
Notice is hereby given that a petition dated June 28, 1999 was received from the State of New Jersey requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to Section 312(f) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4 (the Clean Water Act), that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of the Shrewsbury River, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey.
This petition was made by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in cooperation with the North Coast Regional Environmental Planning Council (NCREPC), New Jersey Marine Sciences, Marine Trades Association of New Jersey, Monmouth County Planning Board, Monmouth County Environmental Council and Monmouth County Board of Health. Members of the NCREPC include the Borough of Eatontown, the Borough of Fair Haven, the Borough of Little Silver, the City of Long Branch, the Borough of Monmouth Beach, the Borough of Oceanport, the Borough of Red Bank, the Borough of Rumson, the Borough of Sea Bright, the Borough of Shrewsbury, the Township of Shrewsbury, the Borough of Tinton Falls, and the Borough of West Long Branch. Upon receipt of an affirmative determination in response to this petition, NJDEP would completely prohibit the discharge of sewage, whether treated or not, from any vessel in Shrewsbury River in accordance with Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 140.4(a).
The Shrewsbury River is located in Monmouth County, New Jersey, and is part of the Atlantic Coastal Drainage Basin. The Shrewsbury River drains approximately 27 square miles of urban/suburban residential development and agricultural lands. The Shrewsbury River runs easterly from Eatontown, Tinton Falls, and West Long Branch, New Jersey and then joins the Navesink River and empties into Sandy Hook Bay. The proposed No Discharge Area (NDA) would include the navigable waters of the Shrewsbury River and all its tributaries downstream to the point where the Route 36 Bridge crosses the river. The eastern boundary of the NDA is a line from Lat./Long. 73°58′45″, 40°22′40″ to Lat./Long. 73°58′58″, 40°23′04″. The western boundary of the NDA is at Lat./Long. 74°06′48″, 40°19′12″.
Information submitted by the State of New Jersey and the Shrewsbury Regional Environmental Planning Council states that there are six existing pump-out facilities at five different locations available to service vessels which use the Shrewsbury River. Atlantis Yacht Club, located at 66 River Avenue, Monmouth Beach, operates a stationary pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. beginning April until October and is operated by the marina staff. A $5.00 fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. Carriage House Marina, located at 1200 Ocean Avenue, Sea Bright, operates a stationary pumpout and a portable pumpout. The pumpouts are available from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. beginning May until October and is operated by the marina staff. A fee of $5.00 is charged for the use of the pumpout. Channel Club Marina, located at Channel Drive, Monmouth Beach, operates a stationary pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. beginning May until October and is operated by the marina staff. No fee is charged for use of the pumpout. Navesink Marina, located at 1410 Ocean Avenue, Sea Bright, operates a stationary pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. beginning April until October and is operated by the marina staff. A $5.00 fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. Oceanport Landing, located at 417 River Street, Oceanport, operates a portable pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. beginning April until September and is operated by the marina staff. A $5.00 fee is charged for use of the pumpout. In the case of slip holders and residents of Oceanport, the $5.00 fee is waived. None of the facilities have draft restrictions which would exclude boats access to the pumpouts.
Vessel waste generated from the pumpout facilities within the proposed NDA is discharged into municipal sewer lines and is conveyed to the Northeast Monmouth Regional Sewage Authority (NJPDES Permit No. NJ0024520) at 1 Highland Avenue in Monmouth Beach for treatment.
According to the State's petition, the maximum daily vessel population for the waters of Shrewsbury River is approximately 2115 vessels. This estimate is based on (1) vessels docked at marinas and yacht clubs (1303 vessels), (2) vessels docked at non-marina facilities (584 vessels) and (3) transient vessels (228 vessels). The vessel population based on length is 2240 vessels less than 26 feet in length, 700 vessels between 26 feet and 40 feet in length and 175 vessels greater than 40 feet in length. Based on number and size of boats, and using various methods to estimate the number of holding tanks, it is estimated that between two and four pumpouts are needed for the Shrewsbury River. As previously stated, five pumpout facilities are currently available to service the boating population. Additionally, three additional pumpouts have applied for pumpout grant funding.
The EPA hereby makes a tentative affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Shrewsbury River in the county of Monmouth, New Jersey. A final determination on this matter will be made following the 30-day period for public comment and will result in a New Jersey State prohibition of any sewage discharges from vessels in Shrewsbury River.
Comments and views regarding this petition and EPA's tentative determination may be filed on or before May 3, 2000. Comments or requests for information or copies of the applicant's petition should be addressed to Walter E. Andrews, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Water Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866. Telephone: (212) 637-3880.
Notice is hereby given that a petition was received from the State of New York on June 18, 1999 requesting a determination by the Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to Section 312(f) of Public Law 92-500, as amended by Public Law 95-217 and Public Law 100-4 (the Clean Water Act), that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the waters of the Greater Huntington-Northport Bay Complex, County of Suffolk, State of New York. The waterbodies included in this application are Lower Huntington Bay, Northport Bay, Centerport Harbor, Northport Harbor, Duck Island Harbor and Price Bend. A previous application which was approved by the Regional Administrator on April 21, 1994 designated Huntington Harbor and Lloyd Harbor as a No Discharge Area.
This petition was made by the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) in cooperation with the Town of Huntington. Upon receipt of an affirmative determination in response to this petition, NYSDEC would completely prohibit the discharge of sewage, whether treated or not, from any vessel in Greater Huntington-Northport Bay Complex in accordance with Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR 140.4(a).
The Greater Huntington-Northport Bay Complex is located on the north shore of Long Island with approximately 64 miles of tidal shoreline contiguous to Long Island Sound. Huntington's marine waters are comprised of approximately 8,000 acres of harbors, bays and tidal wetlands that support some of the most productive shellfish growing lands in New York State. Adjacent shores also serve as private and public bathing beaches. The northern boundary line for the proposed NDA shall extend from the southernmost point at East Beach (Lloyd Harbor) easterly to the southernmost point at West Beach or “Sand City Beach.”
Information submitted by the State of New York and the Town of Huntington indicate that there are ten existing pumpout facilities and two pumpout boats available to service vessels which use the Greater Huntington-Northport Bay Complex. Mill Dam Marina (Huntington Harbor), located on Mill Dam Road, Huntington, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available 24 hours a day beginning May 1 through October 31 and is self-service. No fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. Halesite Marina (Huntington Harbor), located on Route 110, Halesite, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available 24 hours a day and twelve months a year and is self-service. No fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. South Town Dock (Huntington Harbor), located on Route 110, Halesite, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. beginning May 1 through October 31 and is self-service. No fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. Gold Star Mooring and Launch Service (Huntington Harbor), located at West Shore Road and Browns Road, Huntington, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. beginning April 1 through November 15 and is self-service. No fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. West Shore Marina (Huntington Harbor), located at 100 West Shore Road, Huntington, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available by appointment only from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. year round. A $10.00 fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. Huntington Yacht Club (Huntington Harbor), located at 95 East Shore Road, Huntington Bay, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. beginning March 1 through November. A fee of $5.00 is charged for the use of the pumpout. Knutson's West Marine (Huntington Harbor), located at 41 East Shore Road, Halesite, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. beginning May 30 through October 31. A fee of $10.00 is charged for the use of the pumpout. The Town of Huntington operates a mobile pumpout vessel which serves the Greater Bay Complex from May 15 through October 12. No fee is charged for the service. The Town of Huntington is in the process of procuring an additional mobile pumpout vessel. Woodbine Marina (Northport Harbor), located at Woodbine Avenue, Northport, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available twenty-four hours a day beginning May 1 through October 31 and is self-service. No fee is charged for the use of the pumpout. Seymour's Boat Yard (Northport Harbor), located on Bayview Avenue, Northport, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. by appointment beginning May 1 through October 31. A fee of $25.00 is charged for the use of the pumpout. Brittania Yacht and Racquet Club (Northport Harbor), located at 81C Fort Salonga Road, Northport, operates a pumpout. The pumpout is available from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. beginning April 15 through October 31. A fee of $20.00 is charged for the use of the pumpout. The Village of Northport operates a mobile pumpout vessel which serves Northport Harbor, Northport Bay and Duck Island Harbor beginning May 23 through October 12. No fee is charged for the service. Powles Marine Agency (Cold Spring Harbor),
Vessel waste generated from the pumpout facilities located at West Shore Marina, Knutson's West Marina, Huntington Yacht Club, Brittania Yacht and Seymour's are hauled by privately operated waste haulers. The Town of Huntington provides waste hauling service to the municipally owned pumpout facilities located at Cold Spring Harbor, Halesite Marina, Mill Dam Marina, Woodbine Marina, and Gold Star Mooring and Launch Service. All hauled waste from the pumpout facilities is discharged into and treated at the Town of Huntington sewage treatment plant (SPDES Permit No. NY0021342) located on Creek Road in Halesite.
According to the State's petition, the maximum daily vessel population for the waters of Greater Huntington-Northport Bay Complex is approximately 3200 vessels which are docked or moored with an additional 700 vessels accessing the greater Harbor from boat ramps. An inventory was developed including the number of recreational, commercial and estimated transient vessels that occupy or traverse the greater bay complex. This estimate is based on (1) vessels (approximately 1600 vessels) docked or moored (including transients) in the proposed NDA, (2) vessels (approximately 1600 vessels) docked or moored (including transients) in the existing Huntington/Lloyd Harbor NDA and (3) vessels (approximately 700 vessels) which use the boat ramps in the Greater Bay Complex. While approximately one-third to one-half of the vessels operating in the Greater Bay Complex are not equipped with a MSD, the ratio of boats to pumpout facilities has been based on the total number of vessels which could be expected. With ten shore-side pumpout facilities and two pumpout facilities available to boaters, the ratio of docked or moored boats (including transients) is approximately 267 vessels per pumpout. If we include the vessels (approximately 700) using the available boat ramps, the ratio increase to 325 vessels per pumpout. Standard guidelines refer to acceptable ratios failing in the range of 300 to 600 vessels per pumpout.
The EPA hereby makes a tentative affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Greater Huntington-Northport Bay Complex in the county of Suffolk, New York. A final determination on this matter will be made following the 30-day period for public comment and will result in a New York State prohibition of any sewage discharges from vessels in Greater Huntington-Northport Bay Complex.
Comments and views regarding this petition and EPA's tentative determination may be filed on or before May 3, 2000. Comments or requests for information or copies of the applicant's petition should be addressed to Walter E. Andrews, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, Water Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 24th Floor, New York, New York, 10007-1866. Telephone: (212) 637-3880.
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 April 27, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 28, 2000.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreements.
The consent agreements in these two matters settle alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint that accompanies the consent agreements and the terms of the consent orders—embodied in the consent agreements—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2000.
Comments should be directed to FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Richard Parker or Richard Feinstein, FTC/H-374, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-2574 or 326-3688.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for March 16, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper copy can be obtained from the FTC Public Reference Room, Room H-130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, either in person or by calling (202) 326-3627.
Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania. Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted for public comment agreements and proposed consent orders with Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories. The proposed consent orders settle charges that these parties unlawfully agreed that Geneva would refrain from selling its generic vision of one of Abbott's drugs, in exchange for payments from Abbott. The proposed consent orders have been placed on the public record for 30 days to receive comments by interested persons. The proposed consent orders have been entered into for settlement purposes only and do not constitute an admission by Abbott or Geneva that they violated the law or that the facts alleged in the complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts, are true.
Abbott Laboratories develops, manufactures, and sells a variety of health care products and services. Based in Abbott Park, Illinois, Abbott's 1998 net sales worldwide were approximately $12.5 billion. Over 20% of Abbott's net sales of pharmaceutical products in the U.S. are for a drug called Hytrin. Hytrin is used to treat two chronic conditions that affect millions of Americans, particularly senior citizens: hypertension (high blood pressure) and benign prostatic hyperplasia (enlarged prostate).
Geneva is one of the leading generic drug manufacturers in the United States. An indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Novartis Corp., Geneva is based in Broomfield, Colorado. Geneva developed a generic version of Hytrin, and in March 1998 received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to market that generic product.
A generic drug is a product that the FDA has found to be bioequivalent to a brand name drug. A company seeking FDA approval to market a new drug must file a New Drug Application (“NDA”). In order to market a generic version of a brand name drug, a company must file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) and receive approval from the FDA.
Generic drugs are chemically identical to their branded counterparts, but typically are sold at substantial discounts from the branded price. A Congressional Budget Office Report estimates that purchasers saved an estimated $8-$10 billion on prescriptions at retail pharmacies in 1994 by purchasing generic drugs instead of the brand name product.
Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as “the Hatch-Waxman Act,” to facilitate the entry of generic drugs while maintaining incentives to invest in new drug development. In particular, the Hatch-Waxman Act establishes certain rights and procedures in situations where a company seeks FDA approval to market a generic product prior to the expiration of a patent or patents relating to a brand name drug upon which the generic is based. In such cases, the applicant must: (1) Certify to the FDA that the patent in question is invalid or is not infringed by the generic product (known as a “paragraph IV certification”); and (2) notify the patent holder of the filing of the certification. If the holder of patent rights files a patent infringement suit within 45 days, FDA approval to market the generic drug is automatically stayed for 30 months, unless before that time the patent expires or is judicially determined to be invalid or not infringed. This automatic 30-month stay allows the patent holder time to seek judicial protection of its patent rights before a generic competitor is permitted to market its product.
In addition, the Hatch-Waxman Act provides an incentive for generic drug companies to bear the cost of patent litigation that may arise when they challenge invalid patents or design around valid ones. The Act grants the first company to file an ANDA in such cases a 180-day period during which it has the exclusive right to market a generic version of the brand name drug. No other generic manufacturer may obtain FDA approval to market its product until the first filer's 180-day exclusivity period has expired.
Geneva was the first company to file an ANDA for terazosin hydrochloride (“terazosin HCL”), the generic version of Hytrin. It filed applications covering a tablet form and a capsule form of its generic terazosin HCL. Geneva filed a paragraph IV certification with the FDA stating that these products did not infringe any valid patent held by Abbott covering terazosin HCL. In June 1996, Abbott sued Geneva for patent infringement by Geneva's terazosin HCL tablet product, but due to an oversight failed to mane an infringement claim against Geneva's capsule product, although both products raised the same potential infringement issues.
Abbott's lawsuit triggered a 30-month stay of final FDA approval of Geneva's terazosin HCL tablet ANDA, until December 1998. No stay applied to the FDA approval process for Geneva's terazosin HCL capsule ANDA, however, because no infringement claim was filed within the statutory time period required by the Hatch-Waxman Act. The FDA granted Geneva final approval to market generic terazosin HCL capsules on March 30, 1998.
The complaint challenges an agreement whereby Abbott, following the FDA approval of Geneva's generic terazosin HCL capsule product, paid
Geneva also agreed-at Abbott's insistence-not to transfer, assign, or relinquish its 180-day exclusively right. The effect of this provision was to ensure that no other company's generic terazosin HCL product could obtain FDA approval; and enter the market during the term of the agreement, because Geneva's agreement not to launch its product meant that the 180-day exclusivity period would not expire.
In exchange, Abbott agreed to pay Geneva $4.5 million per month until a district court judgment in the parties' patent infringement dispute, and then (assuming Geneva won in the district court) to pay the $4.5 million monthly payments into an escrow fund until the final resolution of the litigation, which Geneva would then receive if its district court victory was upheld.
Abbott's payment to Geneva of $4.5 million a month was well over the $1 to $1.5 million per month that, the complaint states, Abbott believed Geneva would forego by staying off the market. The complaint alleges that Abbott was willing to pay Geneva a “premium” to refrain from competing because of the substantial impact that launch of a generic version of Hytrin would have on Abbott's overall financial situation. Abbott forecasted that entry of generic terazosin HCL on April 1, 1998 would eliminate over $185 million in Hytrin sales in just six month. Accordingly, the complaint charges, Abbott sought to forestall Geneva—and all other potential generic competition to Hytrin-from entering the market because of the threat they represented to the high profits it was making from Hytrin.
The complaint further charges that, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, Geneva did not enter the market with its generic terazosin HCL capsules, even after the district court and the court of appeals upheld Geneva's position that Abbott's patent was invalid. In August 1999, Abbott and Geneva—aware of the Commission's investigation—terminated their agreement (which by its terms would not have ended until disposition of the litigation by the Supreme Court). Geneva finally brought its generic terazosin HCL capsule product to market on August 13, 1999.
The complaint charges that the challenged agreement prevented competition that Abbott's Hytrin product would otherwise have faced from generic products of Geneva and other potential generic competitors. Generic drugs can have a swift marketplace impact, because pharmacists generally are permitted, and in some instances are required, to substitute lower-priced generic drugs for their branded counterparts, unless the prescribing physician directors otherwise. In addition, there is a ready market for generic products because certain third-party payers of prescription drugs (
These restraints on generic competition had direct and substantial effects on consumers. Without a lower-priced generic alternative, consumers, government agencies, health plans, pharmacies, hospitals, wholesalers, and others were forced to purchase Abbott's more expensive Hytrin product. Other drugs, the complaint states, are not effective substitutes for terazosin HCL because they are different in terms of chemical composition, safety, efficacy, and side effects. There is little price sensitivity between terazosin HCL and other products. Thus, the complaint alleges that the sale of terazosin HCL in the United States in the relevant market within which to assess the effects of the challenged agreement.
The challenged conduct represents an agreement not to compete between potential horizontal competitors. A firm is a potential competitor if there is evidence that entry by that firm is reasonably probable in the absence of the agreement at issue.
In addition, the agreement created a bottleneck that prevented any other potential competitors from entering the market, because no other ANDA filer could obtain FDA approval until Geneva's 180 day exclusivity period expired. Other companies were developing generic terazosin HCL products, and at least one other generic manufacturer had satisfied the FDA's requirements for approval by February 1999, but was barred from entering the market because Geneva's failure to launch its product meant its 180-day exclusivity right had not even begun to run.
The complaint states that the challenged agreement is not justified by any countervailing efficiency. Although the agreement between Abbott and Geneva provided substantial private benefits to both parties, the facts in this matter demonstrate that the broad restraints were not justified by any benefits to competition and consumer welfare. The Commission considered whether the agreement could be considered a procompetitive effort to effectuate a temporary settlement of a patent dispute, akin to a court-ordered preliminary injunction. However, it finds that any legitimate interest in resolving patent disputes cannot justify the harm to consumers imposed by the agreement in this case. The restraint imposed exceeds what likely would be available to the parties under a court-ordered preliminary injunction. For example, it: (1) Barred Geneva's entry beyond the pendency of the district court litigation; (2) provided large up-front payments that could be expected to create disincentives for Geneva to enter (in contrast to a court-ordered bond to cover damages actually incurred as a result of the court's injunction); (3) barred Geneva from relinquishing its
The complaint also charges that Abbott had a monopoly in the market for terazosin HCL, and, by entering into the agreement with Geneva, Abbott sought to preserve its dominance by delaying the entry of Geneva and other generic companies into the market. As detailed above, there were no countervailing justifications for Abbott's conduct. In addition, the complaint alleges that Abbott and Geneva conspired to monopolize the market for terazosin HCL. As stated in the complaint, Abbott and Geneva acted with specific intent that Abbott monopolize the market for terazosin HCL, and entered into a conspiracy to achieve that goal. Finally, the parties' agreement otherwise amounts to an unfair method of competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
The proposed orders are designed to remedy the unlawful conduct charged in the complaint. Although the particular agreement challenged in the complaint has been terminated, prospective relief is necessary to prevent a recurrence of similar agreements with respect to other drugs. Private agreements in which the brand name drug company (the NDA holder) pays the first generic to seek FDA approval (the first filer) not to enter the market can substantially delay generic competition and raise serious antitrust issues. Moreover, the FDA, which has expressed concern about such private agreements, has observed that the incentives for companies to enter into such arrangements are becoming greater, as the returns to the brand name company from extending its monopoly increasingly exceed the potential economic gains to the generic applicant from its 180 days of market exclusivity.
In essence, the proposed orders:
• Bar two particular types of agreements between brand name drug companies and potential generic competitors—restrictions on giving up Hatch-Waxman 180-day exclusivity rights and on entering the market with an non-infringing product;
• Require that agreements involving payments to the generic company to stay off the market be approved by the court when undertaken in the context of an interim settlement of patent litigation, with notice to the Commission to allow it time to present its views to the court;
• Require respondents to give the Commission written notice 30 days before entering into such agreements in other contexts; and
• Require that Geneva waive its right to 180-day marketing exclusivity for its generic terazosin HCL tablet product, so that other generic tablet producers can immediately enter the market.
Paragraph II prohibits two kinds of agreements between “an NDA Holder” and “the ANDA First-Filer” (that is, the party possessing an unexpired right to Hatch-Waxman 180-day exclusivity). Paragraph II.A. bars agreements in which the first company to file an ANDA agrees with the NDA holder not to relinquish its right to the 180-day exclusivity period established under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Paragraph II.B. prohibits the ANDA first filer from agreeing not to develop or market a generic drug product that is not the subject of a patent infringement lawsuit. The order prohibits restrictions on giving up exclusivity rights and on competing with a non-infringing product because under the circumstances of this case these restraints are not justified.
Paragraph II's focus on agreements between an NDA holder and the ANDA first filer does not mean that the Commission believes that there is no risk of competitive harm in other contexts. In particular, Abbott or Geneva's participation in an agreement in which a generic company that is not the ANDA first filer is paid by the NDA holder not to market a non-infringing product could raise substantial competitive concerns. Given the variety of circumstances in which the restraints may arise, however, and the possibility that some legitimate justifications might exist in some other contexts, the Commission believes that it is appropriate at this time to limit the flat bans in Paragraph II to agreements between NDA holders and ANDA first filers.
Paragraphs III bans private agreements involving payments to keep a generic drug off the market during patent infringement litigation brought by an NDA holder. Abbott and Geneva can enter into such arrangements only if (a) They are presented to the court and embodied in a court-ordered preliminary injunction, and (b) the following other conditions are met: (i) Along with any stipulation for preliminary injunction, they provide the court with a copy of the Commission's complaint, order, and this Analysis to Aid Public Comment in this matter, as well as the proposed agreement between the parties; (ii) at least 30 days before submitting the stipulation to the court, they provide written notice to the Commission; and (iii) they do not oppose Commission participation in the court's consideration of the request for preliminary relief.
Thus, the proposed orders bar agreements made in the context of an interim settlement of a patent infringement action, whereby the NDA holder pays the generic not to enter the market, unless the parties obtain court approval through a process that is designed to enhance the court's ability to assess the competitive implications of the agreement. This remedy, in addition to facilitating the court's access to information about the Commission's views, also makes the process public and thereby may prompt other generic drug manufacturers (or other interested parties) to alert the court to potential anticompetitive provisions that could delay their entry into the market. Furthermore, the Commission believes that the requirement that the agreement be filed on the public record with the court will deter Abbott and Geneva from entering into anticompetitive agreements.
Paragraph IV addresses certain agreements to stay off the market that are not covered by Paragraph III because they do not involve interim relief in a litigated matter. Such situations would include agreements that are part of a final settlement of the litigation, and situations in which no litigation has been brought. In these circumstances, there is no judicial role in ordering relief agreed to by the parties. The Commission is concerned about such private agreements in which the first filer is paid by the NDA holder not to enter the market, because of the substantial risk of competitive harm that they may create. Thus, the order requires that Abbott and Geneva notify the Commission 30 days before entering into an agreement in which an ANDA first filer agrees with an NDA holder to refrain from going to market. Such notice will assist the Commission in detecting anticompetitive agreements before they have caused substantial injury to consumers. Absent the order, there is no mechanism for the antitrust enforcement agencies to find out about such agreements.
The form of notice that Abbott and Geneva must provide to the Commission under Paragraphs III and IV of the orders is set forth in Paragraph V. In addition to supplying a copy of the proposed agreement, they are required to provide certain other information to assist the Commission in assessing the potential competitive impact of the agreement. Accordingly, the orders require them to identify, among other things, all others who have filed an ANDA for a product containing the same chemical entities as the product a issue, and the court that is hearing any relevant legal proceedings involving either party. In addition, they must provide the Commission with all documents that evaluate the proposed agreement.
In addition, the proposed order against Geneva requires that it waive its 180-day marketing exclusivity period for its generic terazosin HCL tablet product. Although Geneva's exclusivity right with respect to the terazosin capsules product has expired, its exclusivity period for the tablet product still remains as a barrier to entry. This provision of the order will therefore open the market to greater generic competition in terazosin HCL products.
The proposed orders also contain certain reporting and other provisions that are designed to assist the Commission in monitoring compliance with the order and are standard provisions in Commission orders.
The orders will expire in 10 years.
The proposed orders have been placed on the public record for 30 days in order to receive comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreements and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreements or make the proposed orders final.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the agreements. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreements, the proposed complaint, or the proposed consent orders, or to modify their terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
The Analysis to Aid Public Comment, published today along with proposed consent orders against Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Abbott Laboratories, describes the conduct of those two companies in agreeing that Abbot would pay Geneva to refrain from selling a generic version of Hytrin, Abbott's branded version of terazosin hydrochloride. It also describes relevant provisions of the Drug Price competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (“Hatch-Waxman Act”), including particularly the provision that gives the first generic company to seek FDA approval a 180-day period during which it has the exclusive right to market the generic version of a brand name drug.
Pursuant to a private agreement not reviewed by any court, Abbott paid Geneva substantial sums not to enter the market with its generic version of Hytrin, and not to transfer, assign or relinquish its 180-day exclusive marketing right to any other producer of generic products that might compete with Abbot. By not selling its generic version. Geneva prevented the start of the 180-day exclusivity period, with the result that neither Geneva nor any other company could introduce a generic version of Hytrin into the market.
These consent orders represent the first resolution of an antitrust challenge by the government to a private agreement whereby a brand name drug company paid the first generic company that sought FDA approval not to enter the market, and to retain its 180-day period of market exclusivity. Because the behavior occurred in the context of the complicated provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, and because this is the first government antitrust enforcement action in this area, we believe the public interest is satisfied with orders that regulate future conduct by the parties. We recognize that there may be market settings in which similar but less restrictive arrangements could be justified, and each case must be examined with respect to its particular facts.
We have today issued an administrative complaint against two other pharmaceutical companies with respect to conduct that is in some ways similar to the conduct addressed by these consent orders. We anticipate that the development of a full factual record in the administrative proceeding, as well as the public comments on these consent orders, will help to shape further the appropriate parameters of permissible conduct in this area, and guide other companies and their legal advisors.
Pharmaceutical firms should now be on notice, however, that arrangements comparable to those addressed in the present consent orders can raise serious antitrust issues, with a potential for serious consumer harm. Accordingly, in the future, the Commission will consider its entire range of remedies in connection with enforcement actions against such arrangements, including possibly seeking disgorgement of illegally obtained profits.
If firms are uncertain about the limits of permissible behavior under the Hatch-Waxman Act, they may, of course, seek advisory opinions from the staff of this agency.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed Consent Agreement.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices or unfair methods of competition. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint that accompanies the consent agreement and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before June 2, 2000.
Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20580.
Richard Feinstein or Steven Osnowitz, FTC/S-3115, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-2574 or 326-2746.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and Section 2.34 of the Commission's Rules of Practice (16 CFR 2.34), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent
Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,, Washington, D.C. 20580. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3
The Federal Trade Commission (“Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, a proposed consent order settling charges that the Colegio de Cirujanos Dentistas de Puerto Rico (“Colegio”), an association of dentists in Puerto Rico: (1) organized boycotts and refusals to deal, and engaged in other anticompetitive conduct, designed to raise prices for dental services; and (2) prohibited its members from engaging in certain types of truthful, nondeceptive advertising. The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for sixty (60) days to receive comments by interested persons. The proposed consent order has been entered into for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the Colegio that it violated the law or that the facts alleged in the complaint, other than the jurisdictional facts, are true.
The Colegio is an association of approximately 1800 dentists licensed to practice dentistry in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico law requires, with certain limited exceptions, that dentists maintain membership in the Colegio to practice in Puerto Rico. Accordingly, the Colegio's members constitute the vast majority of dentists practicing in Puerto Rico.
The complaint charges that the Colegio restrained competition among dentists in Puerto Rico by, among other things, fixing the terms under which individual dentists would deal with health insurers and other payers of health care services, and orchestrating or threatening boycotts of payers by its members to obtain higher reimbursement. According to the proposed complaint, the Colegio promulgated a Code of Ethics that bars dentists from contracting with any health insurance plan (“plan”) that is not endorsed by the Colegio. The Colegio refused to approve plans unless they: reimbursed dentists on a fee-for-service basis rather than capitation; were open to participation by all dentists; and were “responsive” to raising fees at the Colegio's request. Plans sought the Colegio's endorsement or approval in order to secure a sufficient number of participating dentists.
The complaint also alleges that the Colegio acted as the collective bargaining agent for its members. Through its Committee on Prepaid Dental Services, and in other ways, the Colegio engaged in discussions with numerous payers about fees and other terms its members would accept from these payers. For example, from 1992 through 1994, the Colegio successfully negotiated on behalf of its members to obtain fee increases from the two largest payers for dental coverage in Puerto Rico, Triple S and La Cruz Azul. In another instance, the complaint charges, the Colegio organized dentists to refuse to deal with a new plan proposed by Triple S that would have paid dentists a set amount per enrollee rather than the traditional fee for service, and Triple S was compelled to cancel the plan.
The complaint further alleges that the Colegio set the prices and other terms under which its member dentists would deal with plans operating under Puerto Rico's Health Insurance Act of 1993 (the “Reform”), a program to provide health care services to the indigent. During 1995, for example, the Colegio successfully blocked Triple S attempts to implement a new plan in the North Region of the Reform, and defeated Triple S plans to implement a 10% discount for dental fees. In the Central Region of the Reform, the Colegio succeeded in forcing PCA to agree that payments to dentists would be based on fee for service, and that its dental panels would be open to all Colegio members. When PCA attempted in 1996 to revise its dental contracts for the Central Region, in order to provide for utilization and quality audits, the Colegio withheld its endorsement, and PCA was unable to secure contracts with a sufficient number of dentists to offer the plan.
The complaint charges that the Colegio has acted to prevent certain forms of truthful, nondeceptive advertising. Its Code of Ethics bans advertising that is not “professionally acceptable,” use of most illustrations, advertisements deemed not in good taste, and all personal solicitations. The complaint further alleges that the Colegio applied its ban on unprofessional advertising against dentists from Ponce, Puerto Rico, who truthfully advertised their willingness to accept Reform patients from neighboring areas where dentists were conducting a boycott of the Reform.
According to the complaint, the Colegio has not integrated the practices of its members in any economically significant way, nor has it created any efficiencies that might justify the acts and practices alleged in the complaint. Rather, the complaint charges that the Colegio's conduct has had the purpose and effect of restraining competition among dentists and injuring consumers by, among other things, fixing or increasing prices for dental services; fixing the terms and conditions upon which dentists would deal with payers, thereby raising the price to consumers of insurance coverage; raising prices paid by the Reform and delaying the offerings of dental services under the Reform; and depriving consumers of truthful information about dental services.
The proposed consent order prohibits the Colegio from continuing the illegal conduct described in the complaint. Specifically, Part II of the order prohibits the Colegio from endorsing or approving, refusing to endorse or approve, or prohibiting or declaring unethical a dentist's participation in a health plan based on the amount, manner of calculating, or other terms relating to reimbursement for dental services, or on whether the plan is open to participation by all Colegio members. The Colegio also is prohibited from (1) negotiating on behalf of any dentists with any payer or provider; (2) refusing to deal, boycotting, or threatening to boycott any payer or provider; or (3) determining any terms, conditions, or requirements upon which dentists will deal with any provider, including terms of reimbursement, and whether the plan is open to participation by all Colegio members.
Further, the Colegio is prohibited from communicating to any payer or provider any term, condition, or requirement on which Colegio members are willing or unwilling to deal with a payer or provider, and from communicating with any member concerning the desirability or appropriateness of any term or condition of a payer relating to dental services, or whether the plan is open to participation by all Colegio members. The Colegio cannot facilitate in any manner, or transfer the exchange of, information concerning dentists' intentions to contract with any payer, or under what terms.
The proposed order does not restrict legitimate communications between the Colegio and payers. Health care practitioners' provision of certain kinds of information to payers is not likely to raise antitrust concerns, but instead may serve to promote competition and benefit consumers. For example, the DOJ/FTC Statements of Enforcement Policy in Health Care (1996) define two “antitrust safety zones” dealing with the provision of information to payers, and state that conduct falling within these safety zones will not be challenged by the enforcement agencies absent extraordinary circumstances.
The proposed order likewise does not restrict the right of the Colegio to provide government bodies with information and opinions in an effort to influence legislation or regulatory action. A proviso states explicitly that the order does not prohibit the Colegio from petitioning any federal, state, or Commonwealth government executive agency or legislative body concerning legislation, rules, or procedures, or from participating in any federal, state, or Commonwealth administrative or judicial proceeding, insofar as the activity is protected from antitrust scrutiny by the
Part III of the proposed order prohibits the Colegio from restricting truthful advertising of dental services or solicitation of patients. The Colegio, however, can formulate, adopt, disseminate, and enforce reasonable ethical guidelines governing the conduct of its members with respect to representations that respondent reasonably believes would be false or deceptive within the meaning of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, or with respect to uninvited in-person solicitation of actual or potential patients who, because of their particular circumstances, are vulnerable to undue influence.
Part IV of the proposed order requires the Colegio to distribute copies of the order and accompanying complaint to its employees and members, and to payers or providers who since January 1, 1995, communicated a desire or interest in contracting for dentists' services. Part IV also requires the Colegio to maintain certain records pertaining to advertising for a period of ten years, while other order provisions will remain in effect for twenty years. Parts V and VI of the proposed order impose certain reporting requirements, while Part VII of the proposed order provides for access to the Colegio's documents and personnel. Parts V, VI, and VII are to assist the Commission in monitoring compliance with the proposed order.
The proposed order has been placed on the public record for sixty (60) days in order to receive public comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After sixty (60) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the agreement. The analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement, the proposed complaint, or the proposed consent order, or to modify their terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections recently submitted to OMB.
Project 1. First Follow-Up Survey of Youth and Site Visit and Focus Group Protocols for the Federal Evaluation of Initiatives Funded Under Section 510 of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program—The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Public Law 104-193) established Section 510 of the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant Program, the purpose of which is to support state efforts promoting abstinence only education. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-33) established a requirement to “evaluate programs under Section 510.” This proposed information collection will gather follow-up information for the evaluation—NEW—Respondents: Individuals, state or local governments—Burden Information for First Follow-Up Survey—Number of Respondents: 6,510; Average Burden per Response: .75 hours; Burden: 4,883 hours—Burden Information for Focus Groups—Number of Respondents: 380; Average Burden per Response: 2 hours; Burden: 760 hours—Burden Information for Executive Interviews—Number of Respondents: 330; Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours; Burden: 495 hours—Total Burden: 6,138 hours.
OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be obtained
Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington DC, 20201. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary publishes a list of information collections it has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) and 5 CFR 1320.5. The following are those information collections recently submitted to OMB.
1. Site Visit Protocols for the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grant Program—0990-0230—Revision—This data collection will provide site specific information for a sample of Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grant programs which will support the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in its efforts to further document the status of the grants program and provide information on implementation issues as part of the Congressionally mandated evaluation of the WtW grants program. Respondents: Individuals, State, Local or Tribal Governments, Non-profit Institutions—Burden Information for Staff Interviews—Number of Responses: 360; Burden per Response: 1 hour; Total Burden for Staff Interviews: 360 hours—Burden Information for Focus Groups—Number of Responses: 350; Burden per Response: 1.5 hours; Total Burden for Focus Groups: 540 hours—Burden Information for Individual Tribal Program Participants—Number of Responses: 50; Burden per Response: .5 hours; Total Burden for Tribal Participants: 30 hours—Total Burden—930 hours.
2. Follow-up Survey for the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grant Program—New—This information collection will support the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in its efforts to evaluate the WtW grant program by obtaining detailed information on program participants circumstances and experiences with the program. Respondents: Individuals; Number of Respondents: 7225; Number of Responses: 12,750; Burden per Response: 46 minutes; Total Burden: 9819 hours; OMB Desk Officer: Allison Eydt.
Copies of the information collection packages listed above can be obtained by calling the OS Reports Clearance Officer on (202) 690-6207. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the OMB desk officer designated above at the following address: Human Resources and Housing Branch, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments may also be sent to Cynthia Agens Bauer, OS Reports Clearance Officer, Room 503H, Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20201. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of certain documents to update the administrative docket of the proposed rule on dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. This action is being taken to ensure that interested persons are aware of the updated information. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Marquita B. Steadman, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-7), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-827-6733.
In the
FDA is updating the docket for the ephedrine alkaloids proposal with additional information, most of which was received after publication of the proposal.
FDA received 270 additional adverse event reports between February and September 1997. FDA added these adverse event reports to the ephedrine alkaloids proposal's docket in two submissions without formal clinical analysis. FDA did not rely on these 270 reports in the ephedrine alkaloids proposal because FDA received them after it began its analysis for the proposal.
FDA has received additional documentation (e.g., copies of product labels and labeling, information on how the consumers used the products at issue and available medical or other clinical records) concerning
Should FDA receive additional information on the adverse events that are part of the administrative docket for the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, the agency will include it in that docket.
This updated information may be seen by interested persons at the Dockets Management Branch (address above) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
In the
The House Committee on Science requested that the Government Accounting Office (GAO) examine the scientific bases for the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, and the agency's adherence to the regulatory analysis requirements for Federal rulemaking. On August 4, 1999, GAO publicly released its report entitled “Dietary Supplements: Uncertainties in Analyses Underlying FDA's Proposed Rule on Ephedrine Alkaloids.” A copy of this report is available in Docket No. 95N-0304.
Generally, the GAO concluded that FDA was justified in determining that the number of AER's relating to dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids warranted the agency's attention and consideration of steps to address safety issues. In addition, the GAO concluded that the available scientific information suggests that the use of products containing synthetic ephedrine alkaloids can result in adverse experiences for some individuals. However, GAO expressed concerns about the use of the adverse events in supporting the proposed dosing level and duration of use limit, and concluded that the agency needed additional evidence to support these restrictions.
GAO also concluded that FDA's economic analysis contained the basic elements expected in a Federal agency's cost-benefit analysis and that the ephedrine alkaloids proposal complied with regulatory flexibility analysis requirements under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. GAO noted, however, that FDA's cost-benefit analysis was not always transparent regarding why certain key assumptions were made, the degree of uncertainty involved in those assumptions, or the effect that alternative assumptions would have had on the agency's estimates of the costs and benefits of the proposed action.
GAO recommended that FDA “provide stronger evidence on the relationship between the intake of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids and the occurrence of adverse reactions that support the proposed dosing level and duration of use limits.” In addition, GAO recommended that FDA improve the transparency of its cost-benefit analysis in its final rulemaking.
Before the GAO report was released, FDA had already begun accumulating and evaluating data on additional adverse events reported to the agency since the publication of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal as well as initiating a process to obtain outside scientific input and review. Since publication of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal and following release of the GAO report, FDA has continued to receive reports of adverse events, conducted its own independent evaluations and analyses, and continued to seek input from outside experts on these issues. FDA is now making available new information, the vast majority of which it has received since publication of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal.
To gain a better perspective on the significance of the public health concern and public health problems associated with the current use of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, CFSAN applied its available resources towards conducting
As part of FDA's overall evaluation, it also contracted with outside scientific and clinical experts to obtain additional evaluation on dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, including the same 139 adverse events that CDER reviewed. FDA also conducted a market review covering August 1999 through March 2000 to determine whether there have been changes in the marketplace, including identification of new products containing ephedrine alkaloids.
A listing of this new information is provided in section IV of this document.
FDA has received additional new AER's that have not been placed in any docket, and fall outside of the New case series timeframe (e.g., June 1, 1997, through March 31, 1999). Of these adverse events, 14 were reported before May 31, 1997, (“Pre-case series”). Moreover, 119 were reported beginning from April 1, 1999, and received by FDA by December 31, 1999, with any additional followup information received by February 15, 2000 (“Post case series”). Neither FDA nor its outside experts have conducted a comprehensive clinical analysis of the AER's in the Pre-case and Post-case series. FDA is announcing the availability of the Pre-case and Post-case series in this document.
FDA is establishing a new docket [Docket No. 00N-1200] and making available at the Dockets Management Branch (address above) for public inspection the following documents:
1. One hundred and Fourty redacted AER's with a report date during the time period June 1, 1997, through March 31, 1999, (“New Case Series”) associated with dietary supplement products that were known or suspected to contain ephedrine alkaloids.
2. A document entitled “Assessment of Public Health Risks Associated with the Use of Ephedrine Alkaloid-containing Dietary Supplements,” which includes the following sections:
a. Section One: Overview/Background
b. Section Two: CFSAN's Evaluation of New Case Series. This evaluation included an initial screening to determine whether the quality of evidence available was sufficient to support a more comprehensive clinical evaluation. CFSAN subjected only those adverse events judged to have sufficient information to further evaluation. Following the initial screening of these reports, 8 of the 140 were eliminated from further review. The clinical evaluation of the remaining reports resulted in the following classifications: (1) Adequate information to evaluate the relationship of product use to the adverse event and (2) insufficient data to further assess clinically or nonsupportive of a relationship between dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids and the adverse event. Each of the reports with adequate information was reviewed and classified further into “attributable” and “supporting”. The criteria for “attributable” and “supporting” are explained in the document.
c. Section Three: CFSAN's Review of the Published Literature on the Physiological, Pharmacological and Toxic Effects of Ephedrine Alkaloids.
d. Section Four: Bibliography of Scientific References/citations for documents a through c above.
e. Section Five: Appendices to Section Two above.
3. FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's review of AER's associated with dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids, including a clinical review of 139 of the adverse events evaluated in CFSAN's New Case Series.
4. Reports from Outside Consultants concerning the following clinical/scientific reviews:
a. Raymond Woosley, M.D., Ph.D., Review of 139 of the adverse events in the New Case Series and the likelihood of the events being associated with ephedrine alkaloids.
b. Neal Benowitz, M.D., Review of 139 of the adverse events in the New Case Series and the likelihood of the events being associated with ephedrine alkaloids.
c. Andrew L. Stoll, M.D., Review of specific neuropsychiatrically-related adverse events from the New Case Series and the likelihood of the events being associated with ephedrine alkaloids.
d. George A. Ricaurte, M.D., Ph.D., Review of specific nerologically-related adverse events from the New Case Series and the likelihood of the events being associated with ephedrine alkaloids.
e. Ka Kit Paul Hui, M.D., Opinion on the use of ephedra by practitioners trained in Traditional Chinese Medicine, including conditions, dosages, interactions, and duration of use.
f. Mario Inchiosa, Ph.D., Scientific literature search and evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of naturally-occurring ephedrine alkaloids and synthetic ephedrine alkaloids.
g. Alexander Walker, M.D., Dr. P.H., Statement concerning the likely reporting rate of adverse events involving dietary supplements.
5. Fourteen redacted AER's with a report date before May 31, 1997, which have not been placed in any docket (“Pre-case series”) concerning dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. These AER's have not received an extensive clinical analysis by FDA.
6. One hundred and nineteen redacted adverse events with report dates beginning April 1, 1999, and received by FDA by December 31, 1999, with followup information received by February 15, 2000 (“Post-case series”) concerning dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. These
7. CFSAN Market Review—FDA review covering the period August 1999 through March 2000 to determine whether there have been changes in the types of ephedrine alkaloid containing dietary supplement products available in the marketplace since the agency's review in 1995-1996.
Several parties have informed the agency that, since the issuance of the ephedrine alkaloids proposal, there is new usage data, and new scientific information, including clinical trials sponsored by manufacturers, that supports the safety of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. FDA has not been provided this information to date and encourages interested persons to submit this information and any other information the submitter believes is relevant to assessing the safety of dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. FDA encourages interested persons to submit this information to this docket by May 18, 2000, so that it will be available to the public and the agency for review.
Interested persons may submit to the Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments on the availability. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. These documents and any received comments may be seen by interested persons at the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
A public forum for discussion of the documents being made available in this document will be held at a date and location to be announced. A contact person for the public forum will also be announced.
Written comments received in response to this document, and participation at the public forum, will assist the agency in determining appropriate next steps regarding dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Street Drug Alternatives.” The guidance is intended to inform industry and the public that FDA considers any product that is promoted as a street drug alternative to be an unapproved new drug and a misbranded drug in violation of two sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act). Such violations may result in regulatory action, including seizure and injunction.
Submit written comments on agency guidances at any time.
Copies of this guidance for industry are available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm. Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Drug Information Branch (HFD-210), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. Submit written comments on the guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
William Nychis, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (HFD-310), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 301-827-7363.
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Street Drug Alternatives.” FDA is issuing this guidance in response to the proliferation of various products that are being manufactured, marketed, or distributed as alternatives to illicit street drugs. FDA is concerned that these products are being abused by individuals, including minors, and pose a potential threat to the public health.
These street drug alternatives are generally labeled as containing botanicals, and some are also labeled as containing other ingredients, such as vitamins, minerals, or amino acids. They are marketed under a variety of brand names with claims implying that these products mimic the effects of controlled substances. These products are intended to be used for recreational purposes to effect psychological states.
This guidance is intended to inform industry and the public that FDA considers any product that is promoted as a street drug alternative to be an unapproved new drug and a misbranded drug in violation of sections 505 and 502 of the act (21 U.S.C. 355 and 352). Such violations may result in regulatory action, including seizure and injunction.
Moreover, FDA is also aware that some of these street drug alternatives are being promoted as dietary supplements. FDA does not consider street drug alternatives to be dietary supplements because they are not intended to supplement the diet.
This Level 1 guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices (62 FR 8961, February 27, 1997). The guidance is being implemented immediately without prior public comment because of the potential hazard to the public health. The guidance represents the agency's current thinking on street drug alternatives. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statute, regulations, or both.
Interested persons may, at any time, submit written comments on the guidance to the Dockets Management Branch (address above). Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document. The guidance and received comments are available for public examination in the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
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 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) will publish periodic summaries of proposed projects to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval.
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact Ms. Ronni Nelson, Laboratory of Neurogenetics, Division of Intramural Clinical and Biological Research, NIAAA, NIH, 12420 Parklawn Drive, Suite 451, Rockville, Maryland 20852 or E-mail your request, including your address to: rn46h@nih.gov. Ms. Nelson can be contacted by telephone at 301-443-5781.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received on or before June 2, 2000.
Under the provisions of Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Director, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The annualized cost burden to respondents is estimated at $365,428. There are no Capital Costs, Operating Costs and/or Maintenance Costs to report.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to: The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for NIH. To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plan and instruments, contact: Dr. Linda Pottern, Project Officer, Women's Health Initiative Program Office, 6705 Rockledge Drive, 1 Rockledge Centre, Suite 300, MSC 7966, Bethesda, MD 20892-7966, or call (301) 402-2900 or E-Mail your request, including your address to: Linda_Pottern@nih.gov
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received on or before June 2, 2000.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally funded research and development.
Licensing information and a copy of the U.S. patent application referenced below may be obtained by contacting J. R. Dixon, Ph.D., at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804 (telephone 301/496-7056 ext 206; fax 301/402-0220; E-Mail: jd212g@NIH.GOV). A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement is required to receive a copy of any patent application.
The above mentioned Invention is available, including any available foreign intellectual property rights, for licensing.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.
Notice.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), Public Health Service (PHS), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), seeks a licensee(s) to develop gene therapy-based therapeutics that would be effective in the treatment of a variety of disease states, particularly via transfer of specific genes to the lung. The inventors have developed adenoviral
The NIH seeks licensee(s) who, in accordance with requirements and regulations governing the licensing of government-owned inventions (37 CFR 404), has the most meritorious plan for the development of a therapeutic agent(s) to meet the needs of the public and with the best terms for the government. NIH intends to grant the selected licensee(s) a world-wide royalty-bearing license(s) to practice the inventions embodied in U.S. Patent 6,013,638 entitled “Adenovirus Comprising Deletions on the E1A, E1B and E3 Regions for Transfer of Genes to the Lung” U.S. Patent Application S/N 09/364,839 entitled “Adenovirus-Mediated Transfer of Genes to the Lung”; U.S. Patent Application S/N 09/307,141 entitled “Adenovirus-Mediated Transfer of Genes to the Lung” and U.S. Patent Application S/N 08/442,262 entitled “Replication Deficient Recombinant Adenovirus Vector”. The United States of America is an assignee for the patent rights in these inventions.
Licensing information, a copy of the U.S. patent or applications referenced to above or a copy of the NIH License Application may be obtained by contacting Richard U. Rodriguez, M.B.A., at the Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, Maryland 20852-3804 (telephone 301/496-7056 ext 287; fax 301/402-0220; and E-mail rr154z@nih.gov). A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement is required to receive a copy of any patent application.
One of the hurdles to overcome in most forms of somatic gene therapy is the specific delivery of a therapeutic gene, encoding a therapeutic protein, to the organ manifesting the disease. In the case of the lung, a functional gene can be delivered directly to the respiratory epithelium by means of tracheal installation. One serious disadvantage with this approach is encountered with the use of vectors (such as retroviruses) that require proliferation of the target cells for expression of the newly transferred gene because only a small proportion of alveolar and airway epithelial cells go through the proliferative cycle in one day and because a large proportion of these cells are terminally differentiated. Use of the claimed recombinant adenoviral vector to transfer a gene to the respiratory epithelium
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Cancer Institute.
The meeting will be open to the public, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of the Director's Consumer Liaison Group.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(6) and 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The discussions could reveal information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and the premature disclosure of discussions related to personnel and programmatic issues would likely to significantly frustrate the subsequent implementation of recommendations.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Mental Health Council.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
National Institutes of Health, Public Health Service, DHHS.
Notice.
This is notice, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(c)(1) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i), that the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services, is contemplating the grant of an exclusive license worldwide to practice the invention embodied in: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/182,898, entitled “Multispectral/Hyperspectral Medical Instrument”, filed October 30, 1998; U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 09/389,342 entitled “Infrared Balloon Probe” filed September 2, 1999, and US Provisional Patent Application SN 60/142,068, entitled “Dual Modality Imaging Apparatus”, filed July 2, 1999, to HyperMed, Inc. having a place of business in Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. The United States of America is an assignee to the patent rights of these inventions.
The contemplated exclusive license may be limited to the development of diagnostic instruments, devices, compositions and methods, to be used for diagnostics based on the spectral differentiation between healthy and unhealthy/damaged tissue.
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the NIH Office of Technology Transfer on or before July 3, 2000 will be considered.
Requests for a copy of the patent application, inquiries, comments and other materials relating to the contemplated license should be directed to: Uri Reichman, Ph.D., Technology Licensing Specialist, Office of Technology Transfer, National Institutes of Health, 6011 Executive Boulevard, Suite 325, Rockville, MD 20852-3804; Telephone: (301) 496-7056, ext. 240; Facsimile: (301) 402-0220; E-mail: reichmau@od.nih.gov. A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement will be required to receive copies of the patent application.
The three patent applications describe medical imaging technologies and related instrumentation and their application for surgical “real time” diagnostics. The inventions are based on the difference of spectral images between normal and damaged (
The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within 90 days from the date of this published Notice, NIH receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Properly filed competing applications for a license filed in response to this notice will be treated as objections to the contemplated license. Comments and objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available for public inspection, and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 522.
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Interior.
Notice of public meetings and opportunity for comment.
The Department of the Interior manages property it holds in trust for individual Indians and maintains revenue, in Individual Indian Monies (IIM) accounts, that accrues to individuals holding an interest in trust lands. The Department recognizes that as a result of past weaknesses in its accounting and information systems, IIM account holders have not always had sufficient information to be able to ascertain whether income from their trust assets was properly credited, maintained, and distributed to and from their IIM accounts. As directed by Congress, the Department is continuing development of a reconciliation process to evaluate the reliability of past account activity. This notice initiates an information gathering process with IIM account beneficiaries, and the public, to comply with Congressional directives to determine the most reasonable methods for providing accountholders with information to evaluate their accounts and to determine whether there are discrepancies due to past management practices.
Written comments will be collected until June 30, 2000. The Department will also conduct public meetings to collect views, as outlined in this notice, at the following dates and locations:
Written comments or suggestions about the processes that should be undertaken by the Department to meet the stated goals of this notice should be mailed to Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of American Indian Trust, Attention: Director, Loretta Tuell, 1849 C Street, NW, Mail Stop 2472-MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
Loretta Tuell, Dierector, Office of American Indian Trust, at the above address or by telephone at (202) 208-3338.
Further background information, including historic information on IIM accounts, to aid comments on this notice will be available at these locations prior to the
Currently, approximately 11 million acres of land are administered in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit or more than 300,000 individual Indian beneficiaries. In 1997 Departmental auditors estimated approximately $300 million is generated annually from the management of the lands and passes through the IIM accounts. This is a significant expansion since the 1955 GAO Audit report which reported that in 1950 there were only 88,000 IIM accounts and in fiscal year 1955 approximately $66 million was handled within the IIM system. As outlined below, this dramatic growth in beneficiaries since the inception of the IIM system overburdened the existing accounting and distribution systems of the Department. By Congressional mandate, those systems are currently being modernized. However, the Department recognizes, as has the General Accounting Office, that it is not feasible or practicable to re-create past transactions with the same precision that the Department expects the new systems to provide when fully operational.
The Department's obligation to reconcile accounts was initially raised by Congress in the 1987 Supplemental Appropriations Act; and Congress has continued to oversee the development of various options to carry out this obligation. The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 162a.
In 1887, Congress enacted the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388. The Allotment Act authorized the President to allot portions of reservation land to individual Indians. Title to the allotted land was to remain with the United States in trust for at least 25 years, after which it was to be conveyed in fee to the Indian beneficiary. The Allotment Act resulted in a loss of over 90 million acres of Indian-held land, primarily through the distribution to non-Indians of reservation lands remaining after allotment. Land also passed out of the hands of many Indian allottees who received fee title after 25 years through forced sales and the operation of state intestacy laws.
In 1934, Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act to protect (and enhance, when possible) the remaining land base of Indian tribes and their members and to permit the tribes to engage in self-government.
Under the Indian General Allotment Act of 1887, 24 Stat. 388, as amended, the Department of the Interior has managed land held in trust for individual Indians which often generates revenue for the beneficial owners. Generally, the primary mechanism for distributing money earned on allotted lands to the beneficiaries has been the IIM account. Historically, funds collected from the use of allotted lands were deposited in either the Federal Treasury or private banks. The funds were then divided based on each individual's proportional interest in the land generating the funds. Each individual's share of the funds was then placed in an IIM account, where it was held until distribution. With certain exceptions, the income was then distributed to the account holder (beneficiary) by a bonded disbursing officer. Funds also have been derived from per capita payments from the Indian Claims Commission, U.S. Court of Claims, and appropriations from legislative claims settlements and were distributed in a similar manner.
As interests in individual allotments continued to pass to subsequent generations, the number of owners of an individual allotment multiplied to the extent that some of the 40, 80, or 160 acre allotments which originally had one owner, today may have hundreds, or even more. While the amount of money generated has increased significantly since the inception of the IIM system, the number of beneficiary accounts has increased at a much greater rate. Today, many of these interests, having been passed through many generations, may entitle the owner to such a small portion of the proceeds generated that the beneficiary receives only pennies a year.
After the passage of the Act, the Department's Special Trustee conducted an examination of the IIM accounts in order to produce the Strategic Plan required by the Act. The Strategic Plan identified a number of problems with the historic management of the accounts. For example, since the record keeping and distribution of money was historically handled at the local level, multiple accounts could be formed if an individual either owned land in several areas or moved and was serviced at a different BIA office. Moreover, the Department's systems for managing IIM accounts have not kept pace with systems available to the private sector. These problems compounded each other and in the end overwhelmed the system such that the Department has been unable to provide many beneficiaries with basic information such as the source of funds, gains and losses, and periodic statements of account performance. As a result, many beneficiaries have been unable to fairly evaluate the management of their accounts to verify they are receiving their proper share of the income collected through the Department's management of their land interests.
In response to accountholder demands and Congressional findings that the systems must be overhauled, Congress enacted The American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994, PL 103-412, which prescribed specific information that would henceforth be required to be provided to individuals about the Department's management of their accounts. The Department believes the systems currently being developed and implemented will comply with the mandates of the Act.
In 1994 Congress, through passage of the Act, mandated a series of specific reforms to the ongoing management of Indian trust funds.
Although the requirements of the Act are primarily forward-looking, some of the prospective requirements such as periodic reconciliations and determining accurate cash balances necessarily require some level of
In contrast to the Tribal trust funds, for which Congress provided a framework for applying the Department's reconciliation process, the Act contains no such guidance for the reconciliation of IIM accounts. At the time the Act was enacted, the Department had not identified a satisfactory methodology for historical IIM reconciliation, given the availability and condition of the records and the high cost of gathering and analyzing relevant documents. The Act simply provided that an IIM reconciliation process would be “monitored” by the Special Trustee to ensure a “fair and accurate accounting” is provided to accountholders. 25 U.S.C. 4043. While Congress did not specify the nature of the remedy, the Act does recognize the existence of both the historical problems and ongoing attempts to devise an approach to resolving them. Given the acknowledged problems with past account management systems, and the 1994 Act's intent to resolve the account management deficiencies, the Department wishes to address the fact that these deficiencies may have resulted in accountholder losses through the development of a fair, reasonable, and practicable solution. Because the Act does not provide the Department with guidance on what type of process should be used to provide beneficiaries with information about their accounts' histories, the Department believes Congress left the initial determination of how, and to what extent, it would achieve an accounting or reconciliation of IIM accounts to the Department.
In 1996, the
The Department notes that, although the goals of this process go beyond the remedies available in the
Pursuant to this obligation, this notice is intended to initiate a process with beneficiaries and the public to gather information about available options to enable the Department to determine the best process to meet the following goals:
(1) Develop a methodology, consistent with Congressional directives, to examine past account activity and discover information appropriate to enable beneficiaries and the Department to evaluate whether income from their trust assets was properly credited, maintained, and distributed to and from their IIM accounts before October 25, 1994;
(2) Explore approaches to fairly compensate beneficiaries and finally resolve discrepancies.
This process is focused on developing a general methodology to investigate IIM account activity in order to provide reasonable information to account holders. This process will not, for example, address allegations of mismanagement, or other allegations of taking, of the underlying property interests. Although the methodology selected may ultimately result in a procedure which includes bringing individualized grievances related to lost income, these grievances will not be addressed within the process outlined in this notice.
Although the Department intends to consider the widest possible range of options for meeting the goals stated above, the Department will be guided by a number of factors in evaluating the reasonableness of each option. Each approach would require some tradeoff among the level of precision of account information provided to beneficiaries, the cost of obtaining and providing information, the impact on BIA's and OST's other responsibilities, and time needed to develop a basis for compensation. It is important that these tradeoffs be considered in evaluating the various options.
In addition, it is important to consider what has been proposed and rejected in the past and what the Department has learned from studying the accounts. Past proposals to perform IIM reconciliation have been dismissed by both Indian groups and Congress as being too expensive for the limited information produced. From 1988 to 1994, the Department, with the aid of Arthur Andersen, investigated the possibility of performing a reconciliation that would develop information on accounts without regard to the size of the account or transaction. Many of these proposals were dismissed by Congress, the Department, and the Intertribal Monitoring Association (“ITMA”) as not being worth the cost. For example, in 1995 Congress declined to fund IIM reconciliation tasks and the Appropriations Committee instructed the Department to, “recommend alternative, less costly approaches to the reconciliation and clarify the implications of not reconciling [IIM]
Any approach ultimately selected must also provide a final resolution for both the Department and beneficiaries with regard to the pre-1994 period that is necessary for the Department to fully correct the management of the IIM system into the future. While the level of finality needed may vary according to such issues as the level of precision achieved, it is important to note that a primary consideration for any process selected must be to end uncertainty and achieve finality as to past account activity.
It may well be that accountholders will have differing views on what is necessary to provide them with a satisfactory “accounting.” Those with larger accounts may be more interested in an option which offers great precision, even though achieving the desired level of precision will take a long time and substantial resources. In contrast, accountholders with smaller accounts—those with less than $100 in income per year, for example—may be satisfied with a methodology that does not yield a precise result but that leads to a fast result with certain assumptions built in to compensate for the reduced precision. As discussed more fully below, it may not be necessary to use the same methodology for all accountholders. Distinctions among accounts may be made based, for example, on the size of the account or the nature of the underlying assets owned by the accountholder.
The approach selected must provide accountholders with confidence that they have been treated fairly. The Department is spending in excess of $190 million to clean up the trust fund accounts, to install new systems to administer trust resources and trust funds, and to train Departmental officials in meeting their obligations. While the Department is confident it will be able to meet its obligations for the future, it is equally important that this process develop a result that will satisfy accountholders as to the past.
Another factor to be considered is the cost of the process. While achieving the goals of this notice is likely to be expensive regardless of which approach is selected, there is a very large cost range within the various options—from millions of dollars for the sampling or settlement approach to hundreds of millions or more for a traditional transaction-by-transaction reconciliation for all accounts. As an example, the Department's current estimates are that it could cost over $15 million just to locate and organize all documents associated with the transactions of the five named plaintiffs (and 31 related individuals) in the
Closely associated with the overall cost of the process are the cost/benefit considerations of the options. This factor may not be as relevant for large accounts through which tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars pass each year. This issue more likely arises with respect to the small accounts. If it costs hundreds of dollars, or even more, to undertake a particular analysis for each account, is it cost effective and reasonable to do so for an account that generates $25 or less per year?
The amount of time that a particular process may take is also a consideration. One option, a transaction-by-transaction reconciliation, for example, would doubtless take many years to complete while others, such as a sampling or settlement process, would take considerably less time. Some accountholders may find that they can achieve a sufficient level of certainty to assess past discrepancies with much less information than others may require, particularly if their account has had little activity or they can reasonably determine their interest in the property was unlikely to produce significant income. In such a case, the accountholder may wish to expedite the process in order to receive fair compensation and resolve this issue. Moreover, a process that takes many years to complete will continue to consume the finite resources of the Bureau which accountholders may believe should be better expended on other programs of benefit to Indian people.
Indeed, the Bureau has broad mandates and responsibilities, including programs of importance to many aspects of the lives of individual Indians and Tribes. These include programs relating to education, law enforcement, probate, realty and trust asset administration, and stewardship of the environment. Regardless of which methodology is employed, it will require the substantial attention of Bureau employees and expenditure of significant amounts of money. These expenditures likely do not fit within the current budget estimates and staffing of the Department, and therefore the Department will have to seek new funds from Congress to undertake any process finally selected.
The following alternative approaches are offered merely as examples to illustrate the range of options the Department could consider. This list is not exhaustive, and other constructive alternatives are invited. As previously noted, the Department recognizes it is possible that no single alternative will serve the interests of all types of accountholders. Accordingly, an approach could be designed that integrates principles from various alternatives to provide a combined methodology depending on the characteristics of the accounts, including, size of the account, region of the country, and nature of the underlying assets producing income for the account.
The most precise and extensive information possible would be developed by attempting to undertake a transaction-by-transaction reconstruction of each account. This would involve attempting to research all transactions that have occurred in each account in order to try to locate documents which could demonstrate each transaction was correct and then applying appropriate verification procedures to the reconstruction. This would be the most time consuming and expensive approach. For example, the Department's experience in the
Another approach could be to perform a more limited reconciliation for a fixed period of time which would allow some reasonable conclusions to be drawn which could then be applied to the remaining historical period. This is similar to the approach taken by Arthur Andersen for the Tribal reconciliation project. Applying this approach to the IIM accounts would include a search for documentation to confirm data that was contained in the electronic systems used from approximately the mid-1980's to the mid-1999's and develop an error rate based on that comparison. This error rate could then be used to estimate whether accountholders had experienced losses and to arrive at a formula for compensation. Although this would be less expensive than a search for all transaction documents, there would still be significant costs associated with this process due to the fact that it involves reconstructing accounts for a particular period of time through extensive research (Arthur Anderson estimated the cost of this approach for the IIM accounts as somewhere between $108 million and $281 million).
In 1995, the Inter-Tribal Monitoring Association (ITMA) voiced their opposition to the Arthur Andersen limited reconciliation approach and proposed a limited reconciliation that did not involve reconciling transactions in IIM accounts. The ITMA approach included, in part, reconciliation of balances between the IIM subsidiary ledger and the general ledger control account. ITMA advocated focusing on high volume, high dollar activities in active years; not every lease and every property.
Another approach could involve using statistical sampling to calculate potential losses. One example methodology could be to use a statistically relevant sample of accounts, transactions, or tracts of land to support a reasonable inference about the accuracy of past account transaction activity.
It may also be useful to mix a sampling approach with a more precise transactional analysis based on the general criteria of the likelihood of loss. Under this approach, a sampling methodology could be used for groups of accounts that are unlikely to have many losses (such as accounts which do not have much income) and a more precise, individualized analysis for accounts where the potential for significant loss is greater. For example, a loss amount for accounts with historical annual income of less than $100 may be broadly estimated through sampling, while accounts with annual income over $100,000 may be analyzed on an individual basis. More extensive sampling could be used for accounts in between these ranges.
Another approach might be to use data currently collected and tracked electronically on individual accounts to determine if the past level of account activity is consistent. Since the information that is currently tracked is more extensive than the readily available information on the past, this analysis would both provide some context for the historical information and allow some conclusions to be drawn as to its accuracy.
Another approach could be to define a formula to quantify a “rough justice” payment to each accountholder. Such a formula could be based on a variety of factors, including; the amount of money that has flowed through the account each year, the number of years the account has been open, the location of the account, and the type of assets that produced revenue for the account. To counter-balance the lack of precision in this process, the formulas could be weighted to resolve uncertainty in favor of the beneficiary. While this approach lacks precision in determining past losses, the major advantage of this approach is that it is relatively simple to administer, could be done fairly quickly, and would be the least expensive methodology to implement.
The Department is soliciting comment on what factors accountholders consider the most important in developing the proper methodology for meeting the goals stated in this notice.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of Approval for Amended and Restated Compact.
Pursuant to Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish, in the
This action is effective April 3, 2000.
George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.
Bureau of Land Management, Lewistown Field Office, Lewistown, Montana.
Notice is hereby given that unauthorized roads within the Hole-in-the-Wall Recreation Area and on adjacent BLM lands, along the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River in Chouteau County, Montana are hereby closed to all types of motorized vehicles, until this notice is rescinded. The unauthorized closed roads are located on BLM lands in T.24 N., R. 13 E., Section 21, Section 22, Section 23, Section 26, Section 27, Section 28,and Section 33 in Chouteau County, Montana. No off-road motorized travel is allowed on the above listed BLM lands. No motorized vehicles will be allowed to drive through or into the fenced developed recreation area. The main access road to the Hole-in-the-Wall Recreation Area will remain open.
The purpose of these road closures is to prevent soil erosion, spread of
Maps showing the above described area are available at the BLM's Lewistown Field Office for public review. The roads closed under this order will be posted with signs.
The closure is made under the authority of 43 CFR 9268.3 (d)(1)(i,ii,iii,iv,v,) and 8364.1(a). Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this closure order may be subject to the penalties provided in 43 CFR 9268.3(c)(2), which includes a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 and/or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months.
These road closures will become effective May 3, 2000, unless substantial and substantive adverse comments are received.
Gary Slagel, BLM Assistant Field Office Manager, at 406/538-7461.
In response to an application from the State of Nevada Department of Transportation for an administration/maintenance facility, the following described land has been identified as suitable for lease and sale and will be classified for lease and sale under the R&PP Act of June 14, 1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869,
Containing approximately 70.00 acres more or less.
The lands are not required for Federal purposes. Disposal is consistent with the Bureau's land use plan for the area and would be in the public's interest.
Ken Detweiler, Realty Specialist, 5100 East Winnemucca Blvd., Winnemucca, Nevada 89445, telephone (775) 623-1500.
The public lands are being offered to the State of Nevada Department of Transportation for an Administration/Maintenance Facility. The facility would include perimeter fencing, office buildings, vehicle storage areas, utilities including a septic system, storage facilities, fueling facilities and other structures and facilities associated with a typical Nevada Department of Transportation administration/maintenance facility.
The lease and/or patent, when issued will contain the following reservations to the United States:
1. A right-of-way thereon for ditches and canals constructed by the authority of the United States pursuant to the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945).
2. All mineral deposits in the lands so patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and such regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.
And will be subject to:
1. Those rights for buried fiber optic cable purposes granted to Nevada Bell by Right-of-way CC-08790.
2. Those rights for highway purposes granted to the State of Nevada, Department of Transportation by Right-of-way CC-020742.
3. Those rights for highway purposes granted to the State of Nevada, Department of Transportation by Right-of-way N-3397.
4. Those rights for an access road granted to the Humboldt County, Board of Commissioner by Right-of-way N-48877.
5. An easement 30 feet in width along the south boundary of the N
Since the property has been developed, the lease and patent will contain a solid waste/hazardous substances(s) statement indemnifying the United States. Also, since hazardous substances may be stored on the parcel, the patent will contain a list of the hazardous substances and their period of storage on the parcel in compliance with requirements established by section 120(n) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments & Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1988.
Upon publication of this notice in the
For a period of 45 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of the land for an administration/maintenance facility. Comments on the classification are restricted to whether the land is physically suited for the proposal, whether the use will maximize the future use or uses of the land, whether the use is consistent with local planning and zoning, or if the use is consistent with State and Federal programs.
Interested parties may submit comments regarding the specific use proposed in the application and plan of development, whether the BLM followed proper administrative procedures in reaching the decision, or any other factor not directly related to the suitability of the land for an administration/maintenance facility.
Any adverse comments will be reviewed by the State Director. In the absence of any adverse comments, the classification will become effective 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
National Park Service, National Capital Parks—Central
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on a proposed collection of information. The NPS specifically requests comments on: (1) the need for the information being collected, including whether the information has practical utility; (2) the validity and accuracy of the reporting burden estimate; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The NPS requests comments on an application form that allows the Park Programs Division of National Capital Parks—Central to process requests from individuals and organizations to hold public gatherings on NPS property. These public gatherings consist of special events and demonstrations that the NPS is charged with regulating to insure protection of cultural and natural resources within NPS property. The NPS will use the information you submit to determine whether or not to make modifications to the application form. Once the NPS makes any modifications that it may decide to adopt, the NPS plans to submit a proposed collection of information package to OMB with a request that OMB approve the package and reinstate the OMB clearance number.
You may obtain copies of the application from the source listed below (see the “send comments to” section).
Public comments on the proposed Information Collection Request (ICR) will be accepted on or before June 2, 2000.
Park Programs Division, National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Dr. Rm. 128, SW, Washington, D.C. 20242. Phone: 202-619-7225, Fax: 202-401-2430.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments using several methods. You may mail comments to the postal address given here. You may fax your comments to the fax number given. You may also hand-deliver comments to the address given here. Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Park Program Division, National Capital Region, 1100 Ohio Dr. Rm. 128, SW, Washington, D.C. 20242. Phone: 202-619-7225, Fax: 202-401-2430.
National Park Service, The Department of Interior.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the notice announces the National Park Service (NPS) intention to request approval of information collection associated with a voluntary backcountry registration system to be administered by Kenai Fjords National Park.
Public comments on this notice will be accepted on or before June 2, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
Michael D. Tetreau, Resource Management Specialist, Kenai Fjords National Park, P.O. Box 1727, Seward, AK 99664.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Copies of the information collection can be obtained from Michael D. Tetreau, Resource Management Specialist, Kenai Fjords National Park, P.O. Box 1727, Seward, AK 99664.
Michael D. Tetreau, (907) 224-3175.
National Park Service, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Record of Decision Availability—Booker T. Washington National Monument Final General Management Plan and Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement.
Following the required 30-day no action period, Marie Rust, Northeast Regional Director, National Park Service signed the Record of Decision on March 22, 2000 for the Final General Management Plan and Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement for Booker T. Washington National Monument in Hardy, Virginia.
The Record of Decision is available on the park's web site: http://www.nps.gov/bowa.
For more information or a copy of the Record of Decision contact Rebecca Harriet, Superintendent, Booker T. Washington National Monument, 12130 Booker T. Washington Highway, Hardy, VA 24101-9688. The superintendent's phone number is 540-721-2094.
National Park Service, Jimmy Carter National Historic Site.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Commission Act that a meeting of the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site Advisory Commission will be held at 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. and 9 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at the following location and dates.
April 5 and 6, 2000.
The Carter Library, One Copenhill, Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
Mr. Fred Boyles, Superintendent, Jimmy Carter National Historic Site, Route 1, Box 800, Andersonville, Georgia 31711, (912) 924-0343, Extension 105.
The purpose of the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site Advisory Commission is to advise the Secretary of the Interior or his designee on achieving balanced and accurate interpretation of the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site.
The members of the Advisory Commission are as follows: Dr. Henry King Stanford, Dr. James Sterling Young, Dr. Barbara J. Fields, Dr. Donald B. Schewe, Dr. Steven H. Hochman, Director, National Park Service, Ex-Officio member.
The matters to be discussed at this meeting include the status of park development and planning activities. This meeting will be open to the public. However, facilities and space for accommodating members of the public are limited. Any member of the public may file with the commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Written statements may also be submitted to the Superintendent at the address above. Minutes of the meeting will be available at Park Headquarters for public inspection approximately 4 weeks after the meeting.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entity.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (1994), that the National Park System Advisory Board will meet April 14-16, 2000. The Board will convene for a 1
On April 14, the Board will convene from 8:30 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. The Board will reconvene on April 16, at 8:30 a.m., and adjourn at approximately 5:30 p.m. National Park Service Director Robert Stanton will address the Board. The Board will consider organization and procedural matters relative to undertaking a study of the future of the National Park Service and the National Park System. National Historic Landmark nominations will be reviewed by the Board during the afternoon session on April 16.
The Board may be addressed at various times by other officials of the National Park Service and the Department of the Interior; and other miscellaneous topics and reports may be covered. The order of the agenda may be changed, if necessary, to accommodate travel schedules or for other reasons.
The Board meeting will be open to the public. Space and facilities to accommodate the public are limited and attendees will be accommodated on a first-come basis. Anyone may file with the Board a written statement
Anyone who wishes further information concerning the meeting, or who wishes to submit a written statement, may contact Mr. Loran Fraser, Office of Policy, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240 (telephone 202-208-7456).
Draft minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection about 12 weeks after the meeting, in room 2414, Main Interior Building, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC.
United States International Trade Commission.
Institution of five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on pure magnesium from China and Russia.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it has instituted reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on pure magnesium from China and Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested parties are requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information specified below to the Commission;
April 3, 2000.
Mary Messer (202-205-3193), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
On May 12, 1995, the Department of Commerce issued antidumping duty orders on imports of pure magnesium from China and Russia (60 FR 25691). The Commission is conducting reviews to determine whether revocation of the orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time. It will assess the adequacy of interested party responses to this notice of institution to determine whether to conduct full reviews or expedited reviews. The Commission's determinations in expedited reviews will be based on the facts available, which may include information provided in response to this notice.
(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or kind of merchandise that is within the scope of the five-year reviews, as defined by the Department of Commerce.
(2) The Subject Countries in these reviews are China and Russia.
(3) The Domestic Like Product is the domestically produced product or products which are like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the Subject Merchandise. In its original determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Like Product as all pure magnesium, whether or not it meets ASTM specifications. One Commissioner defined the Domestic Like Product differently.
(4) The Domestic Industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the Domestic Like Product, or those producers whose collective output of the Domestic Like Product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of the product. In its original determinations, the Commission defined the Domestic Industry as producers of all pure magnesium, whether or not it meets ASTM specifications. One Commissioner defined the Domestic Industry differently.
(5) The Order Date is the date that the antidumping duty orders under review became effective. In these reviews, the Order Date is May 12, 1995.
(6) An Importer is any person or firm engaged, either directly or through a parent company or subsidiary, in importing the Subject Merchandise into the United States from a foreign manufacturer or through its selling agent.
Former Commission employees who are seeking to appear in Commission five-year reviews are reminded that they are required, pursuant to 19 CFR 201.15, to seek Commission approval if the matter in which they are seeking to appear was pending in any manner or form during their Commission employment. The Commission's designated agency ethics official has advised that a five-year review is the “same particular matter” as the underlying original investigation for purposes of 19 CFR 201.15 and 18 U.S.C. 207, the post employment statute for Federal employees. Former employees may seek informal advice from Commission ethics officials with respect to this and the related issue of whether the employee's participation was “personal and substantial.” However, any informal consultation will not relieve former employees of the obligation to seek approval to appear from the Commission under its rule 201.15. For ethics advice, contact Carol
If you are a domestic producer, union/worker group, or trade/business association; import/export Subject Merchandise from more than one Subject Country; or produce Subject Merchandise in more than one Subject Country, you may file a single response. If you do so, please ensure that your response to each question includes the information requested for each pertinent Subject Country. As used below, the term “firm” includes any related firms.
(1) The name and address of your firm or entity (including World Wide Web address if available) and name, telephone number, fax number, and E-mail address of the certifying official.
(2) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union or worker group, a U.S. importer of the Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, a U.S. or foreign trade or business association, or another interested party (including an explanation). If you are a union/worker group or trade/business association, identify the firms in which your workers are employed or which are members of your association.
(3) A statement indicating whether your firm/entity is willing to participate in these reviews by providing information requested by the Commission.
(4) A statement of the likely effects of the revocation of the antidumping duty orders on the Domestic Industry in general and/or your firm/entity specifically. In your response, please discuss the various factors specified in section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675a(a)) including the likely volume of subject imports, likely price effects of subject imports, and likely impact of imports of Subject Merchandise on the Domestic Industry.
(5) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. producers of the Domestic Like Product. Identify any known related parties and the nature of the relationship as defined in section 771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1677(4)(B)).
(6) A list of all known and currently operating U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise and producers of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries that currently export or have exported Subject Merchandise to the United States or other countries since 1994.
(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the Domestic Like Product, provide the following information on your firm's operations on that product during calendar year 1999 (report quantity data in metric tons and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars, f.o.b. plant).
(a) Production (quantity) and, if know, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. production of the Domestic Like Product accounted for by your firm's(s’) production;
(b) the quantity and value of U.S. commercial shipments of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s); and
(c) the quantity and value of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of the Domestic Like Product produced in your U.S. plant(s).
(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a trade/business association of U.S. importers of the Subject Merchandise from the Subject Countries, provide the following information on your firm's(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 1999 (report quantity data in metric tons and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars).
(a) The quantity and value (landed, duty-paid but not including antidumping or countervailing duties) of U.S. imports and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total U.S. imports of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Countries accounted for by your firm's(s’) imports;
(b) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. commercial shipments of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Countries; and
(c) the quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. port, including antidumping and/or countervailing duties) of U.S. internal consumption/company transfers of Subject Merchandise imported from the Subject Countries.
(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, or a trade/business association of producers or exporters of the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries, provide the following information on your firm's(s’) operations on that product during calendar year 1999 (report quantity data in metric tons and value data in thousands of U.S. dollars, landed and duty-paid at the U.S. port but not including antidumping duties). If you are a trade/business association, provide the information, on an aggregate basis, for the firms which are members of your association.
(a) Production (quantity) and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total production of Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries accounted for by your firm's(s”) production; and
(b) The quantity and value of your firm's(s”) exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise and, if known, an estimate of the percentage of total exports to the United States of Subject Merchandise from the Subject Countries accounted for by your firm's(s”) exports.
(10) Identify significant changes, if any, in the supply and demand conditions or business cycle for the Domestic Like Product that have occurred in the United States or in the market for the Subject Merchandise in the Subject Countries since the Order Date, and significant changes, if any, that are likely to occur within a reasonably foreseeable time. Supply conditions to consider include technology; production methods; development efforts; ability to increase production (including the shift of production facilities used for other products and the use, cost, or availability of major inputs into production); and factors related to the ability to shift supply among different national markets (including barriers to importation in foreign markets or changes in market demand abroad). Demand conditions to consider include end uses and applications; the existence and availability of substitute products; and the level of competition among the Domestic Like Product produced in the United States, Subject Merchandise produced in the Subject Countries, and such merchandise from other countries.
(11) (OPTIONAL) A statement of whether you agree with the above definitions of the Domestic Like Product and Domestic Industry; if you disagree with either or both of these definitions, please explain why and provide alternative definitions.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.61 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on March 22, 2000, a proposed consent decree (“Consent Decree”) in
The Consent Decree resolves claims that the United States asserted against Brownwood Furniture, Inc. (“Brownwood”) in a civil complaint filed concurrently with the lodging of the Consent Decree. The complaint alleges violations of the Clean Air Act and the State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) at Brownwood's Rancho Cucamonga facility located in San Bernardino County, California. Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendant, Brownwood violated emissions and record-keeping conditions of its 1989 New Source Review permit to operate its original spray booth. The complaint also alleges that, with respect to the two spray booths defendant added in 1998, it failed to obtain valid permits to construct or permits to operate before constructing and operating that additional equipment; failed to apply Best Available Control Technology (“BACT”); and failed to provide emission offsets. In addition, the complaint alleges that defendant failed to provide all information necessary for the South Coast Air Quality Management District's permit determination. The complaint also alleges in the alternative, that if the permits to operate the new spray booths were valid, then defendant violated the emission limit of one of those permits. The Consent Decree requires defendant to pay a civil penalty of $115,000, plus interest, and follow a compliance plan to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions at the two additional booths by using ultra-low VOC coatings and/or the addition of control equipment.
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney, Federal Building Room, 7516, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, and at U.S. EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. A copy of the Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 2004-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $4.50 (25 cents per page reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
In accordance with Department of Justice policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that a proposed consent decree in the action entitled
Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, defendants will (1) pay the United States $40,000 in partial reimbursement of past and future federal response costs with respect to the Site; and (2) provide EPA with continuing access to property owned by defendants that is part of the Site.
The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the proposed consent decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to
The proposed consent decree may be examined at the offices of EPA Region I, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023, and the Office of the United States Attorney, Federal Building, 55 Pleasant Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301. A copy may be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, D.C. 20044-7611. In requesting a copy by mail, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the amount of $5.75 (25 cents per page reproduction costs for the Decree and Appendix) made payable to Consent Decree Library.
Under Section 122(i) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.A. 9622(i), notice is hereby given that on March 20, 2000, a proposed Consent Decree in
In this action the United States, on behalf of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), sought recovery of response costs arising from releases of a hazardous substance in connection with a tire fire that occurred on land owned by Safe Tire Disposal Corp., located in the City of Midlothian, Ellis County, Texas. The proposed Consent Decree requires the Defendants to pay $100,000 in partial reimbursement of EPA's response costs. The proposed Consent Decree resolves the Defendants' liability under Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, N.W., Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to
The Consent Decree may be examined at U.S. EPA Region 6, Superfund Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas Texas. A copy of the Consent Decree may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check in the amount of $5.75 payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that on March 13, 2000, the United States lodged a proposed Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in
The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this publication comments relating to the proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC. 20044-7611, and should refer to
The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, 515 Rusk, Ste. 3300, Houston, Texas 77002, and the Region VI Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. A copy of the proposed Consent Decree may be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy, please enclose a check for reproduction costs (at 25 cents per page) in the amount of $8.00, payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Notice is hereby given that, on August 28, 1998, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 8, 1988, Cable Television Laboratories, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 5, 1998. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 22, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CommerceNet Consortium intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 13, 1994, CommerceNet Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 15, 1998. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on November 3, 1998, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Hart Communication Foundation (“HCF”) intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 17, 1994, Hart Communication Foundation (“HCF”) filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department
The last notification was filed with the Department on December 8, 1996. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 3, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Notice is hereby given that, on February 8, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Salutation Consortium, Inc. intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 30, 1995, Salutation Consortium, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6 (a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 16, 1998. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 1998, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc. (“S12”) intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On December 30, 1988, Silicon Integration Initiative, Inc. (“S12”) filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 6, 1998. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on June 30, 1999, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Southwest Research Institute (“SwRI”): Advanced
On February 9, 1999, Southwest Research Institute (“SwRI”): Advanced Reciprocal Engine Systems (“ARES”) filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on September 17, 1998, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Wireless Application Protocol Forum, Ltd. (“WAP”) intends to file additional written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 18, 1998, Wireless Application Protocol forum, Ltd. (“WAP”) filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. A notice for this filing has not yet been published in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 13, 1998. A notice has not yet been published in the
Notice; Request for Comments.
The Department of Labor (Department), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ((PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506 (c) (2) (A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning the new management information and reporting system including the Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD), the Quarterly Summary Report and the Annual Report under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before June 2, 2000. The Department is particularly interested in comments which:
Please address correspondence concerning the proposed system to: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Security, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room S4231, Washington, DC 20210, Attention: William Rabung, Fax: (202) 219-8506. (This is not a toll-free number.), or E-mail:
Performance accountability is a key principle under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). The Department intends to support the desired focus on customer service and continuous improvement by providing opportunities for accountability at all levels of the system, especially at the State and local levels.
The basic accountability system will allow the Department to manage its responsibilities under WIA secs. 136(d)
There will be two basic report systems—financial and program. Financial reports will be required quarterly, as provided for in WIA sec. 185(e). To avoid unnecessary reporting, the quarterly financial report looks at expenditures and records related to WIA sec. 185(f) and (g). The quarterly financial report was addressed in a separate
The Department has established a standard set of core data elements that must be maintained for each individual who receives WIA Title IB services beyond self-service and informational activities. The number of data elements collected for each individual is commensurate with the intensity of the service. Beginning July 1, 2000, States must submit copies of the individual participant records once each year by September 30 for all participants, including participants who exited but for whom information on outcomes is not yet complete. The individual standardized records will be strictly confidential. The Workforce Investment Act Standardized Record Data (WIASRD) will contain:
The proposed WIASRD and related documents can be viewed at the Department's Internet website,
Quarterly summary reports reflecting statewide activity for negotiated performance and actual performance levels as well as the number of current participants and those participants who exited during the program period, will provide DOL with key information necessary for program oversight purposes. This information will facilitate the Department's efforts in assessing its own performance against established GPRA goals. States will be expected to electronically submit the quarterly summary reports within 45 days following the end of each quarter.
Quarterly reports are described in WIA sec. 185(a)(2)—“Every such recipient shall maintain such records and submit such reports, in such form and containing such information, as the Secretary may require regarding the performance of programs and activities carried out under this title. Such records and reports shall be submitted to the Secretary but shall not be required to be submitted more than once each quarter unless specifically requested by Congress or a committee of Congress, in which case an estimate may be provided.”
The proposed Quarterly Summary Report Format and instructions for completing this report can be viewed at the Department's Internet website,
On a yearly basis, States must publish and submit to the Secretary an Annual Report which explains the outcomes of WIA Title IB programs to employers, taxpayers, participants and Congress and meets the provisions at WIA sec. 136(d) and WIA sec. 185(d) as described in the following chart:
The Annual Report will be prepared by each State in accordance with guidelines established by the Department, including definitions for calculating performance, and specifications for satisfactory completion and submission of the report. The State's Annual Report will include state performance as well as local performance.
The Annual Report will be sent to Congress. The performance outcomes detailed in the report will serve as the basis for awarding incentives or administering sanctions to States for performance which exceeds or falls below the negotiated levels of performance (The negotiation process and details of the incentive and sanction process are described in separate Federal guidance—TEGL 8-99). The final approach to distributing incentive awards is still under development, but may include, among other things, performance reports from each State submitted by the date specified by the Secretary. A State that does not meet the deadline (September 30 of each year) for submission may be subject to sanction as described in WIA sec. 136(g)(1) and Interim Final Rule at 20 CFR 667.300 (e).
The Secretary plans to post these annual reports on a web site. In accordance with the Act, the Secretary will send copies of the State's Annual Report to each Local Workforce Investment Board (local board) and to the State Workforce Investment Board (State Board) if the State does not submit assurance that this has been accomplished by the time of submission to the Secretary.
The instructions for completing an annual report can be accessed and viewed at the Department's Internet website,
In order to report on the two required customer satisfaction measures (one for employers and one for participants) in the annual and quarterly summary reports, States must conduct surveys of both groups following the directions contained in Attachment V posted on the Department's Internet website,
The proposed data collection and reporting system will assist the Department in meeting its mandated responsibilities by providing standardized information regarding demographics, activities and outcomes for all registrants receiving more than informational or self-service in all States and workforce investment areas. Information will also be used for general oversight, continuous improvement and research purposes.
Baseline: 8,768 hrs./reporting unit (State) (56 reporting units) in last FRN regarding Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) reporting system (SPIR). Factor: 50% higher due to (1) increase in size of record, and (2) increase in number of program participants. Increases were not cumulative; some allowance made for economies of scale and learning curve.
Estimate based on 40 hrs./reporting unit to produce one report per year (includes program run, checking, report formatting for transmission).
Estimate based on 64 hrs./reporting unit to produce four reports per year (includes program run, checking, report formatting for transmission)—16 hrs./report.
Estimate based on 1,000 responses per reporting unit (500 WIA participants and 500 employers) and 5 min. (
Estimate based on 30 min. (0.5 hrs.) to obtain a completed survey (telephone contacts, call-backs, data entry).
Estimate based on:
Estimate based on
The estimate is based on the $44,245 staff year cost factor applied to the burden hours listed above. The burden hours for participant and employer responses to the customer satisfaction surveys equates to $24,035, while the burden cost for developing the survey and start-up totals $183,432.
Comments submitted in response to this comment request will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will become a matter of public record.
The following documents cited in this notice can be viewed at the Department's Internet website, http://www.usworkforce.org:
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.
Adoption of Amendment to PTE 80-26.
This document provides a temporary amendment to PTE 80-26, a class exemption that permits parties in interest with respect to employee benefit plans to make interest free loans to such plans, provided the conditions of the exemption are met. The amendment affects all employee benefit plans, their participants and beneficiaries, and parties in interest with respect to those plans engaging in the described transactions.
The amendment to PTE 80-26 is effective from November 1, 1999 until December 31, 2000.
Mr. J. Martin Jara, Office of Exemptions Determinations, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, (202) 219-8881. (This is not a toll-free number); or Wendy McColough, Plan Benefits Security Division, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor (202) 219-4600. (This is not a toll-free number).
On November 29, 1999, notice was published in the
The amendment to PTE 80-26 adopted by this notice was proposed by the Department on its own motion pursuant to section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR Part 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).
In the discussion of the exemption, references to section 406 of ERISA should be read to refer as well to the corresponding provisions of section 4975 of the Code.
The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit written comments or requests for a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the Department. The Department received three comments and no requests for a public hearing. Upon consideration of the record as a whole, the Department has determined to grant the proposed amendment with minor modifications.
For the sake of convenience, the entire text of PTE 80-26, as amended, has been reprinted with this notice.
The Department received three comments with regard to the proposed amendment, all generally supporting the grant of the exemption. Two of the comments requested additional modifications, as addressed below.
The proposed amendment limited relief to transactions involving the lending of money or other extension of credit from a party in interest or disqualified person to an employee benefit plan for a purpose incidental to the ordinary operation of the plan which arises in connection with the plan's inability to liquidate, or otherwise access its assets or data as a result of a Y2K problem. A Y2K problem was defined in Section III of the proposed amendment as ‘a disruption of computer operations resulting from a computer system's inability to process data because such system recognizes years only by the last two digits, causing a “00” entry to read as the year “1900” rather than the year “2000.” ’
The Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans (APPWP) raised concerns regarding the language in the preamble to the proposed amendment which states that “* * *” plan fiduciaries must establish a contingency plan that will be implemented in the event that the plans' essential operations are affected.”
The language in the preamble did not create a new fiduciary standard of care. The relevant standard of care is set forth in the Act at section 404(a)(1)(B) as follows:
A fiduciary shall discharge his duties with respect to the plan * * * with the care, skill and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims.
In addition, the APPWP urged the Department to expand the relief under the amendment to include situations such as computer viruses, “hacking,” and other technological problems caused by human malfeasance that would impede benefits administration. In this regard, the Department does not believe it has sufficient information on the record at this time to provide additional relief. However, upon further demonstration that there is a need for lending of money to plans in such circumstances, the Department would be prepared to consider further relief.
Another commentator noted that the relief proposed is too restrictive and requested that the language be liberalized. Specifically, the commentator was concerned that the broad relief contemplated by the proposal may not be available if such relief is conditioned on the establishment by a plan fiduciary of a nexus between the cash shortfall and a specific disruption of computer operations. The commentator further stated that, given the rippling nature of Y2K problems, it may be impossible to determine the specific cause of a particular cash shortfall. Accordingly, the commentator urged the Department to modify the final exemption to provide that any cash shortfall incurred by a plan between November 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000, should be presumed to be related to a Y2K problem and, thus, eligible for relief under the final exemption. After reviewing the commentator's suggestion, the Department does not believe that the commentator has adequately demonstrated the need for such broad exemptive relief. Accordingly, the Department has determined not to adopt the commentator's suggestion.
The commentator also suggested that the three day repayment period for interest-free loans made for a purpose incidental to the ordinary operation of the plan be eliminated on a permanent basis. Alternatively, the commentator suggested that either: (1) The concept of ordinary operating expenses be amended to include investment transfers and participant loans; or (2) the three day requirement be amended to require repayment of such loans over a period of time that is materially longer than three days. The Department believes that consideration of the issues involved in amending PTE 80-26 as requested by the commentator are beyond the scope of the current proceeding. In this regard, the Department notes that, pursuant to the requirements of section 408(a) of the Act, it is required to offer interested persons an opportunity to present their views and an opportunity for a hearing prior to amending an exemption. Consequently, the Department has determined not to revise the final exemption in this regard.
Finally, the commentator requested that the Department clarify whether the three day repayment requirement for loans used for a purpose incidental to the ordinary operation of the plan refers to three business days or three calender days. According to the commentator, the adoption of “T plus three” as the normal settlement practice for securities trades means that the proceeds of a sale of securities will generally not be received until three business days after the trade is executed. Accordingly, to be consistent with the prevailing market practice, the commentator urged the Department to clarify that “three days” means three business days for purposes of PTE 80-26. In this regard, it is the view of the Department that the phrase
PTE 80-26 permits the lending of money or other extension of credit from a party in interest or disqualified person to an employee benefit plan, and the repayment of such loan or other extension of credit in accordance with its terms or other written modifications thereof, provided that:
(a) No interest or other fee is charged to the plan, and no discount for payment in cash is relinquished by the plan, in connection with the loan or extension of credit;
(b) The proceeds of the loan or extension of credit are used only:
(1) For the payment of ordinary operating expenses of the plan, including the payment of benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan and periodic premiums under an insurance or annuity contract; or
(2) For a period of no more than three days, for a purpose incidental to the ordinary operation of the plan;
(c) The loan or extension of credit is unsecured; and
(d) The loan or extension of credit is not directly or indirectly made by an employee benefit plan.
The amendment to PTE 80-26 granted pursuant to this notice temporarily broadens the availability of PTE 80-26 to include certain interest-free loans to be used for a purpose incidental to the ordinary operations of a plan which arise in connection with a Y2K problem, as defined in the amendment. The amendment to PTE 80-26 permits these loans to be repaid no later than December 31, 2000.
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under section 408(a) of ERISA and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest or disqualified person with respect to a plan from certain other provisions of ERISA and the Code, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of section 404 of ERISA which require, among other things, that a fiduciary discharge his or her duties respecting the plan solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan; nor does it affect the requirement of section 401(a) of the Code that the plan must operate for the exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer maintaining the plan and their beneficiaries;
(2) This exemption does not extend to transactions prohibited under section 406(b)(1) and (3) of the Act or section 4975(c)(1)(E) and (F) of the Code;
(3) In accordance with section 408(a) of the Act and 4975(c)(2) of the Code, the Department makes the following determinations:
(i) The amendment set forth herein is administratively feasible;
(ii) It is in the interests of plans and of their participants and beneficiaries; and
(iii) It is protective of the rights of participants and beneficiaries of plans;
(4) The amendment is applicable to a particular transaction only if the transaction satisfies the conditions specified in the exemption; and
(5) The amendment is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other provisions of ERISA and the Code, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction.
Accordingly, PTE 80-26 is amended under the authority of section 408(a) of the Act and section 4975(c)(2) of the Code and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR 2570, Subpart B (55 FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990), as set forth below:
Effective January 1, 1975, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(B) and (D) and section 406(b)(2) of the Act, and the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code, by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(B) and (D) of the Code, shall not apply to the lending of money or other extension of credit from a party in interest or disqualified person to an employee benefit plan, nor to the repayment of such loan or other extension of credit in accordance with its terms or written modifications thereof, if:
(a) No interest or other fee is charged to the plan, and no discount for payment in cash is relinquished by the plan, in connection with the loan or extension of credit;
(b) The proceeds of the loan or extension of credit are used only:
(1) For the payment of ordinary operating expenses of the plan, including the payment of benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan and periodic premiums under an insurance or annuity contract; or
(2) For a period of no more than three business days, for a purpose incidental to the ordinary operation of the plan;
(c) The loan or extension of credit is unsecured; and
(d) The loan or extension of credit is not directly or indirectly made by an employee benefit plan.
Effective November 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000, the restrictions of section 406(a)(1)(B) and (D) and section 406(b)(2) of the Act, and the taxes imposed by section 4975(a) and (b) of the Code by reason of section 4975(c)(1)(B) and (D) of the Code, shall not apply to the lending of money or other extension of credit from a party in interest or disqualified person to an employee benefit plan, nor to the repayment of such loan or other extension of credit in accordance with its terms or written modifications thereof, if:
(a) No interest or other fee is charged to the plan, and no discount for payment in cash is relinquished by the plan, in connection with the loan or extension of credit;
(b) The proceeds of the loan or extension of credit are used only for a purpose incidental to the ordinary operation of the plan which arises in connection with the plan's inability to liquidate, or otherwise access its assets or access data as a result of a Y2K problem.
(c) The loan or extension of credit is unsecured;
(d) The loan or extension of credit is not directly or indirectly made by an employee benefit plan;
(e) The loan or extension of credit begins on or after November 1, 1999 and is repaid or terminated no later than December 31, 2000.
For the purposes of section II, a Y2K problem is a disruption of computer operations resulting from a computer system's inability to process data because such system recognizes years only by the last two digits, causing a “00” entry to be read as the year “1900” rather than the year “2000.”
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commission will hold its next public meeting on Thursday, April 13, 2000 and Friday, April 14, 2000 at the Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 10 a.m. on April 13, and 9 a.m. on April 14.
Topics for discussion include: payments to teaching hospitals and DRG refinement, improving quality assurance for institutional providers, financial performance and payment update for hospitals covered by PPS, hospital financial performance and payment update for facilities exempt from PPS, work plan on mandated study on medical savings accounts, improving payment policy for hospital outpatient departments and physicians' services, criteria for evaluating proposals to reform Medicare, prescription drug coverage issues, and an update on proposed refinements to the SNF PPS.
Agenda will be mailed on April 4, 2000. The final agenda will be available on the Commission's website (www.MedPAC.gov).
MedPAC's address is: 1730 K Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006. The telephone number is (202) 653-7220.
Diane Ellison, Office Manager, (202) 653-7220.
If you are not on the Commission mailing list and wish to receive an agenda, please call (202) 653-7220.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering an application for the renewal of Operating Licenses Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5, which authorize Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC) to operate Units 1 and 2 of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant (Hatch 1 and Hatch 2, respectively), at 2,763 megawatts thermal. The renewed license would authorize the applicant to operate Hatch 1 and Hatch 2 for an additional 20 years beyond the period specified in the current licenses. The current operating licenses for Hatch 1 and Hatch 2 expire on August 6, 2014 and June 13, 2018, respectively.
SNC submitted an application to renew the operating licenses for Hatch 1 and Hatch 2 on March 1, 2000. A Notice of Receipt of Application, “Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Notice of Receipt of Application for Renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5, for an Additional Twenty-Year Period,” was published in the
The Commission's staff has determined that SNC has submitted information in accordance with 10 CFR 54.19, 54.21, 54.22, 54.23, and 51.53(c) that is complete and acceptable for docketing. The current Docket Nos. 50-321 for Operating License No. DPR-57 and 50-366 for Operating License No. NPF-5, will be retained. The docketing of the renewal application does not preclude requesting additional information as the review proceeds, nor does it predict whether the Commission will grant or deny the application.
Before issuance of the requested license renewal, the NRC will have made the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's rules and regulations. In accordance with 10 CFR 54.29, the NRC will issue a renewed license on the basis of its review and findings that actions have been identified and have been or will be taken with respect to (1) managing the effects of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality of structures and components that have been identified as requiring aging management review, and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified as requiring review such that there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis (CLB) and that any changes made to the plant's CLB comply with the Act and the Commission's regulations.
Additionally, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC will prepare an environmental impact statement that is a supplement to the Commission's NUREG-1437, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,” (May 1996). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.26, and as part of the environmental scoping process, the staff intends to hold a public scoping meeting. Detailed information regarding this meeting will be included in a future
By 30 days after publication date, the applicant may file a request for a hearing, and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene with respect to the license renewal in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.714. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714, which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037. If a request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will rule on the request(s) and/or petition(s), and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. In the event that no request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the NRC may, upon completion of its evaluations and upon making the findings required under 10 CFR Parts 54 and 51, renew the license without further notice.
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, taking into consideration the limited scope of matters that may be considered pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 54 and 51. The petition must specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the board up to 15 days before the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days before the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene that must include a list of the contentions that the petitioner seeks to have litigated in the hearing. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of each contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or the expert opinion that supports the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the action under consideration. The contention must be one that, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement that satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Requests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington DC 20037, by the above date. A copy of the request for a hearing and the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Mr. H.L. Sumner, Vice President—Hatch Project, Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. 40 Inverness Center Parkway, P.O. Box 1295, Birmingham, AL 35201-1295.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions, and/or requests for a hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer, or the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1) (i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
Detailed information about the license renewal process can be found under the nuclear reactors' icon of the NRC's Web page <http://www.nrc.gov>.
A copy of the application to renew the Hatch 1 and Hatch 2 licenses is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20037, and on the NRC's Web page <http://www.nrc.gov>. In addition, the Appling County Library, 242 East Parker Street, Baxley, Georgia 31513, has agreed to make a copy of the application and related information available to the public.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 17f-1 under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) is entitled: “Custody of Securities with Members of National Securities Exchanges.” Rule 17f-1 provides that any registered management investment company (“fund”) that wishes to place its assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member may do so only under a written contract that must be ratified initially and approved annually by a majority of the fund's board of directors. The written contract also must contain certain specified provisions. In addition, the rule requires an independent public accountant to examine the fund's assets in the custody of the exchange member at least three times during the fund's fiscal year. The rule requires the written contract and the certificate of each examination to be transmitted to the Commission. The purpose of the rule is to ensure the safekeeping of fund assets.
Commission staff estimates that approximately five funds maintain their assets with a national securities exchange number.
Compliance with the collection of information required by rule 17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange. Responses will not be kept confidential.
Form N-17f-1 is entitled: “Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments of a Management Investment Company in the Custody of Members of National Securities Exchanges.” Form N-17f-1 is the cover sheet for accountant examination certificates filed under rule 17f-1 of the Act. Rule 17f-1 requires the accountant's certificate of each examination be attached to Form N-17f-1 and transmitted to the Commission promptly after each examination. The form facilitates the filing of the accountant's certificate, and increases the accessibility of the certificate to both Commission's staff and interested investors.
Commission staff estimates that approximately five funds maintain their assets with a national securities exchange member. The annual burden of the rule's requirements is estimated to be approximately 27 minutes for each of these funds.
Compliance with the collection of information required by Form N-17f-1 is mandatory for funds that place their assets in the custody of a national securities exchange member.
Rule 17f-2 under the Act is entitled: “Custody of Investments by Registered Management Investment Company.” Rule 17f-2 establishes safeguards for arrangements in which a registered management investment company is deemed to maintain custody of its own assets, such as when the funds maintains its assets in a facility that provides safekeeping but not custodial services. The rule includes several recordkeeping or reporting requirements. The fund's directors must prepare a resolution designating not more than five fund officers or responsible employees who may have access to the fund's assets. The designated access persons (two or more of whom must act jointly when handling fund assets) must prepare a written notation providing certain information about each deposit or withdrawal of fund assets, and must transmit the notation to another officer or director designed by the directors. Independent public accountants must verify the fund's assets at least three times a year, and two of the examinations must be unscheduled.
The requirement that directors designate access persons is intended to ensure that directors evaluate the trustworthiness of insiders who handle fund assets. The requirements that access persons act jointly in handling fund assets, prepare a written notation of each transaction, and transmit the notation to another designated person are intended to reduce the risk of misappropriation of fund assets by access persons, and to ensure that adequate records are prepared, reviewed by a responsible third person, and available for examination by the Commission. The requirement that auditors verify fund assets without notice twice each year is intended to provide an additional deterrent to the misappropriation of fund assets and to detect any irregularities.
Commission staff estimates that approximately 204 funds rely upon the rule (and that each fund offers an average of two separate series or portfolios subject to the rule).
Form N-17f-2 is entitled “Certificate of Accounting of Securities and Similar Investments in the Custody of Management Investment Companies.” Form N-17f-2 is the cover sheet for the accountant examination certificates filed under rule 17f-2 of thee Act by registered management investment companies maintaining custody of securities or other investments. Form N-17f-2 facilitates the filing of the accountant's examination certificates. The use of the form allows the certificates to be filed electronically, and increases the accessibility of the examination certificates to both the Commission's examination staff and interested investors by ensuring that the certificates are filed under the proper SEC file number and the correct name of a fund.
Commission staff estimates that approximately 204 funds rely on rule 17f-2, and therefore, file Form N-17f-2 with the Commission. A fund relying on rule 17f-2 must file the form with the Commission at least three times a year. Commission staff estimates that each funds spends approximately nine minutes (0.15 hours) preparing each response on Form N-17f-2.
Complying with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory for those funds that maintain custody of their own assets. The information provided to the Commission by the fund's independent public accountants about each verification of the fund's assets will not be kept confidential.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, and is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
The Commission requests written comments on: (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
Direct your written comments to Michael E. Bartell, Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 5th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (“Commission”)
Notice of application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act.
The requested order would permit applicants, Sun Capital Advisers Trust (the “Trust”) and Sun Capital Advisers, Inc. (the “Adviser”), to enter into and materially amend investment subadvisory agreements without obtaining shareholder approval.
The application was filed on September 29, 1999, and amended on January 18, 2000. Applicants have agreed to file an additional amendment during the notice period, the substance of which is reflected in this notice.
An order granting the application 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 April 21, 2000, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0609; Applicants, One Sun Life Executive Park, Wellesley Hills, MA 02481-5699.
Christine Y. Greenlees, Branch Chief, 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, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20549-0102 (tel. (202) 942-8090).
1. The Trust, a Delaware business trust, is registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company. The Trust is comprised of six separate series, each with its own distinct investment objectives, policies, and restrictions (each, a “Fund”).
2. The Adviser, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”), is registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”). The Trust, on behalf of each fund, has entered into investment advisory agreements with the Adviser (each, an “Advisory Agreement”), pursuant to which the Adviser serves as the investment adviser to the Funds. Each Advisory Agreement has been approved by the Funds' initial shareholder, Sun Life, and by a majority of the Trust's board of trustees (the “Board”), including a majority of the trustees who are not “interested persons,” as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act, of the Trust or the Adviser (“Independent Trustees”).
3. Under the Advisory Agreements, the Adviser, subject to Board oversight, provides each Fund with investment research, advice, and supervision, and furnishes an investment program for each Fund. The Advisory Agreements also provide that the Adviser may delegate its responsibility for providing investment advice and making investment decisions for a particular Fund to one or more subadvisers (“Subadvisers”). The Adviser selects Subadvisers based on the Adviser's continuing evaluation of their skills in managing assets pursuant to particular investment styles. The Adviser screens potential new Subadvisers and engages in an on-going analysis of the continued advisability as to the retention of its existing Subadvisers. From time to time, the Adviser may recommend to the Board that the services of a Subadviser be terminated. Each Fund pays the Adviser a fee for its services based on the Fund's average daily net assets.
4. The Adviser has entered into investment subadvisory agreements (“Subadvisory Agreements”) with Wellington Capital Management LLC (“Wellington”) to serve as Subadviser to three of the Funds. Wellington is not an “affiliated person,” as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act (“Affiliated Person”), of the Trust or the Adviser. The Trust may in the future offer Funds managed by other Subadvisers or by multiple Subadvisers. Each Subadviser will have discretionary authority to invest the assets of a particular Fund, subject to general supervision by the Adviser and the Board, and will be registered under the Advisers Act or exempt from registration. The Adviser pays each Subadviser's fees out of the fees the Adviser receives from each Fund.
5. Applicants request relief to permit the Adviser to enter into and materially amend Subadvisory Agreements without obtaining shareholder approval. The requested relief will not extend to a Subadviser that is an Affiliated Person of the Trust or the Adviser, other than by reason of serving as a Subadviser to one or more of the Funds (“Affiliated Subadviser”).
1. Section 15(a) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that it is unlawful for any person to act as an investment adviser to a registered investment company except under a written
2. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt persons or transactions from the provisions of the Act, or from any rule thereunder, to the extent that the exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policies and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under section 6(c) of the Act from section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act to permit them to enter into and materially amend Subadvisory Agreements without shareholder approval.
3. Applicants assert that a Fund's investors rely on the Adviser to select and monitor Subadvisers best suited to manage the Fund's portfolio. Applicants submit that, from the perspective of an investor, the role of the Subadvisers is comparable to that of individual portfolio managers employed by other investment company advisory firms. Applicants contend that requiring shareholder approval of Subadvisory Agreements would impose expenses and unnecessary delays on the Funds, and may preclude the Adviser from promptly acting in a manner considered advisable by the Board. Applicants note that the Advisory Agreements will remain subject to section 15(a) of the Act and rule 18f-2 under the Act, including the requirements for shareholder approval.
Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
1. Before a Fund may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Fund's in the manner described in the application will be approved by a majority of the Fund's outstanding voting securities (or, if the Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered separate account, pursuant to voting instructions provided by the unitholders of the sub-account), as defined in the Act, or by its initial shareholder, provided that, in the case of the approval by the initial shareholder, the pertinent Fund's shareholders (or, if the Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered separate account, the unitholders of the sub-account) purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below. Similarly, before a Future Fund may rely on the order requested in the application, the operation of the Future Fund in the manner described in the application will be approved by its initial shareholder before a public offering of shares of such Future Fund, provided that shareholders (or, if the Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered separate account, the unitholders of the sub-account) purchase shares on the basis of a prospectus containing the disclosure contemplated by condition 2 below.
2. Each Fund will disclose in its prospectus the existence, substance, and effect of any order granted pursuant to the application. In addition, each Fund will hold itself out to the public as employing the management structure described in the application. The prospectus will prominently disclose that the Adviser has the ultimate responsibility to oversee the Subadvisers and recommend their hiring, termination and replacement.
3. At all times, a majority of the board will be Independent Trustees, and the nomination of new or additional Independent Trustees will be at the discretion of the then-existing Independent Trustees.
4. The Adviser will not enter into a Subadvisory Agreement with any Affiliated Subadviser without the agreement, including the compensation be paid thereunder, being approved by the shareholders of the applicable Fund (or, if the Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered separate account, pursuant to voting instructions provided by the unit holders of the sub-account).
5. When a Subadviser change is proposed for a Fund with an Affiliated Subadviser, the Board, including a majority of the Independent Trustees, will make a separate finding, reflected in the Board minutes, that the change is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders (or, if the Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered separate account, the best interests of the Fund and unit holders of any such sub-account), and does not involve a conflict of interest from which the Adviser or the Affiliated Subadviser derives an inappropriate advantage.
6. Within 90 days of the hiring of any new Subadviser for any Fund, the Fund shareholders (or, if the Fund serves as a funding medium for any sub-account of a registered separate account, the unit holders of the sub-account) will be furnished all relevant information about a new Subadviser that would be contained in a proxy statement, including any change in such disclosure caused by the addition of a new Subadviser. Each Fund will meet this condition by providing shareholders (or unit holders) with an information statement meeting the disclosure requirements of Regulations 14C, Schedule 14C, and Item 22 of Schedule 4A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 within 90 days of the hiring of a Subadviser.
7. The Adviser will provide general management services to each Fund, including overall supervisory responsibility for the general management and investment of each Fund's portfolio, and, subject to review and approval by the Board, will: (i) Set the Fund's overall investment strategies; (ii) select Subadviser(s); (iii) monitor and evaluate the performance of Subadviser(s); (iv) ensure that the Subadviser(s) comply with each Fund's investment objectives, polices and restrictions by, among other things, implementing procedures reasonably designed to ensure compliance; and (b) allocate and, where appropriate, reallocate a Fund's assets among its Subadvisers when a Fund has more than one Subadviser.
8. No trustee or officer of the Trust or director or officer of the Adviser will own, directly or indirectly (other than through a pooled investment vehicle that is not controlled by that trustee, director or officer), any interest in a Subadviser, except for: (i) ownership of interests in the Adviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under a common control with the Adviser; or (ii) ownership of less than 1% of the outstanding securities of any class of equity or debt of a publicly-traded company that is either a Subadviser or any entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a Subadviser.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meetings during the week of April 3, 2000.
An open meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 5, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 6600.
The subject matters of the open meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 6600 will be:
(1) The Commission will consider whether to propose rule amendments and new rules to (i) require investment advisers to submit their investment adviser filings on an electronic filing system, currently being developed by the Commission and the state securities authorities; (ii) substantially update and revise Form ADV to accommodate electronic filing; and (iii) require advisers to deliver to clients a narrative brochure written in plain English. The Commission and the state securities authorities are creating an Internet-based system of electronic filing for investment advisers. The system is called the Investment Adviser Registration Depository (IARD) and will permit investment advisers to satisfy filing obligations under state and federal laws by making a single electronic filing. Information contained in filings made through the IARD will be stored in a database that members of the public will be able to access free of charge through the Internet. The IARD is being built and will be operated for the Commission by NASD Regulation, Inc. (NASDR). For further information, please contact: Lori H. Price at (202) 942-0716.
(2) The Commission will hear oral argument on appeals by Marc N. Geman and the Division of Enforcement from an administrative law judge's initial decision imposing sanctions on Geman. For further information, contact Kermit Kennedy at (202) 942-0950.
Closed meetings will be held on Wednesday, April 5, 2000, following the 10:00 a.m. open meeting and on Thursday, April 6, 2000 at 11:00 a.m.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present.
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10), and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(4), (8), (9)(A) and (10), permit consideration for the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
Commissioner Unger, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in a closed session.
The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 5, 2000, following the 10:00 a.m. open meeting, will be: Post oral argument discussion.
The subject matter of the closed meeting scheduled for Thursday, April 6, 2000, at 11:00 a.m. will be: Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; and Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact:
The Office of the Secretary at (202) 942-7070.
It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of Enterprises Solutions, Inc., trading under the stock symbol EPSO.OB. Questions have been raised concerning the accuracy and completeness of assertions made by Enterprises Solutions, Inc. in its filings with the Commission, in its recent press releases, and on its Internet website, including questions about the identity of persons in control of the operations and management of the company.
The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the securities of the above-listed company.
Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the above listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, March 30, 2000 through 11:59 p.m. EDT, on April 12, 2000.
By the Commission.
United States Department of State.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 [79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459], the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681
For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Paul W. Manning, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619-5997, and the address is Room 700, United States Department of State, 301 4th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20547-0001.
Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation.
Invitation for public comments on a requested administrative waiver of
As authorized by Public Law 105-383, the Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to grant waivers of the U.S. build requirement of the coastwise laws under certain circumstances. A request for such a waiver has been received by MARAD. The vessel, and a description of the proposed service, is listed below. Interested parties may comment on the effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. If MARAD determines that in accordance with Public Law 105-383 and MARAD's regulations at 46 CFR 388 (65 FR 6905; February 11, 2000) that the issuance of the waiver will have an unduly adverse effect on a U.S.-vessel builder or a business that uses U.S.-flag vessels, a waiver will not be granted.
Submit comments on or before May 3, 2000.
Comments should refer to docket number MARAD-2000-7146. Written comments may be submitted by hand or by mail to the Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, Room PL-401, Department of Transportation, 400 7th St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20590-0001. You may also send comments electronically via the Internet at http://dmses.dot.gov/submit/. All comments will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection and copying at the above address between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An electronic version of this document and all documents entered into this docket is available on the World Wide Web at http://dms.dot.gov.
Michael Hokana, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, MAR 832 Room 7201, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-0760.
Title V of Pub.L. 105-383 provides authority to the Secretary of Transportation to administratively waive the U.S.-build requirements of the Jones Act, and other statutes, for small commercial passenger vessels (less than 12 passengers). This authority has been delegated to the Maritime Administration per 49 CFR 1.66, Delegations to the Maritime Administrator, as amended. By this notice, MARAD is publishing information on a vessel for which a request for a U.S.-build waiver has been received, and for which MARAD requests comments from interested parties. Comments should refer to the docket number of this notice and the vessel name in order for MARAD to properly consider the comments. Comments should also state the commentor's interest in the waiver application, and address the waiver criteria given in § 388.4 of MARAD'S regulations at 46 CFR 388.
(1) Name of vessel and owner for which waiver is requested. Name: A QUIT-ALL, owner: Pescado Rentado, Inc., a Florida corporation (incorporated 1979).
(2) Size, capacity and tonnage of vessel: Length Overall: 44′, Tonnage: Gross 33, Net 26 (Pursuant to Coast Guard Document #528959).
(3) Intended use for vessel, including geographic region of intended operation and trade. According to the applicant: “Sportfishing charter from Jupiter Inlet south to Key West and adjacent waters.”
(4) Date and place of construction and (if applicable) rebuilding. Date of construction: 1980. Place of original construction: Norway.
(5) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on other commercial passenger vessel operators. According to the applicant: “This waiver will not have an impact on other commercial passenger vessel operators who offer offshore sportfishing/cruising charters. There are approximately 40 sportfishing charter services which advertise regularly in the Southern Bell Telephone Yellow Pages, for the Greater Miami area. Existing offshore sportfishing charter boats charge between $350.00 (half-day) to $750.00 (full day). This requested waiver will compliment existing offshore charter operations, as the intent is to focus on obtaining longer than one-day charters, including overnight stays and entertaining on the vessel.
The Greater Miami/Fort Lauderdale area continues to have significant tourist, family vacation, and convention business. Granting this administrative waiver will enable the commercial sport fishing industry to better meet the demands of tourists as it expands even more rapidly. This waiver will also create U.S. jobs: 1 boat captain, 1 mate and several (at least part time) support staff from clerical to boat cleaners. In addition, being able to put this vessel into charter sport fishing will require weekly expenditure for bait, tackle, supplies and products necessary to run and maintain a high quality charter operation. Overall, the local economy will be helped by the granting of this waiver.”
(6) A statement on the impact this waiver will have on U.S. shipyards. According to the applicant: “This waiver will have no negative impact on U.S. Shipyards. There is no comparable sportfishing vessel (44′ Aluminum Hull) currently being manufactured and applicant is unaware of any plans for similar production within the United States.
All future repairs, improvements and upgrades will continue to be undertaken at U.S. (South Florida) shipyards and marinas. Consequently, this vessel will continue to have a positive effect on South Florida (Fort Lauderdale/Miami area) shipyards for routine maintenance and twice-yearly bottom painting, in addition to future refurbishing and refitting. Once in charter use as a working sport fisherman, monthly—if not weekly—maintenance and repairs will become necessary, hence local area shipyards and marinas will benefit.”
By Order of the Maritime Administrator.
The Department of the Treasury, pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-182) (the “Act”), established an advisory committee (the “Advisory Committee”) for the community adjustment and investment program (the “Program”) authorized by the Act. The Program provides financing to create or preserve jobs in communities adversely impacted by NAFTA. The charter of the Advisory Committee has been filed in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of October 6, 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463), with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.
The Advisory Committee consists of nine members of the public, appointed by the President, who collectively represent: (1) Community groups whose constituencies include low-income families; (2) scientific, professional, business, nonprofit, or public interest organizations or associations, which are neither affiliated with, nor under the direction of, a government; and (3) for-profit business interests. There is
The objectives of the Advisory Committee are to: (1) Provide informed advice to the President regarding the implementation of the Program; and (2) review on a regular basis, the operation of the Program, and provide the President with the conclusions of its review. Pursuant to Executive Order No. 12916, dated May 13, 1994, the President established an interagency Finance Committee to implement the Program and to receive, on behalf of the President, advice of the Advisory Committee. The Finance Committee is chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury or his designated representative.
A meeting of the Advisory Committee, which will be open to the public, will be held in Washington, D.C. at the Marriott Hotel at Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005 (Tel. 202-737-2200) from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. on Tuesday, April 25, 2000. The exact location of the meeting room will be posted in the hotel lobby on the day of the meeting. The meeting room will accommodate approximately 50 persons and seating is available on a first-come, first-serve basis, unless space has been reserved in advance. Due to limited seating, prospective attendees are encouraged to contact the person listed below prior to April 14, 2000.
The purpose of the meeting is to review the operations of the Program, and to provide the Finance Committee with advice regarding the conclusions of its review and other implementation issues. Specifically, the meeting would review the recent status of, and anticipated activities of, the three Program components, namely, the federal agency program, the direct loan program, and the grant program.
If you would like to have the Advisory Committee consider a written statement, material must be submitted to the U.S. Community Adjustment and Investment Program, Advisory Committee, Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Court 17-B, Washington, D.C. 20220 no later than April 7, 2000. If you have any questions, please call Dan Decena at (202) 622-0637 (Please note that this telephone number is not toll-free.)
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (the Fund) within the Department of the Treasury is soliciting comments concerning the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program.
Written comments should be received on or before June 2, 2000 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all comments to Jeannine Jacokes, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW. Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, Fax number (202) 622-7754.
Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 601 13th Street, NW. Suite 200 South, Washington, DC 20005, or call (202) 622-8662.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of technology; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
12 U.S.C. 1834a, 4701, 4704, 4713; 12 CFR part 1806.
Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
General notice.
This notice extends the time period for applying to participate in the general program test for the transfer of accompanied, international in-transit baggage.
To participate in the test, applicants have until close of business on May 26, 2000, to file the required information with Customs.
To apply for participation in the test, air carriers must timely submit to the appropriate port director (having jurisdiction over the airport
For information relative to the test program and the application to participate: Steve A. Gilbert, Office of Field Operations (202) 927-1391.
On February 23, 2000, Customs published in the
Customs anticipates issuance of another notice regarding the test program to announce any changes in the test that might be warranted after Customs evaluates the comments received and reconsiders the test program in light thereof.
This notice announces that the time period for applying to participate in the test has been extended to May 26, 2000.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in accordance with Public Law 103-446, gives notice that a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans will be held from Monday, April 17, 2000 to Wednesday, April 19, 2000, in Washington, DC. The purpose of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of VA benefits and services to minority veterans; to assess the needs of minority veterans and to evaluate whether VA compensation, medical and rehabilitation services, outreach, and other programs are meeting those needs. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary regarding such activities.
The meeting will convene in room 230, VA Central Office (VACO) Building, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, from 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. On April 17, the Committee will focus on such health care issues as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and medical research. On Tuesday, April 18, the Committee will concentrate its efforts on veterans' employment and training issues, the cardiac care program evaluation, and the Veterans' Benefits Administration's Road Map to Excellence. The Committee will work in Subcommittees in the afternoon session. On Wednesday, April 19, the Committee will examine several diversity training programs and will begin drafting its annual report for Fiscal Year 2000. These sessions will be open to the public. It will be necessary for those wishing to attend the meeting to contact Mr. Anthony T. Hawkins, Department of Veterans Affairs, at (202) 273-6708, before April 16, 2000. No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public. However, the Committee will accept written comments from interested parties on issues affecting minority veterans. Such comments should be referred to the Committee at the following address: Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, Center for Minority Veterans (00M), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20420.
By Direction of the Secretary.
In notice document 00-6897 beginning on page 15159, in the issue of Tuesday, March 21, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 15161, in the first column, in the fourth line, “not” should be added after “will”.
In rule document 00-5925 beginning on page 13235, in the issue of Monday, March 13, 2000, make the following corrections:
1. On page 13237, in the third column, in paragraph 6., in the third line, “§§1394,21-1394,23” should read “§§1304.21-1304.23”.
2. On the same page, in the same column, in prargraph 10., in the first line, “
In rule document 00-7431 beginning on page 16299 in the issue of March 28, 2000, make the following corrections:
1. On page 16302, in the second column, in the fifth line, “Amendment No. 0 is applicable for casks manufactured before [insert effective date of final rule].” should read “Amendment No. 0 is applicable for casks manufactured before April 27, 2000.”
2. On the same page, in the same column, in the eighth line, “Amendment No. 1 is applicable for casks manufactured after [insert effective date of final rule].” should read “Amendment No. 1 is applicable for casks manufactured after April 27, 2000.”
In Presidential document 00-7900 beginning on page 16509 in the issue of March 29, 2000, the date of the proclamation shoud read as above.
Federal Trade Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Trade Commission (“the Commission”) grants manufacturers of residential appliances covered by its Appliance Labeling Rule (“the Rule”) a conditional exemption from the Rule's prohibition against the inclusion of non-required information on the EnergyGuide labels required by the Rule. The exemption enables appliance manufacturers to place the logo of the Department of Energy's (“DOE”) and Environmental Protection Agency's (“EPA”) joint “ENERGY STAR” Program on required EnergyGuides on some appliances under certain conditions. The Commission also announces a non-substantive amendment to the Rule to include “Federal Trade Commission” on all EnergyGuide labels so consumers and others will be clear as to the identity of the agency with the authority to enforce the Rule.
Effective: February 25, 2000. Manufacturers may avail themselves of the conditional exemption as of February 25, 2000. Manufacturers must begin to include the new language identifying the Federal Trade Commission on labels as soon as they print new labels.
James Mills, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Rm 4616, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 20580 (202-326-3035; jmills@ftc.gov).
The Commission issued the Appliance Labeling Rule, 44 FR 66466 (Nov. 19, 1979), pursuant to a directive in section 324 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6294 (“EPCA”)). The Rule requires manufacturers to disclose energy information about certain major household appliances (“covered appliances”) to enable consumers purchasing appliances to compare the energy use or efficiency of competing models. The Rule initially applied to eight appliance categories: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers, dishwashers, water heaters, clothes washers, room air conditioners, and furnaces. Subsequently, the Commission expanded the Rule's coverage five times: In 1987 (central air conditioners, heat pumps, and certain new types of furnaces); 1989 (fluorescent lamp ballasts); 1993 (certain plumbing products); and twice in 1994 (certain lighting products, and pool heaters and certain other types of water heaters).
Manufacturers of all covered appliances must disclose specific energy consumption or efficiency information at the point of sale in the form of an EnergyGuide label that is affixed to the covered product.
No marks or information other than that specified in this part shall appear on or directly adjoining this label, except a part or publication number identification may be included on this label, as desired by the manufacturer, and the energy use disclosure labels required by the governments of Canada or Mexico may appear directly adjoining this label, as desired by the manufacturer. * * *
DOE and EPA staff and an appliance manufacturer
Section 127 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992
Following the report, DOE began to develop a program—originally called the ENERGY SAVER Program—to promote high efficiency household appliances and water heaters in the U.S. marketplace. Concurrently, EPA was developing a similar program—the ENERGY STAR Program—in response to
The Program is a partnership among DOE, EPA, product manufacturers, major national, regional, and local retailers, utilities, state energy offices, industry trade associations and the financial community. The Program's intent is to increase consumer interest in purchasing highly efficient appliances and heating and cooling equipment (as well as other building products) through promotional programs (including national and regional advertising), lower interest financing, product labeling, sales training, and consumer education.
The appliance products that are (or will be) included in DOE's component of the Program are: refrigerator-freezers, dishwashers, clothes washers, room air conditioners, and water heaters. HVAC equipment has been included since 1995 in EPA's earlier version of the ENERGY STAR Program, and there is already a mechanism in place for designating qualifying HVAC products by means of separate labels, as well as in advertising and promotional materials. EPA staff joined in the instant request for Commission permission for the HVAC equipment manufacturers participating in the Program to include the ENERGY STAR logo on the EnergyGuides on their qualifying products.
DOE and EPA have established qualifying energy consumption criteria that specific appliance and HVAC equipment categories must meet to be included in the ENERGY STAR Program.
EPA held approximately 30 public meetings, primarily at EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, mostly in late 1995 and early 1996. Attending stakeholders included manufacturers, public interest groups, industry trade associations, and utility groups.
The results of these processes as they apply to specific appliance categories are summarized below. Currently, to be included in the Program:
A refrigerator-freezer must have an annual electrical consumption (as determined by the DOE test for that category of products) that is at least 20 percent less than the maximum energy consumption permitted by DOE's standard for refrigerator-freezers;
A dishwasher must have an Energy Factor (“EF”) of 0.52 or greater.
A standard clothes washer (top or front loading) must have an EF of 2.5 or greater.
A room air conditioner must be rated with an Energy Efficiency Ratio (“EER”) that is 15% greater than the DOE minimum EER for the type and size of that unit.
A gas- or oil-fueled furnace must be rated with an Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency (“AFUE”) that is 90 or better; a gas- or oil-fueled boiler must be rated with an AFUE that is 85 or better.
A central air conditioner or the cooling function of an air-source heat pump must be rated with a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (“SEER”) of 12 or better; the heating function of an air-source heat pump must be rated with a Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (“HSPF”) of 7 or higher.
To date, DOE has not finished developing the water heater component of the Program.
As discussed in section II., below, the conditional exemption from the Rule's non-required information prohibition is being made available to Program participants only for those appliances that meet DOE's and EPA's criteria.
EPA owns the ENERGY STAR logo and name and has licensed them to DOE. As a result of this joint partnership, the initials of both agencies appear on the logo. DOE and EPA allow the use of the ENERGY STAR logo by retailers, utilities, manufacturers and other organizations participating in their respective programs under clearly established guidelines that are set out in a memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) that each participant must sign. Participants that have signed an MOU are then “partners.” Under these MOUs, partners may associate the ENERGY STAR logo and name with specific products that DOE and EPA have determined meet the Program's requirements.
Program partners may use the logo as a product label and in catalogs and advertising to designate specific products that are ENERGY STAR qualifying products. A sample EnergyGuide with an ENERGY STAR logo placed in accordance with the conditions the Commission announces today appears at the end of Section II., below. Partners also may display the logo when describing one or more of the ENERGY STAR labeling programs, such as in special educational brochures, newsletters, or annual reports. Retailer and utility partners are allowed to include the logo in general educational or promotional materials, such as utility bill stuffers, newsletters, or annual reports.
Currently, retailers apply separate ENERGY STAR labels on qualifying appliances at each store site. The extent and accuracy of label placement is then monitored by participating utilities and DOE contractors. From its public workshops and the comments they generated, DOE learned that many manufacturers, retailers and consumers wanted a single, “augmented“ EnergyGuide label, which would be preferable to separate EnergyGuide and ENERGY STAR labels.
Some manufacturers favored an augmented label because it would reduce their costs and allow them to assure proper identification of qualifying models, which is harder to control at the retailer level. Retailers believed that the augmented label would be less confusing to consumers than multiple labels relating to energy use, that an augmented EnergyGuide label could build upon the broad “brand recognition” achieved by the Commission's label, and that an augmented label would make it easier for consumers to distinguish efficient products. DOE staff believed that the efforts of the Commission, EPA, and DOE to provide consumer educational materials explaining a new augmented label, coupled with training for appliance salespeople, would lead to broader overall consumer awareness of the differences in energy consumption among competing appliances, and thus would result in more informed consumer decision-making. Finally, the augmented label could be used by utilities in connection with their efforts to support demand-side load reduction objectives through the use of incentives to consumers.
On November 24, 1998, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing a conditional exemption to allow manufacturers to place the ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides affixed to qualified products (63 FR 64921). The Commission noted that, although the ENERGY STAR logo is already appearing as a separate label on some qualifying appliances and most qualifying HVAC equipment covered by the Rule, an augmented label would be likely to lower manufacturers' labeling and monitoring costs and reduce the likelihood of mislabeling. The logo's highlighting of efficient appliances also could complement the Rule's objective of providing consumers with energy efficiency and consumption information. Finally, in conjunction with the descriptive information already on the EnergyGuide label, the logo could provide a context that would better ensure consumer understanding of the logo than if it were on a separate label.
The Commission proposed adding a new section to the Rule—305.19 Exemptions—to codify the terms of the conditional exemption for those who wished to avail themselves of it. The Commission based the proposed exemption on several conditions. First, the ENERGY STAR logo would be permitted on the EnergyGuides of only those covered appliances and HVAC equipment that meet the ENERGY STAR Program qualification criteria that are current at the time the products are labeled. Second, only manufacturers that have signed an MOU with DOE or EPA would be permitted to affix the augmented labels to qualifying appliances. Third, to ensure that the ENERGY STAR logo is permanently placed in the proper position on the augmented EnergyGuide label, manufacturers that choose to avail themselves of the conditional exemption would be required to print the ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides for qualified products as part of the usual label printing process; that is, manufacturers (or distributors or retailers) would not be permitted to apply a separate logo onto already finished labels subsequent to the time a product is labeled. Fourth, manufacturers would have to draft the logo in conformance with certain technical specifications relating to its appearance, placement on the EnergyGuide, and size. Specifically, the logo would have to appear above the comparability bar in the box that contains the applicable range of comparability. The precise location of the logo would vary depending on where the caret indicating the position of the labeled model on the scale appears (the NPR included a sample label that illustrated an EnergyGuide with the logo printed in conformity with the proposed conditions). The required dimensions of the logo would be no more than one and one-eighth inches (3 cm.) in width and no more than three-quarters of an inch (2 cm.) in height. Manufacturers would be prohibited from placing the logo in a way that would obscure, detract from, alter the dimensions of, or touch any element of the label, which in all other respects would have to conform to the requirements of the Commission's Rule. The ENERGY STAR logo would be in process black ink to match the print specifications for the EnergyGuide. The background would remain in process yellow to match the rest of the label.
As a last condition, the Commission proposed requiring that manufacturers availing themselves of the conditional exemption add a sentence to explain the significance of the ENERGY STAR logo, citing its concern that the addition of the logo to the EnergyGuide without some explanation of its meaning on the face of the label itself might not be meaningful to consumers. The Commission proposed that manufacturers include a brief explanatory sentence below the comparability bar between the “least” and “most” numbers (the exact wording would depend on the product category.): “ENERGY STAR [product type(s)] use at least _% less energy annually than the Federal Maximum.” or: “ENERGY STAR [product type(s)] are at least _% more efficient than the Federal Minimum.” or: “ENERGY STAR [product type(s)] must be rated with a [type of efficiency rating] of [rating] or higher.”
The Commission also proposed amending the Rule so the Federal Trade Commission would be clearly identified as the government entity that requires manufacturers to affix the EnergyGuide label to their appliances, and to eliminate confusion if the Commission grants the proposed conditional exemption and the identifying initials of DOE and EPA appear on the labels of appliances that qualify for the ENERGY STAR Program. The proposal was to change the sentence at the bottom of the EnergyGuide to read:
Important: Removal of this label before consumer purchase violates the Federal Trade Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR Part 305).
The Commission noted that, because of the non-substantive nature of this proposal, manufacturers would not have to make the change until their supply of current labels is exhausted in the ordinary course of business or they draft new labels for other reasons, such as a change in the ranges of comparability.
In addition to asking for comment on any issues or concerns the public believed were relevant or appropriate to the Commission's consideration of the proposed exemption, the Commission also asked for comment on several specific questions: Whether the Commission should grant the proposed conditional exemption only to partners in the ENERGY STAR Program; whether the specific conditions under which the Commission was proposing the conditional exemption were appropriate (and if not, what conditions would be appropriate); whether the proposed explanatory statement was effectively worded and would be helpful to consumers; the benefits and economic impact of the proposed conditional exemption (especially on small businesses); and whether the ENERGY STAR logo and promotional materials convey accurate information to consumers (especially regarding overall operating cost over time).
The Commission received fifteen comments in response to the NPR.
Thirteen comments expressed general support for the Commission's proposal.
Twelve comments addressed the effect the proposed conditional exemption would have on consumers and entities other than appliance manufacturers, such as retailers and utilities.
We strongly believe that the proposed conditional exemption will benefit the public. The ENERGY STAR logo on the EnergyGuide label will clearly and consistently identify qualifying highly efficient products. This conditional exemption will help to foster the growing public awareness of the value of energy efficiency in the home and the demand for new products that can help us conserve resources while enjoying the convenience and luxury of technology.
Eight commenters stated that the ENERGY STAR logo and promotional materials convey accurate information to consumers, especially respecting the cost over time of purchasing and operating qualifying appliances.
All of the promotional materials developed by DOE convey accurate information about the ENERGY STAR label, its meaning, and the benefits that can be expected by
Five commenters observed that the conditional exemption would likely benefit those public utilities that have developed incentive programs that provide rebates to consumers who purchase energy efficient appliances and heating and cooling equipment.
Appliance manufacturers, major retailers and many utilities have signed partnership agreements to use the symbol to promote efficient products. The conditional exemption will establish consistency in product labeling, making it easier for utilities and retailers to promote qualified products, and most importantly, making it easier for consumers to recognize them in stores.
Eleven commenters addressed the impact of the proposed conditional exemption on manufacturers.
Two commenters opposed the proposed conditional exemption. AGA contended that the EnergyGuide label should disclose energy use and efficiency descriptors derived using source-based data, rather than end-use data:
The Commission is currently limited in its EnergyGuide labeling program to use energy descriptors, provided by the Department of Energy (DOE), that provide narrow and misleading views of energy efficiency. In some cases, particularly when the appliances have different fuel sources, these descriptors distort how consumers view the overall cost and environmental impacts of operating appliances. For appliances that use competing fuels, this exemption may exacerbate the problem. * * * For appliances that use competing fuels, consumers would not benefit from the addition of the ENERGY STAR on the EnergyGuide label.
The Commission should disclose source-based information on EnergyGuides in order to allow consumers to translate a concern for the environment and a finite supply of fossil fuels into positive action when making purchasing decisions. In addition to promoting sound public policy, using source-based data provides Congress, the Commission, DOE and the public with a more accurate measurement of (1) energy consumption, (2) associated emissions, and (3) conservation potential.
GE also opposed the proposed conditional exemption. Noting that it is “proud to be an Energy Star partner,” GE stated that it believed the Program is working in its present form (with the ENERGY STAR logo applied as a separate label) and that it saw no reason for a change such as the one requested in Maytag's petition. GE maintained that the Commission should conduct an evaluation of each aspect of the ENERGY STAR Program, from the logo to the partnership, and provide the public with an opportunity for comment.
Petitioners have failed to demonstrate the need to exempt the Energy Star logo from the general prohibition against placing additional information on the EnergyGuide label. The Energy Star logo is a strictly voluntary program and elements of the program should not appear on the mandatory EnergyGuide label. * * * The current labeling scheme is sufficient to meet consumers' needs for energy consumption information.
GE asserted that the proposed conditional exemption would penalize manufacturers of products that do not qualify for inclusion in the ENERGY STAR Program, and argued that the impact on these manufacturers, as well as the validity of the criteria for inclusion in the Program, should be subject to careful analysis under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551
[N]either the Commission nor any other agency has developed record evidence to support the minimum qualifications established for Energy Star products. As an example, refrigerators must be
GE also contended that the ENERGY STAR Program's use, with the logo and in Program materials, of the slogan “Saving the Earth,” without qualification as to how the Program actually helps the environment, may violate the Commission's Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, 16 CFR part 260 (1999), which require that such claims be substantiated.
Finally, GE argued that the conditional exemption would mislead consumers into thinking that they are purchasing superior products when they are not because the Energy Star label does not distinguish between refrigerators that are 20% and 40% better than the standard. It contended that putting both products on an apparent equal footing misleads the consumer, who focuses on the logo, thinking that the less efficient product is just as efficient as the 40% model.
After careful consideration of the comments, the Commission is amending the Rule to permit (but not require)
Based on the comments received, the Commission has concluded that the ENERGY STAR logo and Program convey accurate, useful information to consumers. The Commission recognizes, as DOE pointed out in its comment, that this Program was carefully developed and that extensive public participation was sought and considered in finalizing the Program. The comments describing the ENERGY STAR Program's benefits to consumers, appliance manufacturers and retailers, and public utilities that maintain incentive rebate programs for consumers who purchase energy efficient appliances, strongly support implementation of the conditional exemption.
The Commission disagrees with GE's contention that it must conduct an evaluation—either through administrative rulemaking or otherwise—of every aspect of the ENERGY STAR Program before permitting manufacturers to print the logo on EnergyGuides on their qualifying products. The Commission is not required by statute to exclude non-required information from the EnergyGuide. Rather, the Commission included this prohibition in the Rule on its own initiative. Therefore, the Commission has the authority to repeal this prohibition entirely, or to specify the conditions under which clearly identified non-required information would be permitted. In this instance, the Commission is deciding to permit the addition of information that is truthful and accurate under a program established and monitored by two sister agencies. As discussed in section I.B, above, DOE and EPA both subjected their initially separate versions of the ENERGY STAR Program to extensive public scrutiny and participation during the development of their Programs, and the Commission is satisfied with that aspect of the current Program.
Further, the Commission is not persuaded by GE's argument that the ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides will mislead consumers because the ENERGY STAR label will not distinguish among products that are more efficient than the DOE standard. Because the specific energy use information of the labeled model will appear on the EnergyGuide, the actual difference in energy use among competing models will be readily apparent. Currently, consumers can see both the EnergyGuide and ENERGY STAR labels on products and can use the information together to make purchasing decisions if they wish. Allowing the logo on the EnergyGuide makes it easier for consumers to use the information together, while reducing labeling costs and the possibility of mislabeling.
Nor does the Commission agree with GE that the appearance of the logo on EnergyGuides will create an inappropriate impression of federal government endorsement. The current practice of using separate ENERGY STAR stickers containing DOE's and EPA's names does not appear to raise this concern and it is unlikely that consolidation of the labels will do so.
GE has expressed its concern more than once during this proceeding that promotional materials produced by DOE for the ENERGY STAR Program contain unqualified claims of environmental benefit. DOE has undertaken a review of the claims in its promotional materials. DOE intends to republish its materials with whatever changes may be necessary so that they are in compliance with the Commission's Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
Finally, the Commission does not have the authority to require the inclusion of source-based energy use data on the EnergyGuide, as AGA suggested. As noted in AGA's comment, the directive in section 324(c)(1)(A) of EPCA
Ten commenters addressed the Commission's proposal to permit only manufacturers who have signed an MOU with DOE or EPA to place the ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides affixed to their qualifying products. Seven of these agreed that the proposed conditional exemption should be limited to partners in the ENERGY STAR Program.
Three commenters did not agree with the limitation proposed in the NPR. All of these recommended that the exemption should not be limited only to partners, but should be available to all manufacturers whose products meet the Program's criteria.
The ENERGY STAR logo and name belong to EPA, which has licensed their use to DOE, and use of the name and logo by manufacturers is carefully controlled by the specific guidelines contained in the MOUs that participating manufacturers sign with each agency. Because EPA and DOE use the MOUs to maintain the Program's integrity, the Commission will not permit use of the ENERGY STAR name or logo on EnergyGuides by a manufacturer that has not signed an MOU with EPA or DOE.
To address Whirlpool's concern that a full-line manufacturer that has signed an MOU only with respect to one line of products might use the ENERGY STAR logo on another line, the conditional exemption is drafted to apply only to those products that are the subject of the MOU the manufacturer has signed.
Accordingly, § 305.19(a)(2) of the amended Rule limits the conditional exemption only to partners in the ENERGY STAR Program that have signed an MOU with EPA or DOE, and only to those products that are covered by the MOU.
In response to a general question in the NPR about the appropriateness of the conditions under which the conditional exemption would be granted, four commenters stated without elaboration that the conditions were reasonable or appropriate.
Ten commenters addressed the question in the NPR regarding the most cost-effective method for placing the ENERGY STAR logo on the EnergyGuide. Six of these said that the best method was for manufacturers to print the logo on the EnergyGuide at the factory.
The Commission believes that manufacturers should bear the responsibility for assuring that the ENERGY STAR logo appears properly and consistently on qualifying products. Moreover, manufacturers would be able to ensure consistent and proper placement of the logo more efficiently and at a lower cost if the logo were permitted on the EnergyGuide itself. While the Commission recognizes that the most efficient way for manufacturers to fulfill this responsibility would probably be to print the ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides during the printing process, the Commission nevertheless wishes to afford manufacturers the latitude to place the logo on EnergyGuides by whatever means is most efficient for them, provided the placement complies with the requirements for location and size. They should then affix those EnergyGuides on their ENERGY STAR-qualified covered products in the same manner they use to affix EnergyGuides without the ENERGY STAR logo to their other covered products.
The Commission also notes that the requirement to place the logo on EnergyGuides applies only to those manufacturers who participate in the ENERGY STAR Program and elect to avail themselves of the conditional exemption. The extent to which participating manufacturers wish to use the ENERGY STAR logo on labels attached to qualifying products is up to them.
Accordingly, § 305.19(a)(3) of the amended Rule provides that manufacturers that choose to use the conditional exemption may print the ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides for qualified products as part of the usual label printing process or may place the logo on EnergyGuides by whatever means is most efficient for them, provided the placement complies with the applicable size, location, and appearance requirements specified in § 305.19(a)(4).
Eleven commenters addressed the Explanatory Statement that the Commission proposed for inclusion on the EnergyGuides of qualifying products along with the ENERGY STAR logo.
In connection with their suggestions of alternative language for the Explanatory Statement, OOE and NRDC contended that the proposed language in the Explanatory Statements for the different product categories was too complex and technical.
Seven commenters addressed whether the ENERGY STAR logo or the Explanatory Statement would affect consumers' understanding of the information on the EnergyGuide.
Six commenters addressed whether the Commission should require that the ENERGY STAR logo and Explanatory Statement appear in a color of ink different from the black ink on the rest of the EnergyGuide.
Adding the ENERGY STAR logo in a different color might be more visible for consumers, although it would be more expensive for manufacturers. Manufacturers could be given the option of using a “line art” (one color) version of the logo in a different color (such as blue or green), or manufacturers could use the 4-color version of the ENERGY STAR logo.
The record indicates that consumer understanding would be increased with a brief explanation of the ENERGY STAR logo on the EnergyGuide, and that an Explanatory Statement would not adversely affect consumers' understanding of the rest of the information on the EnergyGuide. The majority of the commenters, however, believed that the explanatory language proposed in the NPR is more specific and detailed than necessary. The Commission is persuaded that a simpler, less technical, more generic approach would be more helpful to consumers and more likely to communicate clearly the significance of the ENERGY STAR logo on the label. In addition, a simpler, non-specific Explanatory Statement would have the advantage of not needing to be changed whenever the criteria for ENERGY STAR qualification are modified.
In considering possible alternative language for the Explanatory Statement, the Commission has reviewed the “taglines” suggested by the commenters, and has decided to use a simple statement that draws from these suggestions. In choosing a tagline, the Commission recognizes that, although models labeled with the ENERGY STAR logo are more efficient as a group than most of those not so labeled, some products made by manufacturers not in the ENERGY STAR Program may be as efficient or more efficient. To accommodate this situation, the Commission has adopted a tagline that states that the ENERGY STAR is “A symbol of energy efficiency,” instead of “The symbol for energy efficiency,” as the tagline currently most often used by DOE and EPA reads. Thus, the Commission has determined to use the phrase “ENERGY STAR A Symbol of Energy Efficiency” as a tagline to replace the Explanatory Statement proposed in the NPR. Accordingly, § 305.19(a)(5) requires that the Explanatory Statement, “ENERGY STAR A Symbol of Energy Efficiency” appear on all EnergyGuides on which the ENERGY STAR logo appears.
Further, in keeping with the comments suggesting the importance of simplicity regarding the explanatory statement and how it functions to inform consumers of the meaning of the logo, the Commission has changed the location of the statement from the location proposed in the NPR. The Commission is concerned that the distance and visual material that separate the tagline from the logo when they are above and below the bar, as proposed in the NPR, are visually confusing and could interfere with the ability of consumers to associate the two together at a glance. Accordingly, § 305.19(a)(5) of the amendments now requires that the tagline be located directly next to the logo above the bar, rather than below the bar.
Virtually of the commenters that addressed whether the Commission should require that the ENERGY STAR logo and the Explanatory Statement appear in a different color of ink agreed that, although the requirement might somewhat increase the communication effectiveness of the logo and statement, the increase would not justify the additional cost to manufacturers. Accordingly, the Commission is not requiring the logo and statement to appear in ink of a color different from that of the other information on the EnergyGuide. Moreover, to avoid potential consumer confusion if some, but not all, manufacturers were to use a different colored ink, the Commission is requiring specifically that the logo and Explanatory Statement appear in process black ink.
Whirlpool and GE addressed the Commission's proposal to add the identity of the Federal Trade Commission on the label as the agency responsible for enforcing the Appliance Labeling Rule. Whirlpool stated:
This can be easily accomplished as part of a natural transition to new EnergyGuide labels with new model introductions, normal changes emanating from changes in comparability and as inventories of old label stock are consumed.
Allowing the Energy Star logo to be placed on the mandatory EnergyGuide label has the potential to mislead consumers to believe that the Federal Government actually endorses the product. Consider the impact of having the names of FTC, DOE and EPA on a product label. The potential is substantial that consumers will conclude that these government agencies together have determined that this product is superior to those that do not contain the label.
The Commission has concluded that the addition of the Federal Trade Commission's name on the EnergyGuide is desirable to clarify the identity of the agency with the authority for enforcing the Appliance Labeling Rule, especially on those labels bearing the ENERGY STAR logo, on which EPA and DOE also will be identified. The Commission does not agree with GE's assertion that the appearance of the Commission's name (along with EPA's and DOE's) will mislead consumers into thinking that the labeled product is superior to those products with labels without the ENERGY STAR logo. Rather, the Commission believes that consumers will see that there is a label on the product, required by the Federal Trade Commission, that contains energy use information and an indication that the product is more energy efficient than many other similar products in the marketplace.
Consequently, §§ 305.11(a)(5)(i)(I), 305.11(a)(5)(ii)(H), and 305.11(a)(5)(iii)(H) of the amended Rule replace the language at the bottom of the current EnergyGuide with the following statement:
Important: Removal of this label before consumer purchase violates the Federal Trade Commission's Appliance Labeling Rule (16 CFR part 305).
The Commission is aware that a group of stakeholders organized by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (“ACEEE”), a public interest group concerned with promoting energy efficiency, has recently undertaken an initiative to study alternative designs for the EnergyGuide. The Commission's staff is involved in an advisory capacity in this project. The Commission understands that ACEEE is not likely to finish its research and prepare a petition for the Commission before the end of a year's time. The Commission will continue to follow this initiative, and will consider ACEEE's recommendations, if appropriate, when, and if, it files a petition at the completion of the project. In the meantime, the Commission believes that it should act now on the present recommendation so the public can realize its intended benefits as soon as possible.
This notice does not contain a regulatory analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), 5 U.S.C. 603-604, because the Commission believes that the conditional exemption will not have “a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” 5 U.S.C. 605.
In the NPR, the Commission noted that the Rule prohibits the inclusion of non-required information on the EnergyGuide in order to ensure that such information does not detract from the required information. The Commission concluded tentatively that the conditional exemption would not impose any new requirements on manufacturers of appliances and HVAC equipment and that, instead, it would allow them the option, under certain conditions, of voluntarily including the DOE/EPA ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides affixed to products that qualify for inclusion in the ENERGY STAR Program. The Commission stated that it therefore believed the impact of the conditional exemption on all entities within the affected industry, if any, would be de minimis.
The Commission also stated in the NPR that, similarly, manufacturers would not have to comply with the proposed amendment to require different language on the EnergyGuide that identifies the Commission as the agency with enforcement authority for the Rule until they were required to print new labels for other reasons, so the Commission believed that the impact of the proposed amendment on all entities within the affected industry, if any, also would be de minimis.
In light of the above, the Commission certified in the NPR, pursuant to section 605 of the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 605, that the proposed conditional exemption would not, if granted, have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. To ensure that no substantial economic impact was overlooked, however, the Commission solicited comments concerning the effects of the proposed conditional exemption, including any benefits and burdens on manufacturers or consumers and the extent of those benefits and burdens, beyond those imposed or conferred by the current Rule, that the conditional exemption would have on manufacturers, retailers, or other sellers. The Commission expressed particular interest in comments regarding the effects of the conditional exemption on small businesses. The Commission stated that, after reviewing any comments received, it would determine whether it would be necessary to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis if it determined to grant the conditional exemption.
Eight comments responded to the Commission's solicitation in this regard.
The proposed conditional exemption will be especially beneficial to small businesses which do not necessarily have a budget for specific promotions to correspond with the ENERGY STAR Program (especially in the future when the government stops creating point-of-purchase materials). These retailers will be able to undertake promotions of energy efficient products at virtually no cost or effort.
While most of the comments on this issue suggest that the conditional exemption may have beneficial results for some small businesses, the Commission believes that the impact of the results will be
The Commission received no comments regarding the costs of the proposed amendment to include the agency's name on EnergyGuide labels. Thus, the Commission's conclusion in the NPR that the impact of the proposed amendment would be
In light of the forgoing, the Commission certifies, pursuant to section 605 of the RFA, that the conditional exemption and amendments published today will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501
In the NPR, the Commission concluded that the conditional exemption would not impose any new information collection requirements. To ensure that no additional burden was overlooked, however, the Commission sought public comment on what, if any, additional information collection burden the proposed conditional exemption would impose.
No comments addressed this issue. The Commission maintains its position, therefore, that the conditional exemption will not impose any new information collection requirements.
Advertising, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 6294.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) * * *
(I) The following statement shall appear at the bottom of the label:
(ii) * * *
(H) The following statement shall appear at the bottom of the label:
(iii) * * *
(H) The following statement shall appear at the bottom of the label:
The Commission has exempted manufacturers, private labelers, distributors, and/or retailers in some instances from specific requirements of this part. These exemptions are listed in this section. In some circumstances, use of the exemptions is conditioned on alternative performance by manufacturers, private labelers, distributors, and/or retailers.
(a) Limited conditional exemption for manufacturers from the prohibition against the inclusion of non-required information on the label of covered products that qualify for inclusion in the ENERGY STAR Program maintained by the Department of Energy (“DOE”) and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). Those manufacturers participating in the DOE/EPA ENERGY STAR Program who wish to place the ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides affixed to covered products they manufacture that qualify for inclusion in the ENERGY STAR Program are granted a conditional exemption from the prohibition against placing “information other than that specified” by the Rule on the EnergyGuides they attach to their qualifying products. This exemption is based on several conditions:
(1) The ENERGY STAR logo is permitted on the EnergyGuides of only those covered products that meet the ENERGY STAR Program qualification criteria that are current at the time the products are labeled.
(2) Only manufacturers that have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with DOE or EPA may add the ENERGY STAR logo to labels on qualifying covered products; such manufacturers may add the ENERGY STAR logo to labels only on those covered products that are contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding.
(3) Manufacturers that choose to avail themselves of the conditional exemption may print the ENERGY STAR logo on EnergyGuides for qualified products as part of the usual label printing process or may place the logo on EnergyGuides for qualified products by whatever means is most efficient for them, provided such placement complies with the requirements of paragraph (a)(4), of this section.
(4) Manufacturers must place the logo on the EnergyGuide above the comparability bar in the box that contains the applicable range of comparability. The precise location of the logo will vary depending on where the caret indicating the position of the labeled model on the scale appears (see the sample label). The required dimensions of the logo must be one and one-eighth inches (3 cm.) in width and three-quarters of an inch (2 cm.) in height. Manufacturers are prohibited
(5) Manufacturers must add a sentence in process black ink that explains the significance of the ENERGY STAR logo in ten-point Helvetica Condensed Black typeface. The sentence must be next to the logo, above the comparability bar that shows the “least” and “most” numbers. The sentence must read:
ENERGY STAR A symbol of energy efficiency.
(b) [Reserved]
By direction of the Commission.
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Proposed rule.
The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council (Councils) are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to clarify the scope of discussions in competitive negotiated acquisitions.
Interested parties should submit comments in writing on or before June 2, 2000, to be considered in the formulation of a final rule.
Submit written comments to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4035, ATTN: Laurie Duarte, Washington, DC 20405.
Submit electronic comments via the Internet to: farcase.1999-022@gsa.gov
Please submit comments only and cite FAR case 1999-022 in all correspondence related to this case.
The FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC, 20405, at (202) 501-4755 for information pertaining to status or publication schedules. For clarification of content, contact Mr. Ralph De Stefano, Procurement Analyst, at (202) 501-1758. Please cite FAR case 1999-022.
The proposed rule amends FAR 15.306(d) to clarify the Councils' view that the contracting officer is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved.
The rule explains that discussions of offerors' proposals beyond deficiencies and significant weaknesses are a matter of contracting officer judgment. GAO has already interpreted the previous FAR language consistently with this clarification in
This rule was not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under Section 6(b) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
The Councils do not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601,
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed changes to the FAR do not impose information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501,
Government procurement.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA propose that 48 CFR part 15 be amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 15 continues to read as follows:
40 U.S.C. 486(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 42 U.S.C. 2473(c).
2. Amend section 15.306 by revising paragraph (d)(3); by redesignating paragraph (d)(4) as (d)(5); and by adding a new paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
(d) * * *
(3) At a minimum, the contracting officer must, subject to paragraphs (d)(5) and (e) of this section and 15.307(a), indicate to or discuss with each offeror still being considered for award significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not yet had an opportunity to respond. The contracting officer also is encouraged to discuss other aspects of the offeror's proposal (such as cost, price, technical approach, past performance, and terms and conditions) that could, in the opinion of the contracting officer, be altered or explained to enhance materially the proposal's potential for award. However, the contracting officer is not required to discuss every area where the proposal could be improved. The scope and extent of discussions are a matter of contracting officer judgment.
(4) In discussing other aspects of the proposal, the Government may, in situations where the solicitation stated that evaluation credit would be given for technical solutions exceeding any mandatory minimums, negotiate with offerors for increased performance beyond any mandatory minimums, and the Government may suggest to offerors that have exceeded any mandatory minimums (in ways that are not integral to the design) that their proposals would be more competitive if the excesses were removed and the offered price decreased.