Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Farm Service Agency
Food and Nutrition Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Rural Utilities Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Employment and Training Administration
Labor Statistics Bureau
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Health Resources and Services Administration
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration
Customs Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Office of the Secretary, USDA.
Final rule; correction.
The Department of Agriculture published in the
Effective February 4, 2000.
Philip Schwab, Science Advisor and Legislation Affairs, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA, Room 305-A, Jamie L. Whitten Federal Bldg., Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202-720-4423.
The Department of Agriculture published in the
In FR Doc. 00-2396 published on February 4, 2000 (65 FR 5414) made the following correction. On page 5414, in the third column, amendatory instruction 2.d. to 2.21 is corrected to read as follows:
2. * * *
d. Revise paragraphs (a)(1)(x), (a)(1)(xx), (a)(1)(xliv), (a)(1)(l), (a)(1)(liii), (a)(1)(lvii), (a)(1)(lix), (a)(1)(lxxix), and (b)(1)(i) and add paragraphs (a)(1)(liv), (a)(1)(lxxx), (a)(1)(lxxxi), and (a)(1)(lxxxvii) to read as follows:
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim rule that amended the Asian longhorned beetle regulations by expanding the quarantined area in the city of Chicago, IL, and adding two new areas in Cook County, IL. As a result of the interim rule, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted. The interim rule was necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the artificial spread of the Asian longhorned beetle to noninfested areas of the United States.
The interim rule became effective on January 27, 2000.
Mr. Ron Milberg, Operations Officer, Program Support, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-5255.
In an interim rule effective January 27, 2000, and published in the
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or before April 3, 2000. We did not receive any comments. Therefore, for the reasons given in the interim rule, we are adopting the interim rule as a final rule.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim rule concerning Executive Orders 12866, 12372, and 12988, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.
This rule affirms an interim rule that amended the Asian longhorned beetle regulations by expanding the quarantined area in the city of Chicago, IL, and adding two new areas in Cook County, IL. As a result of the interim rule, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted. The interim rule was necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the artificial spread of the Asian longhorned beetle to noninfested areas of the United States.
The following analysis addresses the economic effect of this rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The quarantine and restrictions on the interstate movement of certain articles from the quarantined areas has been determined to be the most effective means of preventing the artificial spread of the pest outside the State of Illinois. Biological controls and pesticides do not currently appear to be effective alternatives.
Nonetheless, the interim rule will have no economic effect on businesses, large or small, since none are located in the newly quarantined 216 acres. The newly quarantined areas consist of a residential area, a cemetery, and a forest preserve.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the interim rule that amended 7 CFR part 301 and that was published at 65 FR 4865-4866 on February 2, 2000.
7 U.S.C. 147a, 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and 164-167; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Direct final rule.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is amending its regulations to allow flexibility in determining whether a borrower needs to solicit bids from all sources for new or replacement generation. It is also deleting the requirement that borrowers seek bids if RUS financial assistance is requested from all sources for generation projects of 10 megawatts or more or for modifications to existing plants if it results in an increase in capacity of 10 percent. RUS will review each project on a case by case basis and determine whether there is a need for a borrower to seek bids from all sources for the project.
This rule will become effective July 3, 2000 unless we receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments on or before June 16, 2000. If we receive such comments or notice, we will publish a timely document in the
Submit adverse comments or notice of intent to submit adverse comments to F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1522, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 720-9550. RUS requires a signed original and three copies of all comments (7 CFR 1700.4). Comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
Wei M. Moy, Chief, Power Resources & Planning Branch, Power Supply Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1568, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1568. Telephone: (202) 720-1438. FAX (202) 720-1401. E-mail: wmoy@rus.usda.gov.
This 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 (OMB).
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. RUS has determined that this rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of the Executive Order. In addition, all state and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and in accordance with § 212(e) of the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (7 USC 6912(e)) administrative appeal procedures, if any, must be exhausted before an action against the Department or its agencies may be initiated.
RUS has determined that this rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This rule contains no additional information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
The program described by this rule is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance programs under No. 10.850, Rural Electrification Loans and Loan Guarantees. This catalog is available on a subscription basis from the United States Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325, telephone number (202) 512-1800.
This rule is excluded from the scope of Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Consultation, which may require consultation with State, local and tribal governments or the private sector. See the final rule related notice entitled “Department Programs and Activities Excluded from Executive Order 12372” (50 FR 47034).
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provision of title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act) for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
The Administrator of RUS has determined that this rule will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment as defined by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Section 1710.254 provides that RUS will consider providing financial assistance to borrowers for the construction of generation facilities and the modification of existing generation facilities only if certain conditions are met. The requirements also apply to financial assistance for all new generation facilities of 10 megawatts or more and for modifications to existing
This process is very time consuming, costly and, in many cases, is not needed. The entire process can take more than a year in some cases. At the conclusion of the process, the business opportunities and the best approach to meet the applicant's specific need may no longer be available or no longer available at the projected cost.
The electric energy industry in the United States is experiencing ongoing deregulation. This has increased competition in the industry and the need for RUS borrowers to be able to meet the power needs of their members and the power needs of the rural consumers in a timely, cost effective manner. Presently, there is an abundance of public information and reports assessing market conditions of various regions of the country, utility market trends, market forecasts, and projected projects for various markets. As such, in certain cases, an RFP is not needed nor is the expense and time involved in the solicitation useful or justified.
The rapidly changing and increasingly competitive environment of the electric utility industry requires borrowers to make certain decisions regarding the need for generation facilities and the type of facilities needed in a very short time frame to enable them to meet their power supply needs in the most reliable and economical manner. The borrower's intended use of the generation facilities is critical to any determination as to need and cost. An example of this is the installation of peaking generation facilities to meet peak loads. Due to reliability problems, growing demand and the high cost of power and energy experienced by some electric utilities during peak demand periods in recent years, there is an increasing need for peaking generation units. The gas turbine manufacturers are unable to keep up with the demand. As a result, RUS borrowers must be able to take full advantage of any business opportunities in order to maintain their competitiveness and be able to obtain peaking units to meet their peak loads. Due to the time consuming process required by the existing requirements of § 1710.254, this can and has been an impediment to the borrowers obtaining capacity to meet peaking requirements in a reliable and economical manner.
Another concern of the borrowers and RUS is that the process required by § 1710.254 is expensive, especially when the sole reason to issue an RFP is to meet the requirements of this regulation. To meet these requirements, some borrowers have had to hire consultants to assist them in the RFP and evaluation process. This has added to the time necessary to complete the process and added to the cost. For projects such as upgrades or modifications to existing generation facilities, which result in an increase in generation capacity, the economics and the actual need are generally clear, hence, the RFP requirement contained in § 1710.254 and the associated costs are an unnecessary expense in most cases.
Electric power, Electric utilities, Loan programs-energy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
7 U.S.C. 901
(a) * * *
(2) If a borrower already owns and operates the types of facilities included in a loan request, then a loan for the purposes contained in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, as well as for the construction of transmission facilities by a distribution borrower, will be considered and evaluated by RUS in terms of whether the proposed facilities constitute an effective and economical means of meeting the power requirements of the consumers. A borrower shall contact RUS as soon as practicable in order for RUS to review information submitted by the borrower and advise the borrower, in writing, whether there is a need for the borrower to investigate and seek alternative sources of power. RUS will determine, based on information provided by the borrower or otherwise available, whether there is a need to investigate alternative sources of power or whether RUS will require information or other methods of determining the need for the generation capacity. RUS will base its determination on whether RUS is able to conclude that the project is needed, the borrower would incur delays and costs in pursuing an RFP, or that an RFP is not likely to produce new alternatives to the project.
(b) Loan requests for the addition of generation capacity, including replacement of existing capacity, will be accepted by RUS when the applicant has completed the requirements established by RUS, in a manner satisfactory to RUS. The investigations of alternative sources of power must be coordinated in advance with RUS. This section applies to RUS financed generation capacity whether owned solely by the borrower, owned on an undivided ownership basis with other utilities or substantially controlled by the borrower.
(c) The applicant may be required to seek and utilize capacity available from RUS borrowers and other organizations before developing plans for additional generation capacity. RUS may require, on a case by case basis, that the applicant, among other things:
(1) Solicit power and energy purchase proposals from all reasonable potential sources of power, such as other electric cooperatives, investor-owned utilities, municipal utility organizations, and Federal and state power authorities.
(2) Solicit proposals from independent power producers, including co-generators, to determine
(d) When solicitations are received in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, the applicant will evaluate all alternative proposals on an economic, present-value basis, giving consideration to cost-effectiveness, reliability of service, the short-term and long-term financial viability of the supplier, and the financial risk to the borrower and its creditors. The applicant will keep RUS fully informed on these evaluations and provide supporting information and analysis as requested by RUS.
(e) After evaluation of all proposals received in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, and having informed RUS of the results, the applicant may be required to negotiate final proposals with the entities submitting the best acceptable offers. Contracts requiring RUS approval will either be approved in advance by the Administrator or contain a provision that the contract is not valid until approved, in writing, by the Administrator. The Administrator will approve the contracts in a timely manner provided that the borrower has met all applicable requirements, including, among other matters, evidence that the alternative source of power selected is an economical and effective alternative.
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Interim rule.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) is amending the disaster set-aside program requirement to allow FSA to set aside portions of loan installments that could not be made as scheduled due to a natural disaster, as declared by the President or Secretary of Agriculture, or because of low commodity prices received during the 1999 crop year. In addition, disaster set-aside eligibility requirements are amended to require borrowers to develop a positive cash flow projection which will at least permit the borrower to pay all operating and family living expenses and meet scheduled payments on all debts for the next business accounting year. These provisions will allow the agency to service the loans of farmers who have experienced losses due to a natural disaster or low commodity prices in an efficient and timely manner while ensuring the future viability of the operation.
The effective date for this rule is May 17, 2000. Comments on this rule must be submitted by July 17, 2000 to be assured consideration.
Submit written comments to Director, Farm Loan Programs, Loan Servicing and Property Management Division, United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, STOP 0523, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-0523.
Michael Cumpton, telephone (202) 690-4014; electronic mail: mike—cumpton@wdc.fsa.usda.gov.
This rule has been determined to be significant and was reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
It is the determination of FSA that this action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment. Therefore, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and 7 CFR part 1940, subpart G, an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The policies contained in this rule do not have any substantial direct effect on 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. Nor does this rule impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments. Therefore, consultation with the states is not required.
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. In accordance with this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings in accordance with 7 CFR part 11, and 7 CFR part 780 if the decision is made by the FSA county committee or personnel subordinate to the county committee, must be exhausted before bringing suit in court challenging action taken under this rule.
For reasons contained in the notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), the programs to which this rule pertains are excluded from the scope of E.O. 12372, requiring intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. 104-4, requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA requires FSA to prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit assessment, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in such expenditures for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined under title II of the UMRA, for State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,
The amendments to 7 CFR part 1951 contained in this rule require no revisions to the information collection requirements (0560-0164) that were previously submitted to OMB on October 12, 1999.
These changes affect the following FSA programs as listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance:
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) publishes these amendments to subpart T of part 1951 without prior notice and comment because of the emergency nature of the program and the eligibility requirements involved. Publication as a proposed rule for notice and comment is impractical and contrary to the public interest as discussed below.
The Disaster Set-Aside (DSA) program was first made available to FSA Farm Loan Programs (FLP) borrowers beginning October 21, 1994, because of the heavy flooding in the Midwest and extreme drought in the South. Since that time almost 20,000 borrowers have received DSA assistance. The overall success of the program can be attributed to the relatively small amount of paperwork required in applying for and processing DSA requests. DSA gives FLP borrowers a chance to recover from their losses without having to incur additional debt to pay creditors or liquidate essential assets.
Because many delinquent borrowers received a previous writedown of debt under subpart S of 7 CFR part 1951, they are ineligible for additional debt forgiveness and most farm loans under § 373 of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act. As stated in the interim rule designed to assist borrowers for the 1998 crop year, published at 64 FR 392 (January 5, 1999), an estimated 11,424 borrowers would suffer to irreparable financial harm without the interim rule taking immediate effect. Since low commodity prices continued to exist for the 1999 crop year, as well as the occurrence of several natural disasters, the Agency estimates that a similar number of borrowers were affected in the 1999 crop year and became delinquent in repayment of their FSA, FLP loan installments due to these adverse effects. Therefore, this rule will take effect immediately without prior notice and comment. There is justification for the rule to become effective immediately after publication; nevertheless, FSA will accept public comments on this interim rule for 60 days after the rule becomes effective.
Section 7 CFR 1951.954 generally provides that each loan can only have one set-aside installment outstanding (7 CFR 1951.954(b)(2)(i)). A borrower could receive DSA again only if the existing set-aside installment were paid in full, or canceled through restructuring under subpart S of 7 CFR part 1951. This rule will allow borrowers who were affected by low commodity prices or by a natural disaster in a county declared a disaster by the President or Secretary to receive a second installment set aside without the first set-aside installment being paid in full or canceled. Because widespread disasters have occurred and low commodity prices continued to exist in the 1999 crop year, the Agency is offering second installment DSAs for the 1999 crop year to borrowers who have previously received DSA. Applications must be filed by August 31, 2000, for DSA due to low commodity prices. For DSAs due to natural disasters, borrowers in counties designated as disaster areas and borrowers farming in contiguous counties must file DSA applications within 8 months of the disaster designation.
FSA records show that 25 percent of borrowers who receive DSA become immediately become delinquent the year following the set-aside. This is a much higher percentage than borrowers who have their debt restructured under subpart S of 7 CFR part 1951. In order to ensure the future viability of the farming operation, save borrower equity and reduce government losses, eligibility requirements for DSA have been amended to require borrowers to develop a cash flow projection for the next business accounting year. The cash flow projection must show that the borrower will at least be able to pay all operating expenses and taxes, provide for essential family living expenses and meet scheduled payments on all debts. The positive cash flow projection must be prepared in accordance with 7 CFR 1924.56(b).
This rule will allow such borrowers to receive immediate financial relief from their FLP obligations in a more expedient manner than under subpart S of 7 CFR part 1951. When the borrower pays any portion of the set-aside installments in the future, the payment will be applied to the oldest installment set-aside.
Accounting, Credit, Disaster assistance, Loan programs_agriculture, Loan programs_housing and community development, Low and moderate income housing.
5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 31 U.S.C. 3716; 42 U.S.C. 1480.
2. Amend § 1951.951 by revising the second sentence to read as follows:
* * * The DSA program is available to Farm Loan Program (FLP) borrowers, as defined in subpart S of this part, who suffered losses as a result of a natural disaster or low commodity prices in 1999. * * *
* * * The intent of this program is to relieve some of the borrower's immediate financial stress caused by a disaster or low commodity prices and avoid foreclosure by the Government. * * *
(a) * * *
(b)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) If the borrower is applying for a second installment to be set aside based
(iii) All FLP borrowers may apply for an installment to be set aside based on low commodity prices during 1999. If the borrower is applying for a second installment to be set aside based on low commodity prices, the first set-aside must have been provided for a previous crop year. County location, or proximity to a disaster declared county is not a consideration when the DSA is justified by low commodity prices.
(5) As a direct result of the declared disaster or the 1999 low commodity prices, both pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the borrower does not have sufficient income available to pay all family living and operating expenses, other creditors, and FSA. This determination will be based on the borrower's actual production, income and expense records for the disaster or affected year and any other records required by the servicing official. Compensation received for losses shall be considered as well as increased expenses incurred because of a disaster. Consideration will also be given to insufficient income for the next production and marketing period following the affected year if the borrower establishes that production will be reduced or expenses increased as a result of the disaster or the 1999 low commodity prices.
(6) For the next business accounting year, the borrower must develop a positive cash flow projection showing that the borrower will at least be able to pay all operating expenses and taxes due during the year, essential family living expenses and meet scheduled payments on all debts. The cash flow projection must be prepared in accordance with 7 CFR 1924.56. The borrower will provide any documentation required to support the cash flow projection.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Except as provided in paragraph (a) of this section, only one unpaid installment for each FLP loan may be set-aside.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Final rule.
The Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is amending its regulation establishing an outreach program for minority- and women-owned businesses and announcing its policy to utilize that portion of the Federal Affirmative Action Contracting Program, set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulations, providing contracting benefits to Small Disadvantaged Businesses. The FDIC will no longer grant a price incentive based solely on race and gender criteria. The FDIC will, however, continue its outreach programs for minorities and women, and entities owned by them.
May 10, 2000.
Martin Blumenthal, Counsel, Legal Division, Corporate Operations Branch, Corporate Legal Issues Section, Contracting Law Unit (202) 736-0756; David McDermott, Chief, Policy and Compliance Unit, Acquisition and Corporate Services Branch, Division of Administration, (202) 942-3434; Rita Wiles Ross, Counsel, Legal Division, Corporate Operations Branch, Legal Operations Section, Legal Services Unit, (202) 736-3072; or Judith M. Wood, Chief, Diversity Branch, Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity, (202) 416-2456.
In 1989, with enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), Congress mandated that the FDIC augment its program for contracting activities by prescribing
In response, the FDIC adopted a regulation that obligates and requires the Corporation to engage in outreach efforts to identify and register minority-and women-owned businesses (MWOBs) that can provide the goods and services utilized by the FDIC. 12 CFR 361.6(b); Minority and Women Outreach Program—Contracting, 57 FR 15004 (April 24, 1992). In addition, to ensure that MWOBs are “being included in each solicitation, the solicitation process will include: * * * (3) Allowing qualified MWOBs a 3% price incentive and additional technical consideration for competitively bid services; * * *” 12 CFR 361.8(b)(3).
However, the Supreme Court has held that all such racial classifications, whether imposed by federal, state, or local governments, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.
In this program, each year, the Department of Commerce makes a determination as to which industries demonstrate the results of past discrimination and are thereby eligible for a benefit in federal contracting. The Department of Commerce also determines the size of a price evaluation adjustment, not to exceed 10%, to be available in those industries. In the first year of the program, eligible industries that are generally used by the FDIC include accounting firms, asset managers, information technology contractors, office services, and building services. The amount of the price evaluation adjustment for 1999 is 10%.
The price evaluation adjustment is available to firms certified as Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs) by the Small Business Administration (SBA). An SDB is a small business firm that is at least 51% owned by individuals who are both socially and economically disadvantaged. Socially disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans,
In lieu of a price incentive, an SDB may take advantage of an SDB participation factor, if the contracting agency includes such a factor in the procurement. A non-SDB may take advantage of the factor by proposing to partner with an SDB or to use SDB subcontractors. An SDB can also take advantage of this factor as the prime contractor. However, the SDB would only be eligible for the participation factor if it first waives the price evaluation adjustment. Utilization of SDBs as subcontractors may also be encouraged, at the discretion of the contracting agency, by offering prime contractors a financial incentive to exceed the proposed SDB subcontracting. An additional payment can be authorized where the prime contractor promises a particular monetary target of SDB subcontracting and its actual performance exceeds that promise. The monetary incentive can be up to 10% of the SDB subcontracting dollars in excess of the target amount.
The FDIC has determined that it was unlikely that the FDIC MWOB price incentive, as implemented, would pass the Constitutional tests enunciated by the Supreme Court in
The program, to be included in the FDIC Acquisition Policy Manual (APM), will provide that, for goods and services acquired under Formal Contracting Procedures, as defined in the APM, generally involving expenditures of $100,000 or more, a price evaluation adjustment will be available to technically qualified SDB bidders in the following circumstances: (a) The bidder has been certified as an SDB by the SBA under procedures set forth in 13 CFR part 124; and (b) the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code for the prime contract is one in which the Department of Commerce has authorized the use of a preference. The eligible SICs and amount of the price evaluation adjustment is established annually by the Department of Commerce pursuant to 48 CFR 19.201(b).
Moreover, solicitations issued under the Formal Contracting Procedures involving awards of $500,000 or more ($1,000,000 for construction contracts) may also include an evaluation factor for SDB participation in the performance of the contract. The value to be assigned this factor, if any, is determined by the contracting officer on a contract-by-contract basis. The prime contract need not be in a SIC code identified as authorized by the Department of Commerce for the use of preferences, but only SDB participation in authorized SIC codes would be considered in the evaluation of the participation factor. SDB participation may be in the form of subcontracts, joint ventures or teaming partners.
Utilization of SDBs as subcontractors may also be encouraged, at the FDIC's discretion, by offering prime contractors a financial incentive to exceed the proposed SDB subcontracting. An additional payment can be authorized where the prime contractor promises a particular monetary target of SDB subcontracting and its actual performance exceeds that promise. The monetary incentive can be up to 10% of the SDB subcontracting dollars in excess of the target amount.
The FDIC will not certify SDBs. That process will be carried out by the SBA under procedures established in the SBA's regulations, 13 CFR part 124. SDBs responding to FDIC solicitations are responsible for identifying themselves and certifying their current status as an SDB. An SDB that has applied for, but not yet received, SBA certification may be entitled to treatment as an SDB where certification can be obtained before the contract is awarded. It is the intention of the FDIC to establish procedures whereby the SBA will treat FDIC contractors seeking SDB certification in the same manner as contractors with FAR agencies that are similarly situated. However, if certification cannot be obtained in a timely manner, the contract may be awarded to another bidder.
To facilitate the implementation of the policy enunciated above, we have repealed the provisions of part 361 that confer a price incentive, 12 CFR 361.8(b)(3), as well as made other conforming amendments to the regulations. The FDIC Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO) will continue to have overall responsibility for providing the FDIC with technical assistance and guidance to facilitate the identification, registration and solicitation of MWOBs. ODEO is also responsible for the Corporation's outreach efforts, such as:
(1) Identifying MWOBs that can provide legal or other services to FDIC;
(2) Conducting seminars, meetings, workshops and other various functions to promote the identification of MWOBs; and
(3) Participating in conventions, seminars, meetings, workshops and other functions to promote the identification and inclusion of MWOBs.
Moreover, ODEO has specific responsibility for the Outreach Program with respect to providers of non-legal services, and in addition to the functions noted above, it will distribute information concerning the FDIC program for outreach to MWOBs. Generally, ODEO will work with contracting officials to ensure that
ODEO will also collect information from each FDIC office and division that performs contracting or outreach activities, on a quarterly basis or upon request, including statistical information on contract awards and solicitations by designated demographic categories and related outreach activities. The FDIC will request and maintain information on firms that have represented themselves as minority- or women-owned for purposes of outreach efforts and statistical reporting.
The Legal Division will perform outreach efforts targeted at providers of legal services. Generally, in addition to the functions listed above, the Legal Division's National Outreach Coordinator will require, at a minimum, quarterly submissions of statistical information on legal fees and expenses paid to outside counsel by designated demographic categories. FDIC will also encourage use of minority and women lawyers within other firms and partnering of firms with MWOBs. Moreover, specific procedures and activities will be detailed in the Legal Division's Outside Counsel Deskbook as well as the FDIC's web site at:
In addition to a general editorial updating and simplification of the rule, the FDIC has amended § 361.3 to remove unnecessary definitions and to conform the definition of a minority to the SBA definition. Section 361.4 remains essentially unchanged.
The FDIC has removed §§ 361.7-361.10 because the FDIC will no longer grant a price incentive based on race and gender criteria. Statistics based on self-certification of minorities and women and entities owned by them will be used in conjunction with survey efforts solely for monitoring the FDIC's outreach efforts.
The FDIC is presenting this final rule in a question-and-answer format in an effort to make the regulation easier to use. This change does not, however, affect the substance of the regulation.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
The FDIC has determined that this final rule may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 604,
In
The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), 63 FR 52426 (September 30, 1998), Reform of Affirmative Action in Federal Procurement, provide a constitutionally sustainable means of enhancing opportunities for SDBs. The FDIC will voluntarily utilize the FAR's affirmative action program.
The objective of this final rule is to implement an outreach and affirmative action procurement program consistent the Supreme Court's decision in
The 3% price incentive being repealed was available to MWOBs without regard to whether such firms were also “small” businesses. 12 CFR 361.8(b)(3). In 1999, the FDIC awarded 2,778 contracts, including 626 (22.5%) to MWOBs. However, the overwhelming majority of those contracts were awarded without reference to the price incentive because the contract was for less than the $50,000 threshold in the rule, or the purchase was made off the Federal Supply Schedule. Of the 278 awards that were subject to the price incentive, 54 (19.4%) went to MWOBs. Based on a self-certification, the majority of those firms (about 60%) identified themselves as small business concerns. The FDIC anticipates that there will be no significant change in its contracting activity for 2000. Thus, there may be some adverse effect on small entities that enjoyed the price incentive under the regulation, principally small, women-owned firms. However, given the FDIC's record of contract awards where the price incentive was not applicable as well as the benefits being conferred on SDBs under the federal affirmative action contracting program, it is anticipated that the economic impact on small businesses may be substantially attenuated.
Repeal of regulations establishing a 3% incentive will not impose any new paperwork burden. Public comment and Office of Management and Budget approval has previously been obtained for an FDIC collection of information titled “Acquisition Services Information Requirements” which includes questions regarding contractors' minority- and/or women-owned status. This information collection, approved under OMB control number 3064-0072, will not be changed by this final rule. This rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other federal rules.
Because the 3% price incentive for MWOBs would likely fail the constitutionally mandated strict scrutiny test established in the
The FDIC has determined that this amendment will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Public Law 105-277).
Pursuant to the congressional review provisions of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801
Government contracts, Lawyers, Legal services, Minority businesses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Women businesses.
12 U.S.C. 1833e.
The purpose of the FDIC Minority and Women Outreach Program (MWOP) is to ensure that minority- and women-owned businesses (MWOBs) are given the opportunity to participate fully in all contracts entered into by the FDIC.
It is the policy of the FDIC that minorities and women, and businesses owned by them have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contracts awarded by the FDIC.
For purposes of this part:
(a)
(b)
The FDIC outreach program applies to all contracts entered into by the FDIC. The outreach program is incorporated into FDIC policies and guidelines governing contracting and the retention of legal services.
(a) The FDIC Office of Diversity and Economic Opportunity (ODEO) has overall responsibility for nationwide outreach oversight, which includes, but is not limited to, the monitoring, review and interpretation of relevant regulations. In addition, the ODEO is responsible for providing the FDIC with technical assistance and guidance to facilitate the identification, registration, and solicitation of MWOBs.
(b) Each FDIC office that performs contracting or outreach activities will submit information to the ODEO on a quarterly basis, or upon request. Quarterly submissions will include, at a minimum, statistical information on contract awards and solicitations by designated demographic categories.
(a) Each office engaged in contracting with the private sector will designate one or more MWOP coordinators. The coordinators will perform outreach activities for MWOP and act as liaison between the FDIC and the public on MWOP issues. On a quarterly basis, or as requested by the ODEO, the coordinators will report to the ODEO on their implementation of the outreach program.
(b) Outreach includes the identification and registration of MWOBs who can provide goods and services utilized by the FDIC. This includes distributing information concerning the MWOP.
(c) The identification of MWOBs for the provision of legal and non-legal services will primarily be accomplished by:
(1) Obtaining various lists and directories of MWOBs maintained by other federal, state, and local governmental agencies;
(2) Participating in conventions, seminars and professional meetings comprised of, or attended predominately by, MWOBs;
(3) Conducting seminars, meetings, workshops and other various functions to promote the identification and registration of MWOBs;
(4) Placing MWOP promotional advertisements indicating opportunities with the FDIC in minority- and women-owned media; and
(5) Monitoring to assure that FDIC staff interfacing with the contracting community are knowledgeable of, and actively promoting, the MWOP.
By Order of the Board of Directors.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes, that requires a one-time detailed visual inspection to determine if wire segments of the wire bundle routed through the feed through on the aft side of the flight engineer's station are damaged or chafed, and corrective actions, if necessary. This amendment is prompted by a report of smoke coming out of the flight engineer's upper right circuit breaker panel, which was followed by circuit breakers popping and the panel lights going out. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent chafing of the wire bundle located behind the flight engineer's panel caused by the wire bundle coming in contact with the lower edge of the feed through and consequent electrical arcing, which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit.
Effective June 21, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of June 21, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Natalie Phan-Tran, Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130L, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California 90712-4137; telephone (562) 627-5343; fax (562) 627-5210.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that is applicable to all McDonnell Douglas Model DC-10 series airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. Due consideration has been given to the comments received.
One commenter supports the proposed rule. Another commenter supports the proposed rule and indicates that it is in the process of accomplishing the subject inspection. A third commenter supports the proposed rule and indicates that it has completed the subject inspection.
Paragraph (a) of this AD has been changed to correct a typographical error that resulted in a reference to an incorrect alert service bulletin revision date. That paragraph references “McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 01, dated May 6, 1999,” as the appropriate source of service information for accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph (a) of the proposed AD. This AD references the appropriate alert service bulletin as “McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 01, dated July 28, 1999.”
After careful review of the available data, including the comments noted above, the FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule with the change previously described. The FAA has determined that these changes will neither increase the economic burden on any operator nor increase the scope of the AD.
There are approximately 412 airplanes of the affected design in the worldwide fleet. The FAA estimates that 300 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $18,000, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each airplane identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent chafing of the wire bundle located behind the flight engineer's panel caused by the wire bundle coming in contact with the lower edge of the feed through and consequent electrical arcing, which could result in smoke and fire in the cockpit, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time detailed visual inspection to determine if the wire segments of the wire bundle routed through the feed through on the aft side of the flight engineer's station are damaged or chafed, in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 01, dated July 28, 1999.
For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is defined as: “An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc. may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.”
(1) For airplanes identified as Group 1 in the alert service bulletin: Accomplish paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (a)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) If no damaged or chafed wire is found, no further action is required by this AD.
(ii) If any damaged or chafed wire is found, prior to further flight, repair in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(2) For airplanes identified as Group 2 in the alert service bulletin: Accomplish paragraph (a)(2)(i) or (a)(2)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) If no damaged or chafed wire is found, within 1 year after the effective date of this AD, revise the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(ii) If any damaged or chafed wire is found, prior to further flight, repair the wiring, and revise the wire bundle support clamp installation at the flight engineer's station, in accordance with the alert service bulletin.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles ACO.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(d) The actions shall be done in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Alert Service Bulletin DC10-24A149, Revision 01, dated July 28, 1999. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained from Boeing Commercial Aircraft Group, Long Beach Division, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach, California 90846, Attention: Technical Publications Business Administration, Dept. C1-L51 (2-60). Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, California; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
(e) This amendment becomes effective on June 21, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to Eurocopter Model EC 135 helicopters. This AD requires replacing a certain oil cooler fan splined drive shaft (shaft) with a different airworthy shaft and re-identifying the part numbers on the oil cooler fans. This amendment is prompted by two incidents in which the shaft broke. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent failure of the shaft, loss of oil cooling, and a subsequent engine shutdown during flight.
June 21, 2000.
Paul Madej, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Rotorcraft Standards Staff, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137, telephone (817) 222-5125, fax (817) 222-5961.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that applies to Eurocopter Model EC 135 helicopters was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 9 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 4 work hours per helicopter to replace and re-identify the affected parts and record these actions in the gearbox history card or equivalent record, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The manufacturer has stated in Alert Service Bulletin EC 135-79A-001, dated January 23, 1998, that required parts will be provided at no cost. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $2,160.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent failure of an oil cooler fan splined drive shaft (shaft), loss of oil cooling, and a subsequent engine shutdown during flight, accomplish the following:
(a) Replace each shaft, part number (P/N) L 792M3004 225, with an airworthy shaft, P/N L 792M3004 235.
(b) Re-identify the P/N on each oil cooler fan (fan) using a rubber stamp or smudge-proof paint or equivalent as follows:
(1) On the left fan, change the P/N from L 792M3004 102 to L 792M3004 103.
(2) On the right fan, change the P/N from L 792M3005 102 to L 792M3005 103.
(c) Change the P/N on the gearbox component history card or equivalent record to reflect the revised part numbers.
Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC 135-79A-001, dated January 23, 1998, pertains to the subject of this AD.
(d) Replacing the shaft, re-identifying the fans, and recording this on the gearbox component history card or equivalent record constitute terminating actions for the requirements of this AD.
(e) 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, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Regulations Group.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Regulations Group.
(f) 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.
(g) This amendment becomes effective on June 21, 2000.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (Federal Republic of Germany) AD No. 1998-109, dated February 26, 1998.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) that applies to Eurocopter France Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and SA-366G1 helicopters and requires conducting inspections of each tail rotor blade for bonding separation, measuring the clearance between the tip of each tail rotor blade and the circumference of the air duct, and replacing the blade if necessary. This amendment is prompted by an inflight incident in which the tail rotor blades were significantly damaged due to bonding separation. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent damage to a tail rotor blade, loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
June 21, 2000.
Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5122, fax (817) 222-5961.
A proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD for Eurocopter France Model SA-365N1, AS-365N2, and SA-366G1 helicopters was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were received on the proposal or the FAA's determination of the cost to the public. The FAA has determined that air safety and the public interest require the adoption of the rule as proposed.
The FAA estimates that 136 helicopters of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per helicopter to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts will cost approximately $1,000 per helicopter. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $144,160.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this action: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) 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 final evaluation has been prepared for this action and it is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained from the Rules Docket at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (f) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent damage to a tail rotor blade (blade), loss of tail rotor control, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter:
(a) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter prior to the first flight of each day, conduct the following visual inspection of each blade (see Figure 1):
(1) Zone A: If a blister is detected on the blade suction face, conduct a tapping test inspection on the whole blade for bonding separation. If bonding separation or a crack is found, replace the blade with an airworthy blade before further flight.
(2) Zone B: If a crack, wrinkling, or a blister is found, replace the blade with an airworthy blade before further flight.
(b) Within 10 hours TIS, conduct a tapping test inspection on each blade. If there is bonding separation, replace the blade with an airworthy blade before further flight.
Revisions 5 of Eurocopter France Service Bulletins 05.09 and 05.00.17, both dated December 18, 1998, pertain to the subject of this AD.
(c) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 25 hours TIS or every 50 cycles (each takeoff and landing equals 1 cycle), whichever occurs first, conduct a tapping test inspection for bonding separation on all blades with a serial number (S/N) less than 18912, and blades, P/N 365A12-0020-00 or 365A12-0020-01, with a S/N equal to or greater than 18912. If bonding separation or a crack is found, replace the blade with an airworthy blade before further flight.
(d) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 200 cycles, whichever occurs first, conduct a tapping test inspection for bonding separation on blades, P/N 365A12-0020-02 or 365A12-0020-03. If bonding separation or a crack is found, replace the blade with an airworthy blade before further flight.
(e) Within 10 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS or 200 cycles, whichever occurs first, measure the blade-to-air duct clearance. If the clearance is less than 3 mm, replace the blade with an airworthy blade before further flight.
(f) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft Directorate FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Regulations Group.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Regulations Group.
(g) 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.
(h) This amendment becomes effective on June 21, 2000.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Direction Generale De L'Aviation Civile AD's 88-152-010(A)R5 and 88-153-023(A)R5, both dated December 30, 1998.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD) for MD Helicopters Inc. (MDHI) Model MD900 helicopters. This action requires visually inspecting the drive shaft to determine the assembly part number (P/N) and marking the drive shaft assembly P/N and serial number (S/N) on any unmarked drive shaft. This AD also requires creating a component history card or equivalent record for certain drive shaft assemblies and replacing any drive shaft assembly that has reached its life limit. This amendment is prompted by the discovery of several drive shafts with no assembly P/N marked on the part, which could result in a drive shaft remaining in service past its life limit. The actions specified in this AD are intended to prevent failure of the drive shaft due to fatigue, which could result in total loss of drive to the main rotor hub and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Effective June 1, 2000.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or before July 17, 2000.
Submit comments by mail in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-SW-04-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov.
Elizabeth Bumann, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, Propulsion Branch, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, California 90712-4137, telephone (562) 627-5265, fax (562) 627-5210.
This amendment adopts a new AD for MDHI Model MD900 helicopters. On February 19, 1999, the FAA issued AD 99-05-08, Amendment 39-11056 (64 FR 10209, March 3, 1999), for MDHI Model MD900 helicopters to establish or reduce life limits for various parts, including the drive shaft assembly. That AD was prompted by analysis that indicated a need for establishing or reducing life limits to avoid fatigue failure of certain parts. Since issuance of that AD, several drive shaft assemblies were found without a P/N marked on the drive shafts. This could result in the drive shaft remaining in service past its life limit since operators may mistakenly use the subassembly P/N for determining whether the life limit listed in AD 99-05-08 applies. A drive shaft in operation past its life limit could fail due to fatigue. This condition, if not corrected, could result in total loss of drive to the main rotor hub and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
The FAA has reviewed MDHI Service Bulletin (SB) SB900-062 R1, dated December 16, 1999, which describes procedures for visually inspecting the drive shaft to determine the assembly P/N and marking the drive shaft assembly P/N and serial number (S/N) on any unmarked drive shaft. The SB also specifies creating component history cards for certain drive shaft assemblies, verifying the life limit, and replacing the drive shaft assembly, if necessary.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other MDHI Model MD900 helicopters of the same type design, this AD is being issued to prevent failure of the drive shaft. This AD requires visually inspecting the drive shaft to determine the assembly P/N and marking the drive shaft assembly P/N and S/N on any unmarked drive shaft. This AD also requires creating component history cards for certain drive shaft assemblies and replacing the drive shaft assembly if the drive shaft assembly has reached its life limit. The short compliance time involved is required because the previously described critical unsafe condition can adversely affect controllability of the helicopter. Therefore, the actions of this AD are required prior to accumulating 1,450 hours time-in-service (TIS) on the drive shaft or before further flight if TIS equals or exceeds 1,450 hours, and this AD must be issued immediately.
Since a situation exists that requires the immediate adoption of this regulation, it is found that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable, and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA estimates that this AD will affect 28 helicopters, that it will take approximately 2 work hours to accomplish the required actions, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,360.
Although this action is in the form of a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and, thus, was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment, comments are invited on this rule. Interested persons are invited to comment on this 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 under the caption
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their mailed comments submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2000-SW-04-AD.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter.
The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is an emergency regulation that must be issued immediately to correct an unsafe condition in aircraft, and that it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. It has been determined further that this action involves an emergency regulation under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). If it is determined that this emergency regulation otherwise would be significant under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures, a final regulatory evaluation will be prepared and placed in the Rules Docket. A copy of it, if filed, may be obtained from 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 amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent failure of the drive shaft due to fatigue, which could result in total loss of drive to the main rotor hub and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter; accomplish the following:
(a) Before accumulating 1,450 hours time-in-service (TIS), visually inspect the drive shaft assembly to determine which part number (P/N) is installed. If necessary, remove the drive plate cover to access the P/N located on the top edge of the drive shaft assembly. If the number of hours TIS on the drive shaft assembly is unknown, use the total hours TIS on the helicopter.
Do not confuse the P/N of the drive shaft subassembly, P/N 900D2436028-101, 900D2436026-101, or 900D2436030-101 as the P/N of the drive shaft assembly.
(1) If a drive shaft assembly, P/N 900D2436530-101, is installed, no further action is required by this AD.
(2) If a drive shaft assembly other than P/N 900D2436530-101 is installed and is not marked with a P/N, before further flight, use an indelible ink fine tip marking pen to mark the following information on the edge of the drive shaft assembly in line with the engraved subassembly number:
(i) P/N 900D2436528-101 and the serial number (S/N) of the drive shaft subassembly if the subassembly is P/N 900D2436028-101. When the ink dries, apply a clear coat over the P/N and S/N, or
(ii) P/N 900D6400004-101 and the S/N of the drive shaft subassembly if the subassembly is P/N 900D2436026-101. When the ink drives, apply a clear coat over the P/N and S/N.
(b) For a drive shaft assembly with 1,450 or more hours TIS, before further flight, accomplish paragraph (a) of this AD.
MD Helicopters Inc. Service Bulletin SB900-062 R1, dated December 16, 1999, applies to the subject of this AD.
(c) After accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (a) of this AD, before further flight, determine the hours TIS of the drive shaft assembly. Record the hours TIS on a current or newly created component history card or equivalent record. If the drive shaft assembly has reached or exceeded its life limit, replace the drive shaft assembly with an airworthy drive shaft assembly before further flight.
The Airworthiness Limitations Section, section 04, of the MD-900 Rotorcraft Maintenance Manual (CSP-900RMM-2), Revision 6, dated December 23, 1999, pertains to the subject of this AD.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office.
(e) 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.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on June 1, 2000.
Customs Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends the Customs Regulations to conform with the provisions of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999 regarding the permissible location of a duty-free store. In addition to the existing permissible locations, a duty-free store that is an airport store as defined in the law may also be located in, or within 25 statute miles of, any staffed port of entry, whether or not it is the same port through which a purchaser at the store will depart from
May 17, 2000.
William G. Rosoff, Duty and Refund Determination Branch, (202-927-2077).
Duty-free sales enterprises, also known as duty-free stores, are Customs bonded class 9 warehouses that operate under special procedures that allow merchandise to be offered for sale to departing travelers without payment of Customs duties and taxes, on condition that the merchandise they purchase will be exported by and with them from the Customs territory of the United States. The statutory authority under which duty-free stores operate is found in 19 U.S.C. 1555(b). The regulations that implement procedures for the administration of these facilities are contained in §§ 19.35 through 19.39 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR 19.35-19.39).
The Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-36, 113 Stat. 127 (June 25, 1999) (MTTCA), amended a number of Customs laws, including the provision relating to duty-free stores (19 U.S.C. 1555(b)). Specifically, section 2417 of the MTTCA amended section 1555(b) to expand upon the places where a duty-free store could properly be located in the United States.
Section 1555(b) previously required that a duty-free store be located within the port of entry from which a purchaser of duty-free store merchandise departs from the Customs territory of the United States, or within 25 statute miles of the exit point from which the purchaser departs from the Customs territory. Section 19.35(b) repeats this requirement regarding the permissible location of a duty-free store.
Section 2417 of the MTTCA amended 19 U.S.C. 1555(b) to allow a duty-free store to be located anywhere within a staffed, Customs-defined port of entry, or within 25 statute miles of a staffed port of entry, whether or not it is the same port through which a purchaser of duty-free store merchandise will depart from the Customs territory of the United States, provided that the purchaser will depart through an international airport located in the Customs territory (19 U.S.C. 1555(b)(2)(C)). As such, the duty-free store that is the subject of the amendment must be an airport store as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1555(b)(8)(A).
As is already the case under the law, the Customs Service, before authorizing a duty-free store at such a location, must conclude that reasonable assurance has been provided that merchandise purchased at the store will be exported from the Customs territory. To this end, a duty-free store that is an airport store must establish procedures that provide reasonable assurance that merchandise sold by the store will be exported from the Customs territory through an international airport located within the Customs territory (19 U.S.C. 1555(b)(2)(C), (3)(A) and (8)(A); 19 CFR 19.36(b); see also 19 CFR 19.36(f) and 19.39(c)).
The statutory amendment was intended to create additional opportunities for duty-free stores to increase sales by increasing the locations where international travelers departing from the United States may make duty-free store purchases.
Accordingly, § 19.35(b), Customs Regulations, is amended to conform to the statutory amendment by providing that an airport store may also be located within any staffed port of entry, or within 25 statute miles of a staffed port.
Because the amendment in this final rule merely conforms the Customs Regulations to law, notice and public procedure are inapplicable and unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), and, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not required. Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, it is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warehouses.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1624.
Sections 19.35-19.39 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1555;
(b)
(1) Within the same port of entry from which a purchaser of duty-free store merchandise departs the Customs territory;
(2) Within 25 statute miles from the exit point through which a purchaser of duty-free store merchandise departs the Customs territory; or
(3) In the case of an airport store, within any staffed port of entry, or within 25 statute miles from any staffed port of entry.
U.S. Customs Service, Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document adopts as a final rule interim amendments to the Customs Regulations which conformed those regulations to existing statutory provisions and judicial precedent regarding the assessment of interest due to underpayments or overpayments to Customs of duties, taxes and fees pertaining to imported merchandise, including interest on those duties, taxes and fees. The majority of the conforming
Final rule effective May 17, 2000.
Robert Reiley, Financial Management Division (202-927-1504).
On October 20, 1999, Customs published T.D. 99-75 in the
The majority of the conforming changes reflected the terms of section 505 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1505), as amended by section 642(a) within the Customs Modernization provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Public Law 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057). Under that statute, interest accrues initially from the date the duties, taxes, fees and interest are deposited with Customs in the case of overpayments, or are required to be deposited with Customs in the case of underpayments, but in either case not beyond the date of liquidation or reliquidation of the applicable entry or reconciliation. Also under the statute and applicable judicial precedent, all bills issued by Customs for underpayments of duties, taxes, fees and interest are due within 15 or 30 days of issuance.
The conforming interim amendments also reflected other changes to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and to section 321 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1321) regarding interest that were made by sections 2(a) and 3(a)(12) of the Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-295, 110 Stat. 3514).
The interim regulatory amendments contained in T.D. 99-75 went into effect on October 20, 1999, and the notice prescribed a public comment period which closed on December 20, 1999. No comments were received during the prescribed public comment period. After further consideration, Customs has determined that the interim regulatory amendments should be adopted as a final rule without change.
This document does not meet the criteria for a “significant regulatory action ”as specified in E.O. 12866.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Accounting, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Interest, Taxes, User fees, Wages.
Computer technology, Customs duties and inspection, Entry, Imports, Liquidation.
Administrative practice and procedure, Customs duties and inspection, Protests.
Customs Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends the Customs Regulations pertaining to the field organization of Customs by extending the geographical limits of the consolidated port of Puget Sound, Washington. This change is being made as part of Customs continuing program to obtain more efficient use of its personnel, facilities and resources and to provide better service to carriers, importers and the general public.
June 16, 2000.
Betsy Passuth, Office of Field Operations, Mission Support Service, 202-927-0795.
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the
The description of Tacoma within the description of the Puget Sound port was proposed to be extended to include two industrial parks which have new facilities for clearing, storing and forwarding imported merchandise and require the services of Customs personnel.
One comment was received in response to the proposal. This comment strongly supported the proposal to extend and redefine the boundaries of the port of Puget Sound, Washington.
In light of the favorable comment received and after further consideration of the matter, Customs has decided to proceed with the extension of the geographical limits of the port of Puget Sound, Washington.
As amended, the geographical area within the boundaries of the consolidated port of Puget Sound is as follows:
The ports of Seattle (Section 35, Township 27 North, Range 3 East, West Meridian, County of Snohomish, and the geographical area beginning at the intersection of N.W. 205th Street and the waters of Puget Sound, proceeding in an easterly direction along the King County line to its intersection with 100th Avenue N.E., thence southerly along 100th Avenue N.E. and its continuation to the intersection of 100th Avenue S.E. and S.E. 240th Street, thence westerly along S.E. 240th Street, to its intersection with North Central Avenue, thence southerly along North Central Avenue, its continuation as South Central Avenue and 83rd Avenue South and its connection to Auburn Way North, thence southerly along Auburn Way North and its continuation as Auburn Way South to its intersection with State Highway 18, thence westerly along Highway 18 to its intersection with A Street S.E., then southerly along A Street S.E. to its intersection with the King County Line, then westerly along the King County Line to its intersection with the waters of Puget Sound and then northerly along the shores of Puget Sound to its intersection with N.W. 205th Street, the point of beginning, all within the County of King, State of Washington), Anacortes, Bellingham, Everett, Friday Harbor, Neah Bay, Olympia, Port Angeles, Port Townsend, and the territory in Tacoma, beginning at the intersection of the westernmost city limits of Steilacoom and The Narrows and proceeding easterly along Main Street to the intersection of Stevens Street, then southerly along Stevens Street to the intersection of Washington Boulevard, then easterly along Washington Boulevard to the intersection of Gravely Lake Drive S.W., then southeasterly to the intersection of Nyanza Road, SW, then southerly to its intersection with Pacific Highway (U.S. Route 99), then proceeding in a northeasterly direction along Pacific Highway to its intersection with 112 Street East and continuing in an easterly direction along 112 Street East to its intersection with the northwest corner of McChord Air Force Base, then proceeding along the northern, then western, then southern boundary of McChord Air Force Base to its intersection, just west of Lake Mondress, with the northern boundary of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation, then proceeding in an easterly direction along the northern boundary of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation to its intersection with Pacific Avenue (SR-7), then proceeding in a southerly direction along Pacific Avenue (SR-7) to its intersection with SR-507, then proceeding in a southeasterly direction along SR-7 to its intersection with 224th Street East, then proceeding in an easterly direction along 224th Street East to its intersection with Meridian Street South (SR-161), then proceeding in a northerly direction along Meridian Street South (SR-161) to the intersection with 176 Street East, then easterly along 176 Street East extended to the intersection with Sunrise Parkway East, then northwesterly along Sunrise Parkway East to the intersection with 122nd Avenue East, then northerly to the intersection with Old Military Road East, then northeasterly to the intersection with SR-162, then northerly along SR-162 to the intersection with SR-410, then easterly along SR-410 to the intersection with 166th Avenue East, then northerly to the intersection with Sumner-Tapps Highway, continuing northeasterly along Sumner-Tapps Highway to 16th Street East, then easterly to 182 Avenue East, then northerly to the northern boundary of Pierce County, then proceeding in a westerly direction along the northern boundary of Pierce County to its intersection with Puget Sound, then proceeding in a generally southwesterly direction along the banks of the East Passage of Puget Sound, Commencement Bay, and The Narrows to the point of intersection with the westernmost city limits of Steilacoom, Washington, including all points and places on the southern boundary of the Juan de Fuca Strait from the eastern port limits of Neah Bay to the western port limits of Port Townsend, all points and places on the western boundary of Puget Sound, including Hood Canal, from the port limits of Port Townsend to the northern port limits of Olympia, all points and places on the southern boundary of Puget Sound from the port limits of Olympia to the western port limits of Tacoma, and all points and places on the eastern boundary of Puget Sound and contiguous waters from the port limits of Tacoma north to the southern port limits of Bellingham, all in the State of Washington.
This change is being made under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301 and 19 U.S.C. 2, 66 and 1624.
Customs establishes, expands and consolidates Customs ports of entry throughout the United States to accommodate the volume of Customs-related activity in various parts of the country. Although a notice was issued for public comment on this subject matter, because this document relates to agency management and organization, it is not subject to the notice and procedure requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. Accordingly, this document is not subject to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The principal author of this document was Janet L. Johnson, Regulations Branch. However, personnel from other offices participated in its development.
Customs duties and inspection, Exports, Imports, Organization and functions (Government agencies).
5 U.S.C. 301, 19 U.S.C. 2, 66, 1202 (General Note 20, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States), 1623, 1624, 1646a. Sections 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under 19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b.
Customs Service, Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends the Customs Regulations by revising the list of user fee airports. User fee airports are those which, while not qualifying for designation as international or landing rights airports because of insufficient volume or value of business, have been approved by the Commissioner of Customs to receive the services of Customs officers on a fee basis for the processing of aircraft entering the United States and their passengers and cargo.
May 17, 2000.
Betsy Passuth, Office of Field Operations, 202-927-0795.
Part 122, Customs Regulations (19 CFR part 122), sets forth regulations relating to the entry and clearance of aircraft in international commerce and the transportation of persons and cargo by aircraft in international commerce.
Under § 1644a, Title 19, United States Code (19 U.S.C.1644a), the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to designate places in the United States as ports of entry for civil aircraft arriving from any place outside of the United States, and for merchandise carried on the aircraft. These airports are referred to as international airports, and the location and name of each are listed in § 122.13, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.13). In accordance with § 122.33, Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.33), the first landing of every civil aircraft entering the United States from a foreign area must be at one of these international airports, unless the aircraft has been specifically exempted from this requirement or permission to land elsewhere has been granted. Customs officers are assigned to all international airports to accept entries of merchandise, collect duties and enforce the customs laws and regulations.
Other than making an emergency or forced landing, if a civil aircraft desires to land at an airport not designated by Customs as an international airport, the pilot may request permission to land at a specific airport and, if granted, Customs assigns personnel to that airport for the aircraft. The airport where the aircraft is permitted to land is called a landing rights airport (19 CFR 122.24).
Section 236 of Pub. L. 98-573 (the Trade and Tariff Act of 1984), codified at 19 United States Code 58b (19 U.S.C. 58b), creates an option for civil aircraft desiring to land at an airport other than an international or landing rights airport. A civil aircraft arriving from a place outside the United States may ask Customs for permission to land at an airport designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as a user fee airport.
Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 58b, an airport may be designated as a user fee airport if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the volume of Customs business at the airport is insufficient to justify the availability of Customs services at the airport and the governor of the State in which the airport is located approves the designation. Generally, the type of airport that would seek designation as a user fee airport would be one at which a company, such as an air courier service, has a specialized interest in regularly landing.
Inasmuch as the volume of business anticipated at these airports is insufficient to justify their designation as an international or landing rights airport, the availability of Customs services is not paid for out of Customs appropriations from the general treasury of the United States. Instead, the services of Customs officers are provided on a fully reimbursable basis to be paid for by the user fee airports on behalf of the recipients of the services.
The fees which are to be charged at user fee airports, according to the statute, shall by paid by each person using Customs services at the airport and shall be in the amount equal to the expenses incurred by the Secretary of the Treasury in providing Customs services that are rendered to such persons at such airport, including the salary and expenses of those employed by the Secretary of the Treasury to provide the Customs services. To implement this provision, the airport seeking the designation as a user fee airport or that airport's authority agrees to pay Customs a flat fee annually and the users of the airport are to reimburse that airport/airport authority. The airport/airport authority agrees to set and periodically review its charges to ensure that they are in accord with the airport's expenses.
Pursuant to Treasury Department Order No. 165, Revised (Treasury Decision 53564), all the rights, privileges, powers, and duties vested in the Secretary of the Treasury by the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by the navigation laws, or by any other laws administered by Customs are transferred to the Commissioner of Customs. Accordingly, the authority granted to the Secretary of the Treasury to designate user fee airports and to determine appropriate fees is delegated to the Commissioner of Customs.
Under this authority, Customs has determined that certain conditions must be met before an airport can be designated as a user fee airport. At least one full-time Customs officer must be requested, and the airport must be responsible for providing Customs with satisfactory office space, equipment and supplies, at no cost to the Federal Government.
In § 122.15(b), Customs Regulations (19 CFR 122.15(b)), Customs sets forth a list of the user fee airports designated by the Commissioner of Customs in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b. This document updates the list.
Because this amendment merely lists those user fee airports designated by the Commissioner of Customs in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b and neither imposes additional burdens on, nor takes away any existing rights or privileges from, the public, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), notice and public procedure are unnecessary, and for the same reasons, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), a delayed effective date is not required.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The principal author of this document was Janet L. Johnson, Regulations Branch, Office of Regulations and Rulings, U.S. Customs Service. However, personnel from other offices participated in its development.
Air carriers, Aircraft, Airports, Customs duties and inspection, Freight.
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 58b, 66, 1433, 1436, 1448, 1459, 1590, 1594, 1623, 1624, 1644, 1644a.
(b)List of user fee airports. * * *
Postal Service.
Final rule.
This final rule establishes procedures for the issuance of administrative subpoenas in investigations of false representations and lotteries under 39 U.S.C. 3005(a). It adopts with changes a proposed rule published for public comment on March 16, 2000 (65 FR 14229-30). For reasons stated below, this rule will become effective immediately.
May 17, 2000.
Elizabeth P. Martin, (202) 268-3022.
The Deceptive Mail Prevention and Enforcement Act, Public Law 106-168, 113 Stat. 1806 (December 12, 1999), generally amended chapter 30 of title 39, United States Code, to make nonmailable certain deceptive matter relating to sweepstakes, skill contests, and facsimile checks. It also amended provisions relating to administrative procedures and orders, and added civil penalties relating to such matters.
Under new 39 U.S.C. 3016, the Postmaster General has authority to issue administrative subpoenas requiring the production of any records (including books, papers, documents, and other tangible things which constitute or contain evidence) which the Postmaster General considers relevant or material in any investigation conducted under 39 U.S.C. 3005(a), dealing with false representations and lotteries.
On March 16, 2000, the Postal Service published in the
Publishers Clearing House (PCH) suggested that § 913.1(a) should acknowledge that the authority to issue the subpoenas lies with the Postmaster General. The regulation has been changed to clarify that fact. Both PCH and the Postal Service Office of the Inspector General (OIG) expressed concern that the regulations should more closely track the language of the statute regarding conditions precedent to the issuance of a subpoena. A new § 913.1(c) has been added to address those concerns. Current subsections (c) and (d) are relettered as (d) and (e). New § 913.1(d)(3) similarly addresses the concern regarding conditions precedent.
New section 913(d)(1) is changed to clarify that only a specifically authorized Inspector may submit a request. At the suggestion of the OIG, new 913.1(d)(4) is changed to clarify that the General Counsel, at his or her discretion, may issue or deny a subpoena, require additional information, or honor requests to amend or supplement a request.
Both the OIG and PCH expressed concerns with respect to the clarity of § 913.4. We have considered their suggestions, however, we have not adopted their proposed language. The language published is that which is contained in the statute, and thus any lack of clarity is statutory. We interpret that language to state that anything turned over pursuant to a subpoena is exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act.
Finally, the OIG suggested that certain new reporting requirements concerning the number of cases in which the authority under 39 U.S.C. 3016 is used should be addressed by these regulations. We have determined that the reporting requirements are not relevant to the process by which subpoenas are requested and issued, and have declined to make the suggested change.
With regard to the effective date, we have determined that there is good cause to make the new regulations effective upon publication. We believe that the public interest would not be served by providing persons who might
Administrative practice and procedure, False Representations, Lotteries.
39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 404, 3005, 3016.
(a) General. The General Counsel by delegation from the Postmaster General is responsible for the issuance of subpoenas in investigations conducted under 39 U.S.C. 3005(a), with authority to delegate that function to a Deputy General Counsel.
(b) Production of records. A subpoena issued by the General Counsel may require the production of any records (including computer records, books, papers, documents, and other tangible things which constitute or contain evidence) which the General Counsel considers relevant or material to an investigation.
(c) Requirements. No subpoena shall be issued until a specific case (identifying the individual or entity that is the subject) has been opened and an appropriate supervisory and legal review of a subpoena request have been performed.
(d) Requests for subpoenas. (1) A request for a subpoena shall be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel by a Postal Inspector, Inspector Attorney, or other Inspector specifically authorized by the Postal Inspection Service to submit such a request, after appropriate review by an Inspector In Charge or that person's designee.
(2) A request for a subpoena shall state the specific case, with an individual or entity identified as the subject, in which the subpoena is requested.
(3) A request for a subpoena shall contain a specific description of the records requested, and shall state how they are relevant or material to the investigation.
(4) The General Counsel, in his or her discretion, may issue or deny the requested subpoena, or require the requesting individual to provide additional information. The General Counsel, in his or her discretion, may also honor requests to amend or supplement a request for a subpoena.
(e) Form and issuance. Every subpoena shall cite 39 U.S.C. 3016 as the authority under which it is issued, and shall command each person to whom it is directed to produce specified records at a time and place therein specified. The General Counsel shall sign the subpoena and enter the name of the individual or entity to whom it is directed.
(a) Service within the United States. A subpoena issued under this section may be served by a person designated under section 3061 of title 18 at any place within the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States.
(b) Foreign service. Any such subpoena may be served upon any person who is not to be found within the territorial jurisdiction of any court of the United States, in such manner as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure describe for service in a foreign country. To the extent that the courts of the United States may assert jurisdiction over such person consistent with due process, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting compliance with this section by such person that such court would have if such person were personally within the jurisdiction of such court.
(c) Service on business persons. Service of any such subpoena may be made upon a partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity by—
(1) Delivering a duly executed copy thereof to any partner, executive officer, managing agent, or general agent thereof, or to any agent thereof authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process on behalf of such partnership, corporation, association, or entity;
(2) Delivering a duly executed copy thereof to the principal office or place of business of the partnership, corporation, association, or entity; or
(3) Depositing such copy in the United States mails, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, duly addressed to such partnership, corporation, association, or entity at its principal office or place of business.
(d) Service on natural persons. Service of any subpoena may be made upon any natural person by—
(1) Delivering a duly executed copy to the person to be served; or
(2) Depositing such copy in the United States mails, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, duly addressed to such person at his residence or principal office or place of business.
(e) Verified return. A verified return by the individual serving any such subpoena setting forth the manner of such service shall be proof of such service. In the case of service by registered or certified mail, such return shall be accompanied by the return post office receipt of delivery of such subpoena.
(a) In general. Whenever any person, partnership, corporation, association, or entity fails to comply with any subpoena duly served upon him, the General Counsel may request that the Attorney General seek enforcement of the subpoena in the district court of the United States for any judicial district in which such person resides, is found, or transacts business (or in the case of a person outside the territorial jurisdiction of any district court, the district court for the District of Columbia), and serve upon such person a petition for an order of such court for the enforcement of this part.
(b) Jurisdiction. Whenever any petition is filed in any district court of the United States under this section, such court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter so presented, and to enter such order or orders as may be required to carry into effect the provisions of this section. Any final order entered shall be subject to appeal under section 1291 of title 28, United States Code. Any disobedience of any final order entered under this section by any court may be punished as contempt.
Any documentary material provided pursuant to any subpoena issued under this section shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the California State Implementation Plan for the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD). The six revisions consist of: three rule recissions with accompanying negative declarations for source categories that emit volatile organic compounds (VOC); two negative declarations for source categories that emit oxides of nitrogen (NO
This rule is effective on July 17, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 16, 2000. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Written comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rulemaking Office at the Region IX office listed below. Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's technical support document are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions are available for inspection at the following locations:
Julie A. Rose, Rulemaking Office, AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1184.
The rules being approved for recission and the negative declarations being approved for the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) portion of the California SIP are listed in the following Table:
On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in l977 (1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area and the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 Act, that the above SCAQMD's portion of the California SIP was inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the requirement that nonattainment areas fix their deficient reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a deadline of May 15, 1991 for states to submit corrections of those deficiencies. Amended section 182(f) of the CAA contains the air quality planning requirements for the reduction of NO
Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.
Section 182(f) of the CAA requires States to apply the same requirements to major stationary sources of NOx (“major” as defined in section 302 and section 182(c), (d), and (e)) as are applied to major stationary sources of VOCs, in moderate or above ozone nonattainment areas.
The Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area is classified as Severe-17, therefore, this area was subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline. The Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area is classified as Extreme and was also
The Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) was created pursuant to California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) section 40106 and assumed all air pollution control responsibilities of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in the Antelope Valley region of Los Angeles County,
The AVAPCD has rescinded Rules 1105, 1115, 1117, and 1123 and has submitted negative declarations to certify that there are no sources covered by these rules within the jurisdiction of the AVAPCD. One minor source in AVAPCD, previously regulated by Rule 1115, is now equivalently regulated under Rule 1151, which was recently approved by EPA into the SIP.
AVAPCD also submitted negative declarations for Rules 1109 and 1112 to certify that there are no sources covered by these rules within the jurisdiction of the AVAPCD. There is no action to rescind Rules 1109 and 1112 since they are not contained in the federally enforceable SIP for the SCAQMD.
The State of California submitted these rule revisions for incorporation into its SIP on January 12, 1999, February 16, 1999, May 13, 1999, and July 23, 1999. The revisions submitted on these dates were found complete on March 19, 1999, April 23, 1999, June 10, 1999, and August 24, 1999, respectively. The rules were reviewed pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.
This document addresses EPA's direct-final action for the recission of AVAPCD Rule 1105, Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units-Oxides of Sulfur, Rule 1115, Motor Vehicle Assembly Line Coating Operations, Rule 1117, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Glass Melting Furnaces, and Rule 1123, Refinery Process Turnarounds. AVAPCD Rule 1105 limits SO
This document also addresses EPA's direct-final action of two negative declarations for AVAPCD Rule 1109, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Boilers and Process Heaters in Petroleum Refineries and Rule 1112, Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen from Cement Kilns. Rule 1109 controls NO
The rules were originally adopted as part of SCAQMD's effort to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation and final action for these rule recissions and negative declarations.
EPA evaluated all the appropriate background and submittal documentation and has determined that the recission of AVAPCD Rules 1105, 1115, 1117, and 1123 is approvable. EPA also evaluated all the appropriate background and submittal documentation for the negative declarations for Rules 1109 and 1112, 1115, 1117, and 1123 and has determined that they are approvable. The AVAPCD has certified with Negative Declarations that the sources regulated by all of the rules listed in this action are not present in the AVAPCD. Further, the AVAPCD also stated that they do not anticipate these types of sources in the future.
The rule recissions and the negative declarations are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, the recission of AVAPCD Rules 1105, 1115, 1117, and 1123 is being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D. The negative declarations for Rules 1109, 1112, 1115, 1117, and 1123 are being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D.
The source categories represented by AVAPCD Rules 1109, 1112, 1115, 1117, and 1123 will now be inserted into the listing of negative declarations in 40 CFR 52.222, Negative Declarations.
Three additional source categories for AVAPCD are being inserted into 40 CFR 52.222 in this action. The negative declarations are Marine Vessel Coating Operations, Marine Tank Vessel Operations, and Thermally Enhanced Oil Recovery Wells. These negative declarations were adopted on January 20, 1998, submitted on June 23, 1998, and approved in the
EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” Under
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal governments “to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.” Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“Unfunded Mandates Act”), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use “voluntary consensus standards” (VCS) if available
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
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 July 17, 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, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(159) * * *
(v) * * *
(E) Previously approved on July 12, 1990 and now deleted without replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 1105 and 1117.
(184) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on May 13, 1991, by the Governor's designee.
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(9) Previously approved on August 11, 1992 and now deleted without replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 1123.
(222) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(
(a) * * *
(6) Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District.
(i) Motor Vehicle Assembly Line Coating Operations submitted on January 12, 1999 and adopted on November 18, 1997.
(ii) Refinery Process Turnarounds submitted on February 16, 1999 and adopted on November 18, 1997.
(iii) Marine Vessel Coating Operations, Marine Tank Vessel Operations, and Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery Wells submitted on June 23, 1998 and adopted on January 20, 1998.
(4) Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District.
(i) Boilers and Process Heaters In Petroleum Refineries submitted on May 13, 1999 and adopted on April 21, 1998.
(ii) Cement Kilns and Glass Melting Furnaces submitted on July 23, 1999 and adopted on March 16, 1999.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
This document addresses issues raised in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking relating to the formula used to calculate maximum just and reasonable rates utilities may charge for pole attachments made to a pole, duct, conduit or right-of-way pursuant. This document amends the formula so that it reflects the Commission's current accounting rules that apply to local exchange carriers; clarifies the treatment of accumulated depreciation attributable to removal costs to eliminate negative results; and adopts a conduit methodology for determining the maximum just and reasonable rates utilities may charge cable systems and telecommunications carriers for their use of conduit systems.
Effective June 16, 2000, except for §§ 1.1404 and 1.1409, which contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the
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 jboley@fcc.gov.
Kathleen Costello at (202) 418-7200 or via the Internet at kcostell@fcc.gov, or Cheryl King at (202) 418-2284 or via the Internet at cking@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning the information collection requirements contained herein, contact Judy Boley at (202) 418-0214, or via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, CS Dkt. No. 97-98, FCC 00-116, adopted March 29, 2000; released April 3, 2000. The full text of the Commission's Report and Order is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257) at its headquarters, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554, or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036, or may be reviewed via Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/csb/.
The requirements adopted in the
1. The
2. Section 224 of the Communications Act (“Pole Attachment Act”) grants the Commission authority to regulate the rates, terms, and conditions governing pole attachments and requires that such rates, terms and conditions be just and reasonable. The Commission is also authorized to adopt procedures necessary to hear and to resolve complaints concerning such rates, terms, and conditions. Beginning in 1978, the Commission developed a methodology to determine the maximum allowable pole attachment rate under section 224(d)(1), (the “Cable Formula”), in Adoption of Rules for the Regulation of Cable Television Pole Attachments, First Report and Order, CC Docket No. 78-144 (“First Report and Order”); Second Report and Order (“Second Report and Order”); and Memorandum and Order (“Third Order”), implementing a cost methodology premised on historical or embedded costs. In 1987, the Commission amended and clarified the methodology for determining rates in Amendment of Rules and Policies Governing the Attachment of Cable Television Hardware to Utility Poles, CC Docket No. 86-212, 52 FR 31769, August 24, 1987 (“Pole Attachment Order”).
3. Revisions to the Cable Formula and the formula for pole attachment rates in conduit systems adopted in the
4. The Commission has employed historical costs in Cable Formula calculations since the passage of the Pole Attachment Act in 1978. Further, the United States Supreme Court has upheld the application of an historical cost methodology for determining pole attachment rates. The continued use of a clear rate formula by the Commission is essential to encourage parties to negotiate for pole attachment rates, terms and conditions. The continued use of historical costs accomplishes key objectives of assuring, to both the utility and the attaching parties, just and reasonable rates; establishes accountability for prior cost recoveries; and accords with generally accepted accounting principles.
5. The Cable Formula incorporates net figures for the calculation of maximum pole attachment rates. We compute the carrying charge elements for maintenance, depreciation and administrative expenses, as well as for return on investment and taxes, using net book costs. For example, the net cost of a bare pole component is derived from the gross investment in poles less accumulated depreciation and accumulated deferred income taxes. The important goal is to ensure that like figures are used, whether net or gross and if both parties to a pole attachment complaint agree, the pole attachment rates may be computed using gross book costs. We will continue to use net figures in the Cable Formula. However, as in the past, when all parties to a complaint agree, we will allow the use of gross book costs.
6. Our Automated Reporting Management Information System (“ARMIS”) Report 43-02 Uniform System of Accounts (“USOA”) contains the financial operating results of a local exchange carrier's telecommunications operations for every Part 32 account. We affirm the use of Part 32 Uniform System of Accounts for local exchange carriers, as reported to ARMIS, in determining various components of the Cable Formula. These specific accounts are discussed in the
7. The Commission uses the following Cable Formula in disputed cases to set rates to be charged by utilities for attachments on poles:
8. The presumptions used in the Cable Formula have been repeatedly affirmed since the enactment of the Pole Attachment Act. We again decline to modify the well established presumptions leading to 7.4% as the percentage of usable space occupied by a pole attachment.
9. Because the electric supply cable precludes other attachments from occupying the safety space, which would otherwise be usable space, the safety space is effectively usable space occupied by the supply cable. So long as their crews make the installation, the electric utilities are not limited by the National Electrical Safety Code in what equipment or cables they may attach in the safety space. Accordingly, we reject the electric utilities' arguments to reduce the presumptive usable space of 13.5 feet by 40 inches.
10. The Commission established that a presumptive average 18 feet of the pole space is reserved for ground clearance. The 18 foot presumption is not dictated by the National Electric Safety Code, but is an average to be used in the estimation of total usable space. In the Usable Space Order, we determined that the selection of the 18 foot figure reflected various elements such as differing pole heights, as well as National Electrical Safety Code standards that vary depending on the physical environment of the pole. Factors used to determine the National Electrical Safety Code standard of minimum ground clearance, include whether the wires or cables cross over railroad tracks, roads, or driveways and the amount of voltage transferred through the cables. The rebuttable nature of the usable space presumption allows for the use of a different minimum ground clearance when necessary to improve the accuracy of the calculations. Presumptions were adopted to encourage expeditious response to complaint information requests. We have not been persuaded that a departure from our well established presumption of an average minimum ground clearance of 18 feet is warranted.
11. The record confirms the prevalent use of 30 foot poles and reflects that exclusion of such poles from the Cable Formula calculations could distort the resulting rate by excluding a significant portion of local exchange carrier plant investment from the rate calculation. We conclude that a distorted inventory of poles would be reflected if utilities were allowed to “opt out” or exclude their poles of 30 feet or less when calculating their pole attachment rates.
12. The current method for allotting space to a pole attachment accounts directly for the wind load factor. The weight load factor is considered when deciding whether a stronger pole is necessary as part of make-ready work. Many of these factors are included in accounts in the maintenance element of the carrying charge rate. For electric utility owned poles, which report data for regulatory purposes to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”), FERC Account 593 includes pole related expenses for overhead lines and allows for the recovery of the cost of labor, materials used and expenses incurred in the maintenance of overhead distribution facilities. The Commission's ARMIS rules for local exchange carrier accounting provide for the recovery of damages and pole related expenses caused by storms or other casualties. The complete costs of the physical attachments of an attaching entity are normally paid to the pole line owner as a condition of attachment, addressing such factors as weight, wind load and safety space. These make-ready costs have been fully recovered.
13. We adopt the following formula to determine the net cost of a bare pole for local exchange carrier pole owners:
14. In this formula Accumulated Depreciation (Poles) and Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes (Poles) are derived from composite Part 32 accounts attributable to poles. Specifically, Accumulated Depreciation (Poles) represents the share of Part 32 Account 3100 (Accumulated Depreciation) that corresponds to Account 2411, and Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes (Poles) represents the shares of Part 32 Accounts 4100 (Net Current Deferred Operating Income Taxes) and 4340 (Net Noncurrent Deferred Operating Income Taxes) that correspond to Account 2411.
15. We affirm the following formula to determine the net cost of a bare pole for electric utilities:
16. Under this formula, Accumulated Depreciation (Poles) represents the share of FERC Account 108 (Accumulated provision for depreciation of electric utility plant (Major only) a composite account that is required to be maintained on a subsidiary basis, that corresponds to Account 364 (Poles, Towers, and Fixtures). Similarly, Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes represents the share of composite FERC Account 190 (Accumulated deferred income taxes) that corresponds to Account 364. An adjustment to a utilty's net pole investment (15% for electric utilities and 5% for local exchange carriers) is necessary to eliminate the investment in crossarms and other non-pole related items.
17. We have previously concluded that poles of 30 feet or less should be included in calculations of the Cable Formula in our discussion about pole height and the usable space presumption. Based on our review of the record in this proceeding, we also conclude that poles of 30 feet or less should therefore be included in the inventory of the total number of poles owned or used, jointly-owned or solely-owned, by a utility. The exclusion of these poles would result in a distorted and inaccurate pole inventory resulting in an unjust and unreasonable pole attachment rate because they are being used by the utility for their business services and by cable operators and telecommunications carriers to provide their respective services.
18. The carrying charge rate reflects those costs incurred by the utility in owning and maintaining poles regardless of the presence of pole attachments. The elements of the carrying charge rate are: administrative, maintenance, depreciation, taxes and cost of capital (rate of return). The carrying charge rate factor of the Cable Formula is calculated as follows:
To calculate the carrying charge rate, the Commission developed a formula that relates each of these elements to a pole owner's net pole investment. Full Cable Formulas, with all components, elements and accounts used to determine a maximum just and reasonable rate for pole attachments to electric and local exchange carrier utility poles and conduit, are included in the appendices to the
19. The following formula is adopted to determine the administrative element of the carrying charge rate of the Cable Formula for local exchange carrier pole owners:
20. Account 6411 includes the rents paid by the local exchange carrier to electric utilities for the local exchange carrier's use of the electric utility's poles for the local exchange carrier's own core business. Inclusion of the local exchange carrier's rental fees paid to the electric utility in the Cable Formula would result in the electric utility being paid twice. These fees will be deducted from the total amount reported to Account 6411.
21. We reject our tentative conclusion that some portion of FERC Account 590 should be included in the maintenance element for electric utilities. We believe that any increased accuracy that would be derived from including the minute percentage of pole related expenses that may be included in Account 590, is outweighed by the complexity of arriving at an appropriate and equitable percentage of the expenses.
22. We redefine Net Pole Investment for Local Exchange Carriers as:
23. The taxes element of the carrying charge rate for local exchange carrier pole owners is calculated under the following formula:
Although a one to one matching of tax elements from Part 31 to Part 32 may not be achievable in all instances, we believe the proposed tax element formula will provide reasonable results in an expeditious manner.
24. The rate of return element is currently taken from the rate of return authorized for the utilities' intrastate services, but many states are moving
25. Conduits are structures that provide physical protection for cables and allow new cables to be added inexpensively along a route, without having to dig up the landscape, streets and other structures in the community each time a new cable is installed. A collection of conduits, together with their supporting infrastructure, constitutes a conduit system. A conduit consists of one or more ducts, which are the enclosures that carry the cables. Often, when cable system or telecommunications carriers' cables are placed in a duct, three or more inner ducts are inserted into the duct allowing “one duct to be treated more like conduit.” Congress authorized the Commission to regulate rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments in ducts and conduits under section 224 which states:
* * * a rate is just and reasonable if it assures a utility the recovery of not less than the additional costs of providing pole attachments, nor more than an amount determined by multiplying the percentage of the * * * total duct or conduit capacity, which is occupied by the pole attachment, by the sum of the operating expenses and actual capital costs of the utility attributable to the entire * * * duct [or] conduit.
26. We believe it is appropriate to use system-wide data for establishing the maximum rate for use of a conduit. Necessary data is available in underlying records filed by electric utilities to support claims in sworn FERC submissions, and only in rare instances would a utility lack detailed information because it has no records. Where such records do not exist, other sources of information may be used. Electric utilities have demonstrated their ability to calculate a rate by applying the formula. Although the conduits which comprise a conduit system may vary widely from urban to suburban or rural locales, we will use the system-wide historical cost of the conduit in the formula.
27. The first factor of the formula, Conduit Capacity, is determined using the following variables: The Number of Inner Ducts placed in the duct (if there are no inner ducts the value would be presumed to be two, reflecting the rebuttable presumption that not more than half of a duct is occupied); and the Number of Ducts in the conduit system (which does not include collapsed or otherwise damaged ducts that are not repairable). This is presumed to be the average number of ducts per conduit for the system.
28. The second factor of the formula, Net Linear Cost of Conduit, is determined using the following additional variables: Net Conduit Investment (gross conduit investment less the accumulated depreciation and accumulated deferred taxes); and System Duct Length, the length of all ducts in the system, minus the length of collapsed ducts and the length of ducts that for other reasons are physically unable to contain cable. The System Duct Length may be arrived at in one of three ways: First, it may be obtained from available records. Second, the length of the conduit in the system may be multiplied by an estimated average number of ducts per conduit. Third, the length of all ducts in the system is the sum of the products of the length of each conduit times the number of ducts in that conduit.
29. Calculation of the maximum rate may be simplified by using the presumptions and using the Net Linear Cost of a Conduit for the second term in the formula. The formula is:
30. The total capacity of a duct or conduit is the entire volume of available capacity in the conduit system. All costs associated with the construction of the conduit system are considered in determining the cost of this total capacity. We will not allow capacity designated for maintenance, future business plans, or municipal set-asides to be subtracted from the total duct or conduit capacity. The record supports our finding that capacity in a duct or conduit that is usable for any of these purposes is part of the total duct or conduit capacity.
31. Presumptions are used in the Cable Formula to expedite the calculations of a just and reasonable rate so that complicated surveys, accounting and calculations may be avoided. We retain the half-duct rebuttable presumption that an attachment occupies a maximum of one half of a duct. Communications cables may, and often do, share a duct. The National Electrical Safety Code requires that, where electric supply cables share a duct with communications cables, the cables be maintained by the utility. The capacity is available to other communications cables and is, therefore, not occupied.
32. Some cable operators assert that even the application of the half duct methodology will result in rates that are unreasonably high in light of current iner duct technology. The term inner duct generally refers to small diameter (1″ or 1
33. To arrive at a system investment for use in the conduit formula we identify the net linear cost of the conduit system. To accomplish this, the utility must first establish the Net Conduit Investment as discussed below.
34. The conduit formula requires the determination of the utility's net linear cost of its conduit system (“Net Conduit Investment”), calculated as follows:
35. Where Gross Conduit Investment for the local exchange carrier consists of Part 32 Account 2441. For the electric utility, Gross Conduit Investment is reflected in FERC Part 101 Account 366. For local exchange carriers, Accumulated Depreciation (Conduit) represents the share of ARMIS Account 3100 that corresponds to Account 2441. For electric utilities, Accumulated Depreciation (Conduit) represents the share of FERC Account 108 that corresponds to Gross Conduit Investment valuations included in Account 366.
36. The formula for calculation of the Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes (conduit) is:
Total Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes for electric utilities are based on FERC Account 190. Because the local exchange carrier conduit owner keeps conduit specific data for its accumulated deferred income taxes, we will allow a local exchange carrier to use that data in the rate calculation, as long as it is readily available.
37. The denominator for the Net Linear Cost of Conduit element within the formula is based on duct length. The net cost data is available from FERC reports and, although electric utilities are not required to report the linear footage of conduit deployed, they routinely produce linear footage data during state conduit rate proceedings. Electric utility corporate or engineering departments have records on installed plant. Moreover, when a utility is unable to obtain the requisite data, information from other sources may be used. A determination of the total length of duct and conduit in the system can be made with a precision comparable to that reached in determining the number of poles owned by the utility. The utility must, however, specify the method used for computing the duct length and must disclose this information to all attachers upon request.
38. The elements of the carrying charge rate are: Administrative, maintenance, depreciation, taxes and rate of return. The Cable Formula and all components, elements and accounts used to calculate a maximum rate for use of electric and local exchange carrier utility conduit systems are discussed in the
39. The administrative, taxes, and rate of return elements will be the same for use in a formula for pole attachments in conduits and rights-of-way as on poles. The maintenance and depreciation elements, with the accounts and methodologies specific to conduits, are delineated in the
40. For purposes of the calculation of the maintenance element, the denominator is the net conduit investment which equals the sum of gross investment, minus accumulated depreciation related to conduit systems, minus accumulated deferred income taxes related to conduit systems.
41. We use the following formula to determine the maintenance carrying charge rate element for underground conduit systems owned by a local exchange carrier.
42. The formula and FERC accounts used for the maintenance element of the carrying charge rate for electric utility conduit owners is as follow:
43. We adopt our proposed formula, as modified, using LEC ARMIS Account 2441 and electric utility FERC Account 366 for the Gross Conduit Investment in calculating the depreciation element, as follows:
44. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“IRFA”) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CS Docket No. 97-98, 62 FR 18074 (“NPRM”). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM including comment on the IRFA. The comments received are discussed below. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”) conforms to the RFA.
45. In 1987, the Commission adopted its current pole attachment formula for calculating the maximum just and reasonable rates utilities may charge cable systems for pole attachments. Since then the Commission replaced its accounting system for telephone companies, creating Part 32. This created a need to advise telephone companies about how the new system should be used in the pole attachment formula. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 made pole attachment rules applicable to telecommunications providers. The existing pole attachment formula applies to them until February 8, 2001. This gave rise to a need to ensure that the pole attachments rules would appropriately accommodate these new attachers. The use of conduit by cable systems and had not yet been addressed in detail by the Commission. This needs to be done in light of the anticipated number of new attachers whose entry into the marketplace the Commission wishes to facilitate. We recognize that a significant number of new attachers might be small businesses.
46. The objectives of the rules adopted herein are consistent with Congressional intent to provide a clear methodology to determine just and reasonable pole attachment rates in a manner that uses publicly available and verifiable data whenever possible. The objectives of the rules adopted herein change the formula methodology used to determine a just and reasonable pole attachment rate to reflect the present Part 32 accounting system for telephone companies that replaced the former Part 31 rules in 1988. Finally, the objectives of the rules adopted herein are to identify a conduit methodology that will determine the maximum just and reasonable rates utilities may charge cable operators and telecommunications carriers for pole attachments to conduit systems. Although our rules do not differentiate between large and small businesses, our use of presumptions and publicly available data in our methodology ensures that small businesses will not be discouraged from seeking recourse with the Commission against the imposition of unreasonable pole attachment rates.
47. Small Cable Business Association (“SCBA”) filed comments in response to the IRFA contained in the NPRM, and, to the extent they are relevant to the issues in this proceeding, we incorporate them herein by reference. SCBA claims in its IRFA comments that, because of the statutory exclusion of cooperatives from the definition of utility, section 224 does not minimize market entry barriers for small cable operators. According to SCBA, the IRFA in the NPRM fails to consider this issue. SCBA claims that small cable systems will be particularly hurt by the statutory exemption of cooperatives from the definition of utility because small cable systems often operate in rural areas and therefore necessarily attach their plant to rural telephone and electric cooperatives. In its Reply to the SCBA's comments, the National Telephone Cooperative Association responded that “ * * * the exemption [of cooperatives from section] 224 does not deprive SCBA members of available legal remedies in connection with pole attachment agreements negotiated with exempt electric or telephone cooperatives.” We note that the SCBA does not appear to be claiming that our rules will disproportionately burden small cable systems, but that where our rules do not apply, small cable system operators will be disproportionately harmed. Because the exemption for cooperatives was set forth by Congress clearly in section 224(a)(1), the Commission is left no discretion to address SCBA's concerns in this regard. In general comments, the National Cable Television Association (“NCTA”) acknowledged that:
The benefits [of the Commission's current pole attachment regulatory regime] are most vivid in the case of small cable operators. Small operators are peculiarly vulnerable to pole rent overcharges, because of the nature of their service areas. The Commission has recognized that small systems serve areas that are far less densely populated areas than the areas served by large operators. A small rural operator might serve half of the homes along a road with only 20 homes per mile, but might need 30 poles to reach those 10 subscribers. A pole rent increase creates an enormous push on [cable] rates, and frequently makes rural line extensions uneconomical. These same small operators are often the very parties without the budgets to litigate expensive document-intensive rate cases.
The NCTA's comments recognize that the Commission's chosen methodology does not excessively burden small businesses.
48. The RFA generally defines a “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term small business concern under the Small Business Act. A “small business concern” is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (“SBA”). For many of the entities described below, the SBA has defined small business categories through Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) codes.
49. Many of the decisions and rules adopted herein may have a significant effect on a substantial number of utility companies. Section 224 defines a “utility” as “any person who is a local exchange carrier or an electric, gas, water, steam, or other public utility, and who owns or controls poles, ducts, conduits, or rights-of-way used, in whole or in part, for any wire communications. Such term does not include any railroad, any person who is cooperatively organized, or any person owned by the Federal Government or any State.” The SBA has provided the Commission with a list of utility firms which may be effected by this rulemaking. Based upon the SBA's list, the Commission concludes that all of the following types of utility firms may be affected by the Commission's implementation of section 224.
50. Electric Services (SIC 4911). The SBA has developed a definition for small electric utility firms. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 1379 electric utilities were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA, a small electric utility is an entity whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reports that 447 of the 1379 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
51. Electric and Other Services Combined (SIC 4931). The SBA has classified this entity as a utility whose business is less than 95% electric in combination with some other type of service. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 135 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. The SBA's definition of a small electric and other services combined utility is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 45 of the 135 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
52. Combination Utilities, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 4939). The SBA defines this utility as providing a combination of electric, gas, and other services which are not otherwise classified. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 79 such utilities were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small combination utility is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 63 of the 79 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
53. Natural Gas Transmission (SIC 4922). The SBA's definition of a natural gas transmitter is an entity that is engaged in the transmission and storage of natural gas. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 144 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small natural gas transmitter is an entity whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 70 of the 144 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
54. Natural Gas Transmission and Distribution (SIC 4923). The SBA has classified this entity as a utility that transmits and distributes natural gas for sale. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 126 such entities were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. The SBA's definition of a small natural gas transmitter and distributor is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars. The Census Bureau reported that 43 of the 126 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
55. Natural Gas Distribution (SIC 4924). The SBA defines a natural gas distributor as an entity that distributes natural gas for sale. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 478 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to the SBA, a small natural gas distributor is an entity whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 267 of the 478 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
56. Mixed, Manufactured, or Liquefied Petroleum Gas Production and/or Distribution (SIC 4925). The SBA has classified this entity as a utility that engages in the manufacturing and/or distribution of the sale of gas. These mixtures may include natural gas. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 43 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. The SBA's definition of a small mixed, manufactured or liquefied petroleum gas producer or distributor is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 31 of the 43 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
57. Gas and Other Services Combined (SIC 4932). The SBA has classified this entity as a gas company whose business is less than 95% gas, in combination with other services. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 43 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to the SBA, a small gas and other services combined utility is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 24 of the 43 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
58. The SBA defines a water utility as a firm who distributes and sells water for domestic, commercial and industrial use. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 3,169 water utilities were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small water utility is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars in 1992. The Census Bureau reported that 3065 of the 3169 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
59. Sewerage Systems (SIC 4952). The SBA defines a sewage firm as a utility whose business is the collection and disposal of waste using sewage systems. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 410 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small sewerage system is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars. The Census Bureau reported that 369 of the 410 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
60. Refuse Systems (SIC 4953). The SBA defines a firm in the business of refuse as an establishment whose
61. Sanitary Services, Not Elsewhere Classified (SIC 4959). The SBA defines these firms as engaged in sanitary services. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 1214 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small sanitary service firms gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars. The Census Bureau reported that 1173 of the 1214 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
62. The SBA defines a steam and air conditioning supply utility as a firm who produces and/or sells steam and heated or cooled air. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 55 such firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a steam and air conditioning supply utility is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed nine million dollars. The Census Bureau reported that 30 of the 55 firms listed had total revenues below nine million dollars.
63. The SBA defines irrigation systems as firms who operate water supply systems for the purpose of irrigation. The Census Bureau reports that a total of 297 firms were in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small irrigation service is a firm whose gross revenues did not exceed five million dollars. The Census Bureau reported that 286 of the 297 firms listed had total revenues below five million dollars.
64. Many of the decisions and rules adopted herein may have a significant effect on a substantial number of small telephone companies. The SBA has defined a small business for SIC code 4813 (Telephone Communications, except Radiotelephone) to be a small entity when it has no more than 1500 employees. The Census Bureau reports that, at the end of 1992, there were 3497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein, for at least one year. This number contains a variety of different categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers (“LECs”), interexchange carriers (“IXCs”), competitive access providers (“CAPs”), cellular carriers, mobile service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators, personal communications service (“PCS”) providers, covered SMR providers and resellers. Some of those 3497 telephone service firms may not qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs because they are not “independently owned and operated.” We therefore conclude that fewer than 3497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone service firms or small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the
65. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that, there were 2321 such telephone companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1500 persons. Of the 2321 non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau, 2295 were reported to have fewer than 1000 employees. Thus, at least 2295 non-radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or small incumbent LECs, or small entities based on these employment statistics. Although some of these carriers are likely not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 2295 small entity telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the decisions or rules adopted in the
66. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small providers of local exchange services. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (SIC 4813). The most reliable source of information regarding the number of LECs nationwide appears to be the data that the Commission publishes annually in its Telecommunications Industry Revenue report, regarding the Telecommunications Relay Service (“TRS”). According to “TRS Worksheet” data released in November 1997, there are 1371 companies reporting that they categorize themselves as LECs. Although some of these carriers are likely not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of LECs that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1371 small incumbent LECs that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.
67. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (SIC 4813). The most reliable source of information regarding the number of IXCs nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with TRS. According to our most recent data, 143 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Although some of these carriers are likely not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 143 small entity IXCs that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in the
68. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of competitive access services. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (SIC 4813). The most reliable source of information regarding the number of
69. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to providers of cellular services. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (SIC 4812). The most reliable source of information regarding the number of cellular service carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS Worksheet. The TRS Worksheet places cellular licensees and Personal Communications Service (“PCS”) licensees in one group. According to the most recent data, there are 804 carriers reporting that they categorize themselves as either PCS or cellular carriers. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 804 small entity cellular service carriers that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in the
70. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to mobile service carriers, such as paging companies. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for telephone communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies (SIC 4813). The most reliable source of information regarding the number of mobile service carriers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS Worksheet. According to our most recent data, 172 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of mobile services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of mobile service carriers that would qualify under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 172 small entity mobile service carriers that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in the
71. The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission has defined “small entity” for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations defining “small entity” in the context of broadband PCS auctions has been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auction. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40% of the 1479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. However, licenses for blocks C through F have not been awarded fully, therefore there are few, if any, small businesses currently providing PCS services. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. We note that the TRS Worksheet data track PCS licensees in the reporting category “Cellular or Personal Communications Service Carrier.” As noted supra in the paragraph regarding cellular carriers, according to the most recent data, there are 804 carriers reporting that they place themselves in this category.
72. Pursuant to 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1) and 90.912(b)(1), the Commission has defined small entity in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses as a firm that had average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million in the three previous calendar years. This definition of a small entity in the context of 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR has been approved by the SBA. The rules adopted in the
73. In April 1997, the Commission held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the 900 MHz auction. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of 900 MHz geographic area SMR licensees affected by the rules adopted in the
74. Neither the Commission nor SBA has developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to resellers. The closest applicable definition under SBA rules is for all telephone communications companies (SIC 4812 and 4813). The most reliable source of information regarding the number of resellers nationwide of which we are aware appears to be the data that we collect annually in connection with the TRS Worksheet. According to our most recent data, 339 companies reported that they were engaged in the resale of telephone services. Although it seems certain that some of these carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than 1500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of resellers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 339 small entity resellers that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in the
75. Pursuant to the terms of the 1996 Act, wireless carriers are entitled to affix their equipment to utility poles with rates consistent with the Commission's rules discussed herein. SBA has developed a definition of small entities for radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports that there were 1176 such companies in operation for at least one year at the end of 1992. According to SBA's definition, a small business radiotelephone company is one employing no more than 1500 persons. The Census Bureau also reported that 1164 of those radiotelephone companies had fewer than 1000 employees. Thus, even if all of the remaining 12 companies had more than 1500 employees, there would still be 1164 radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities if they are independently owned and operated. Although some of these carriers are likely not independently owned and operated, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of radiotelephone carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1164 small entity radiotelephone companies that may be affected by the rules adopted herein.
76. The SBA has developed a definition of small entities for cable and other pay television services, which includes all such companies generating less than $11 million in revenue annually. This definition includes cable systems operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution systems, satellite master antenna systems and subscription television services. According to the Census Bureau, there were 1423 such cable and other pay television services generating less than $11 million in revenue.
77. The Commission has developed its own definition of a small cable system operator for the purposes of rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company,” is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide. Based on our most recent information, we estimate that there were 1439 cable systems that qualified as small cable system operators at the end of 1995. Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be combined with other cable systems. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 1439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the decisions and rules adopted in the
78. The Communications Act also contains a definition of a small cable system operator, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than one percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission found that an operator serving fewer than 617,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all of its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, we find that the number of cable systems serving 617,000 subscribers or less totals 1450. Although it seems certain that some of these cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250,000,000, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable systems under the definition in the Communications Act.
79. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined as “governments of * * * districts, with a population of less than 50,000.” There are 85,006 governmental entities in the United States. This number includes such entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts and school districts. We note that section 224 specifically excludes any utility which is cooperatively organized, or any person owned by the Federal Government or any State. For this reason, we believe that section 224 will have minimal if any affect upon small municipalities. Further, there are 18 states and the District of Columbia that regulate pole attachments pursuant to section 224(c)(1). Of the 85,006 governmental entities, 38,978 are counties, cities and towns. The remainder are primarily utility districts, school districts, and states. Of the 38,978 counties, cities and towns, 37,566 or 96%, have populations of fewer than 50,000.
80. The rules adopted in the
81. Section 703 of the 1996 Act amended section 224 in several important ways to provide access to and rate regulation for pole attachments by cable operators and telecommunications carriers in order that they might compete in the market place to provide their respective services. The 1996 Act established a pole attachment rate methodology for telecommunications carriers that would not become effective
82. In accordance with the RFA, the Commission has endeavored to minimize significant impact on small entities. To minimize the burden on utility pole owners, including those that qualify as small entities, and to promote certainty and efficiency in determining the pole attachment rate for cable operators and telecommunications carriers, we have maintained our formula presumptions, including our one-foot presumption of space occupied by a pole attachment, and the presumptive amount of usable space on a pole. We have adopted a conduit methodology based on publicly available data and a half-duct presumption of capacity occupied by a pole attachment in a conduit system, to simplify the process of determining a just and reasonable pole attachment rate and to provide certainty for small entities preparing to enter the competitive marketplace. We have formalized the use of part 32 accounting for LECs. We have consolidated all formula elements, and accounts specified for use in the formulas, in this one document in order to provide ease of application by all parties.
83. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the
84. The requirements adopted in the
85. As stated above, written comments by the public on the modified information collection requirements are due July 17, 2000. Comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554, or via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov. For additional information on the information collection requirements, contact Judy Boley at 202-418-0214 or via the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
86. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 224 and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 224 and 303(r), the Commission's rules are hereby amended as set forth in the Rule Changes.
87. Section 1.1402 of the Commission's rules, as amended in the Rule Changes, will become effective June 16, 2000. Sections 1.1404 and 1.1409, as amended in the Rule Changes, contain information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the
88. The Commission's Office of Media Relations, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Administrative practice and procedures, Cable television, Communications common carriers, Conduit, Pole attachments, Poles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, 303(r), 309 and 325(e).
(c) With respect to poles, the term
(i) The term
(j) The term
(l) With respect to poles, the term
(n) The term
(g) For attachments to poles, where it is claimed that either a rate is unjust or unreasonable, or a term or condition is unjust or unreasonable and examination of such term or condition requires review of the associated rate, the complaint shall provide data and information in support of said claim.
(1) The data and information shall include, where applicable:
(i) The gross investment by the utility for pole lines;
(ii) The investment in crossarms and other items which do not reflect the cost of owning and maintaining poles, if available;
(iii) The depreciation reserve from the gross pole line investment;
(iv) The depreciation reserve from the investment in crossarms and other items which do not reflect the cost of owning and maintaining poles, if available;
(v) The total number of poles:
(A) Owned; and
(B) Controlled or used by the utility. If any of these poles are jointly owned, the complaint shall specify the number of such jointly owned poles and the percentage of each joint pole or the number of equivalent poles owned by the subject utility;
(vi) The total number of poles which are the subject of the complaint;
(vii) The number of poles included in paragraph (g)(i)(vi) of this section that are controlled or used by the utility through lease between the utility and other owner(s), and the annual amounts paid by the utility for such rental;
(viii) The number of poles included in paragraph (g)(i)(vi) of this section that are owned by the utility and that are leased to other users by the utility, and the annual amounts paid to the utility for such rental;
(ix) The annual carrying charges attributable to the cost of owning a pole. These charges may be expressed as a percentage of the net pole investment. With its pleading, the utility shall file a copy of the latest decision of the state regulatory body or state court which determines the treatment of accumulated deferred taxes if it is at issue in the proceeding and shall note the section which specifically determines the treatment and amount of accumulated deferred taxes.
(x) The rate of return authorized for the utility for intrastate service. With its pleading, the utility shall file a copy of the latest decision of the state regulatory body or state court which establishes this authorized rate of return if the rate of return is at issue in the proceeding and shall note the section which specifically establishes this authorized rate and whether the decision is subject to further proceedings before the state regulatory body or a court. In the absence of a state authorized rate of return, the rate of return set by the Commission for local exchange carriers shall be used as a default rate of return;
(xi) The average amount of usable space per pole for those poles used for pole attachments (13.5 feet may be in lieu of actual measurement, but may be rebutted);
(xii) The average amount of unusable space per pole for those poles used for pole attachments (a 24 foot presumption may be used in lieu of actual measurement, but the presumption may be rebutted); and
(xiii) Reimbursements received from CATV operators and telecommunications carriers for non-recurring costs.
(2) Data and information should be based upon historical or original cost methodology, insofar as possible. Data should be derived from ARMIS, FERC 1, or other reports filed with state or federal regulatory agencies (identify source). Calculations made in connection with these figures should be provided to the complainant. The complainant shall also specify any other information and argument relied upon to attempt to establish that a rate, term, or condition is not just and reasonable.
(h) With respect to attachments within a duct or conduit system, where it is claimed that either a rate is unjust or unreasonable, or a term or condition is unjust or unreasonable and examination of such term or condition requires review of the associated rate, the complaint shall provide data and information in support of said claim.
(1) The data and information shall include, where applicable:
(i) The gross investment by the utility for conduit;
(ii) The accumulated depreciation from the gross conduit investment;
(iii) The system duct length or system conduit length and the method used to determine it;
(iv) The length of the conduit subject to the complaint;
(v) The number of ducts in the conduit subject to the complaint;
(vi) The number of inner-ducts in the duct occupied, if any. If there are no inner-ducts, the attachment is presumed to occupy one-half duct.
(vii) The annual carrying charges attributable to the cost of owning conduit. These charges may be expressed as a percentage of the net linear cost of a conduit. With its pleading, the utility shall file a copy of the latest decision of the state regulatory body or state court which determines the treatment of accumulated deferred taxes if it is at issue in the proceeding and shall note the section which specifically determines the treatment and amount of accumulated deferred taxes.
(viii) The rate of return authorized for the utility for intrastate service. With its pleading, the utility shall file a copy of the latest decision of the state regulatory body or state court which establishes this authorized rate of return if the rate of return is at issue in the proceeding and shall note the section which specifically establishes this authorized rate and whether the decision is subject to further proceedings before the state regulatory body or a court. In the absence of a state authorized rate of return, the rate of return set by the Commission for local exchange carriers shall be used as a default rate of return; and
(ix) Reimbursements received by utilities from CATV operators and telecommunications carriers for non-recurring costs.
(2) Data and information should be based upon historical or original cost methodology, insofar as possible. Data should be derived from ARMIS, FERC 1, or other reports filed with state or federal regulatory agencies (identify source). Calculations made in connection with these figures should be provided to the complainant. The complainant shall also specify any other information and argument relied upon to attempt to establish that a rate, term, or condition is not just and reasonable.
(j) * * * A utility must supply a cable television operator or telecommunications carrier the information required in paragraph (g), (h) or (i) of this section, as applicable, along with the supporting pages from its ARMIS, FERC Form 1, or other report to a regulatory body, within 30 days of the request by the cable television operator or telecommunications carrier. * * *
(e) * * *
(1) The following formula shall apply to attachments to poles by cable operators providing cable services. This formula shall also apply to attachments to poles by any telecommunications carrier (to the extent such carrier is not a party to a pole attachment agreement) or cable operator providing telecommunications services until February 8, 2001:
(3) The following formula shall apply to attachments to conduit by cable operators providing cable services. This formula shall also apply to attachments to conduit by any telecommunications carrier (to the extent such carrier is not a party to a pole attachment agreement) or cable operator providing telecommunications services until February 8, 2001:
(f) Paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4) of this section shall become effective February 8, 2001 (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Fishing restrictions; request for comments.
This document clarifies tables 2,3,4, and 5 for Pacific Coast groundfish species and trip limits that were published in the
Effective 0001 hours local time May 1, 2000 (May 16, 2000 for the “B” platoon), unless modified, superseded or rescinded, until the effective date of the 2001 annual specifications and management measures for the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery, which will be published in the
Katherine King or Yvonne deReynier, Northwest Region, NMFS, 206-526-6140.
On May 4, 2000, at 65 FR 25881, NMFS announced changes to trip limits in the Pacific Coast groundfish fishery. Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 are being republished in a logical and readable format.
In Section IV, tables 2, 3, 4, and 5 are republished as follows:
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the second seasonal apportionment of the 2000 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the deep-water species fishery in the GOA has been caught.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), May 13, 2000, until 1200 hrs, A.l.t., July 4, 2000.
Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The Pacific halibut bycatch allowance for the GOA trawl deep-water species fishery, which is defined at § 679.21(d)(3)(iii)(B), was established by the Final 2000 Harvest Specifications for Groundfish for the GOA (65 FR 8298, February 18, 2000) for the second season, the period April 1, 2000, through July 3, 2000, as 300 metric tons.
In accordance with § 679.21(d)(7)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the second seasonal apportionment of the 2000 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA has been caught. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the GOA. The species and species groups that comprise the deep-water species fishery are: all rockfish of the genera
Maximum retainable bycatch amounts may be found in the regulations at § 679.20(e) and (f).
This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. It must be implemented immediately in order to prevent overharvesting the second seasonal apportionment of the 2000 Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the trawl deep-water species fishery in the GOA. A delay in the effective date is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The second seasonal apportionment of the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance has been caught. NMFS finds for good cause that the implementation of this action can not be delayed for 30 days. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), a delay in the effective date is hereby waived.
This action is required by § 679.21 and is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of extension of comment period.
We are extending the comment period for an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that considers revising the noxious weed regulations issued under the Federal Noxious Weed Act. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
We invite you to comment on Docket No. 98-064-1. We will consider all comments that we receive by June 19, 2000.
Please send your comment and three copies to: Docket No. 98-064-1, 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. 98-064-1.
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
Ms. Polly Lehtonen, Botanist, Permits and Risk Assessment, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 734-8896.
On March 20, 2000, we published in the
Comments on the advance notice were required to be received on or before May 19, 2000. We are extending the comment period on Docket No. 98-064-1 for an additional 30 days. This action will allow interested persons additional time to prepare and submit comments.
7 U.S.C. 2803 and 2809; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is proposing to amending its regulations to modify the requirement that borrowers must seek bids from all sources if funding is requested for generation projects equal to or greater than 10 megawatt or for modifications to existing plants if it results in an increase in capacity of 10 percent or more. This proposed rule will allow RUS to determine when borrowers must seek bids from all sources on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the Administrator.
In the final rule section of this
Comments on this proposed action must be received on or before June 16, 2000.
Submit adverse comments or notice of intent to submit adverse comments to F. Lamont Heppe, Jr., Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1522, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone (202) 720-9550. RUS requires a signed original and three copies of all comments (7 CFR 1700.4). Comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(b)).
Wei M. Moy, Chief, Power Resources & Planning Branch, Power Supply Division, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 1568, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1568. Telephone: (202) 720-1438. FAX (202) 720-1401. E-mail: wmoy@rus.usda.gov.
See the Supplementary Information provided in the direct final rule located in the final rule section of this
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations by adding Denmark to the list of regions where bovine spongiform encephalopathy exists because the disease has been detected in a native born animal in that region. Denmark is currently listed among the regions that present an undue risk of introducing bovine spongiform encephalopathy into the United States. Therefore, the effect of this action is a continued restriction on the importation of ruminants that have been in Denmark and meat, meat products, and certain other products of ruminants that have been in Denmark. This action is necessary in order to update Denmark's disease status regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all comments that we receive by July 17, 2000.
Please send your comment and three copies to: Docket No. 00-030-1, 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. 00-030-1.
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. Donna Malloy, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, Products Program, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-3277.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, 95, and 96 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals, birds, poultry, meat, other animal products and byproducts, hay, and straw into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various animal diseases, including bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).
BSE is a neurological disease of bovine animals and other ruminants and is not known to exist in the United States.
It appears that BSE is primarily spread through the use of ruminant feed containing protein and other products from ruminants infected with BSE. Therefore, BSE could become established in the United States if materials carrying the BSE agent, such as certain meat, animal products, and animal byproducts from ruminants in regions in which BSE exists or in which there is an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States, are imported into the United States and are fed to ruminants in the United States. BSE could also become established in the United States if ruminants from regions in which BSE exists, or in which there is an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States, are imported into the United States.
Sections 94.18, 95.4, and 96.2 of the regulations prohibit or restrict the importation of certain meat and other animal products and byproducts from ruminants that have been in regions in which BSE exists or in which there is an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States.
In § 94.18, paragraph (a)(1) lists the regions in which BSE exists. Paragraph (a)(2) lists the regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States because their import requirements are less restrictive than those that would be acceptable for import into the United States and/or because they have inadequate surveillance. In § 94.18, paragraph (b) prohibits the importation of fresh, frozen, and chilled meat, meat products, and most other edible products of ruminants that have been in any region listed in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2). Paragraph (c) restricts the importation of gelatin derived from ruminants that have been in any of these regions. Section 95.4 prohibits or restricts the importation of certain byproducts from ruminants that have been in any of these regions, and § 96.2 prohibits the importation of casings, except stomach casings, from ruminants that have been in any of these regions. Furthermore, regulations in 9 CFR part 93 pertaining to the importation of live animals provide that APHIS may deny the importation of ruminants from regions where a communicable disease such as BSE exists and from regions that present risks of introducing communicable diseases into the United States (See § 93.404(a)(3)).
Currently, Denmark is among the regions listed in § 94.18(a)(2), which are regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States. However, on February 25, 2000, a case of BSE was confirmed in a native-born animal by Denmark's Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, in order to update Denmark's disease status regarding BSE, we are proposing to amend the regulations by removing Denmark from the list of regions in § 94.18(a)(2) that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States and adding Denmark to the list of regions in § 94.18(a)(1) where BSE is known to exist. The effect of this proposed action is a continued restriction on the importation of ruminants that have been in Denmark and meat and meat products, and certain other products of ruminants that have been in Denmark.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process required by Executive Order 12866.
We are proposing to amend the regulations by adding Denmark to the list of regions where BSE exists because the disease has been detected in a native born animal in that region.
Denmark is currently listed among the regions that present an undue risk of introducing BSE into the United States. Regardless of which of the two lists a region is on, the same restrictions apply to the importation of ruminants and meat, meat products, and most other products of ruminants that have been in the region. Therefore, this proposed action will not result in any change in the rules that apply to the importation of ruminants or meat, meat products, and certain other products of ruminants that have been in Denmark.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not
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.
This proposed rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 94 would continue to read as follows:
7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, and 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. Section 94.18 would be amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1), by adding the word “Denmark,” immediately after “Belgium,”.
b. In paragraph (a)(2) by removing the word “Denmark,”.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This document proposes the supersedure of an existing airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (BHTC) Model 407 helicopters, that currently requires installing a tail rotor pitch-limiting left-pedal stop (pedal stop), installing an airspeed limitation placard, marking a never-exceed velocity (Vne) placard on all airspeed indicators, and revising the Limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM). This action would require installing a redesigned tail rotor system and modifying the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer to allow restoring the Vne to 140 knots indicated airspeed (IAS). This proposal is prompted by design changes to the tail rotor system and modification of the pedal stop for airspeed actuation to eliminate a tail rotor strike to the tailboom. The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent the tail rotor blades from striking the tailboom, separation of the aft section of the tailboom with the tail rotor gearbox and vertical fin, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2000.
Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-SW-10-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137. You may also send comments electronically to the Rules Docket at the following address: 9-asw-adcomments@faa.gov. Comments may be inspected at the Office of the Regional Counsel between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be obtained from BHTC, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec JON1LO, telephone (800) 463-3036, fax (514) 433-0272. This information may be examined at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas.
Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations Group, Fort Worth, Texas 76193-0111, telephone (817) 222-5122, fax (817) 222-5961.
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 mailed comments submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. 2000-SW-10-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, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, Attention: Rules Docket No. 2000-SW-10-AD, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
On March 30, 1999, the FAA issued AD 99-06-15, Amendment 39-11111 (64 FR 16801, April 7, 1999), to require installing a pedal stop and adjusting the rigging of the directional controls, installing an airspeed limitation placard, marking a new never-exceed velocity (Vne) limit on all airspeed indicators, and revising the Limitations section of the RFM. That action was
Since the issuance of that AD, the manufacturer has made a design change to the tail rotor system to eliminate tail rotor strikes to the tailboom, and also made design changes to the pedal stop.
BHTC has issued Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 407-99-27, Rev. A, dated June 9, 1999, and Bell Helicopter Textron Technical Bulletin No. 407-99-17, dated April 15, 1999, both of which concern replacing the tail rotor; ASB 407-99-33, Revision A, dated March 10, 2000, which concerns installing a pedal stop and restoring the Vne to 140 knots IAS; and Bell Helicopter Textron Technical Bulletin No. 407-96-2, Revision A, dated March 11, 1997, which concerns modifying the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer. Transport Canada classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued AD No. CF-1998-36R7, dated February 1, 2000, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters in Canada.
This helicopter model is manufactured in Canada and is type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of § 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this bilateral airworthiness agreement, Transport Canada, which is the airworthiness authority for Canada, has kept the FAA informed of the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the Transport Canada, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to exist or develop on other BHTC Model 407 helicopters of the same type design, the proposed AD would supersede AD 99-06-15 to require installing a redesigned tail rotor system, modifying the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer, and restoring the Vne to 140 knots IAS.
The FAA estimates that 200 helicopters of U.S. registry would be affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 80 work hours per helicopter to perform the modifications and installations, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost approximately $24,161 per helicopter; however, the manufacturer has stated they will provide these parts at no cost. Additionally, the manufacturer has stated they will reimburse the cost of labor up to $4,400. Based on these figures, the total cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $5,792,200 or $28,961 per helicopter, assuming no costs are reimbursed.
The regulations proposed herein would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, it is determined that this proposal would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed regulation (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules Docket at the location provided under the caption
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
2. Section 39.13 is amended by removing Amendment 39-11111 (64 FR 16801, April 7, 1999), and by adding a new airworthiness directive (AD), to read as follows:
This AD applies to each helicopter identified in the preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been otherwise modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the requirements of this AD. For helicopters that have been modified, altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (d) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent the tail rotor blades from striking the tailboom, which could result in separation of the aft section of the tailboom with the tail rotor gearbox and vertical fin, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter, accomplish the following:
(a) Before further flight:
(1) Install a stop that limits the maximum distance that the left pedal can travel in accordance with Part I of the Accomplishment Instructions in Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Technical Bulletin 407-98-13, dated December 12, 1998 (TB).
(2) Adjust the rigging of the directional controls in accordance with Part II of the Accomplishment Instructions in the TB.
(3) Install the airspeed limitation placard shown in Figure 1 of this AD so that it completely covers and obscures the airspeed limitation placard, P/N 407-070-201-103. Ensure that the replacement placard is at least 2\1/16\-inches tall and 3 \9/16\-inches long.
(4) Install a redline at a Vne of 100 KIAS on all airspeed indicators. Remove or obscure any previously installed lines or arcs above 100 KIAS. If the redline is installed on the instrument glass, also install a slippage mark on the glass and on the instrument case.
(5) Add the following statement to the Limitations section of the Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM):
When operating at an airspeed of 60 to 100 KIAS, maintain yaw trim within one ball diameter of the centered position of the turn and bank (slip) indicator, and avoid sudden or large directional control inputs in flight.
(6) Mark the airspeed limitations placard in Figure 1-3 in the RFM to indicate that it has been superseded by this AD, and insert a copy of this AD into the RFM. Also, mark the airspeed indicator in Figure 1-5 of the RFM to indicate a Vne of 100 KIAS.
(7) This AD revises the limitations section of BHTC Model 407 RFM by replacing sheet 1 of Figure 1-3 in the RFM with Figure 1 of this AD, revising sheet 3 of Figure 1-5 of the RFM, and adding an operational limitation for allowable yaw trim and directional control input.
(8) Report any uncommanded right yaw, uncommanded movement of the pedals during flight, or tail rotor blade contact with the tailboom within 24 hours of the occurrence to the Manager, Regulations Group, telephone (817) 222-5111. Reporting requirements have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 2120-0056.
(b) Before further flight after January 31, 2001:
(1) Remove and replace the existing tail rotor with tail rotor installation, P/N 407-012-100-109, in accordance with Part II of Bell Helicopter Textron Technical Bulletin 407-99-17, dated April 15, 1999.
(2) Modify the vertical fin and horizontal stabilizer in accordance with Bell Helicopter Textron Technical Bulletin No. 407-96-2, Revision A, dated March 11, 1997.
(3) Install the tail rotor airspeed-actuated pedal stop kit, install the new airspeed limitation decals, and remove the temporary instrument markings and RFM changes in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions in Parts I, II, and III of Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin 407-99-33, Revision A, dated March 10, 2000.
(c) Accomplishing the requirements of paragraph (b) of this AD is terminating action for the requirements of this AD.
(d) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Regulations Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may concur or comment and then send it to the Manager, Regulations Group.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Regulations Group.
(e) 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.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada (Canada) AD CF-98-36R7, dated February 1, 2000.
Coast Guard, DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish four temporary safety zones for fireworks displays located on New York Harbor, the East River, and Hudson River, and one temporary safety zone for Search and Rescue demonstrations on the Hudson River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events. This action is intended to restrict vessel traffic in portions of New York Harbor, the East River, and the Hudson River.
Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 31, 2000.
You may mail comments and related material to Waterways Oversight Branch (CGD01-00-009), Coast Guard Activities New York, 212 Coast Guard Drive, room 205, Staten Island, New York 10305. The Waterways Oversight Branch of Coast Guard Activities New York maintains the public docket for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room 205, Coast Guard Activities New York, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.
We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking (CGD01-00-009), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than 8
The Coast Guard is limiting the comment period for this NPRM to 14 days because the Coast Guard did not know about the final event plans until May 1, 2000. Further, these proposed zones are in effect in New York Harbor only and they are for four or six hour events. Finally, there is not sufficient time to publish a Temporary final rule 30 days before the events and provide a longer comment period than 14 days.
We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a request for a meeting by writing to the Waterways Oversight Branch at the address under
The Coast Guard proposes to establish four temporary safety zones for fireworks displays, and one temporary safety zone for Search and Rescue demonstrations being held in conjunction with OPSAIL 2000.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish four temporary safety zones for the Macy's/OPSAIL 2000 fireworks display in New York Harbor, the East River, and Hudson River, on July 4, 2000. The first proposed safety zone includes all waters of the East River east of a line drawn from the Fireboat Station Pier, Battery Park City, in approximate position 40°42′15.5″N 074°01′07″W (NAD 1983) to Governors Island Light (2) (LLNR 35010), in approximate position 40°41′34.5″N 074°01′11″W (NAD 1983); north of a line drawn from Governors Island, in approximate position 40°41′25.3″N 074°00′42.5″W (NAD 1983) to the southwest corner of Pier 9A, Brooklyn; south of a line drawn through the southern point of Roosevelt Island from East 47th Street, Manhattan to 46 Road, Brooklyn, and all waters of Newtown Creek west of the Pulaski Bascule Bridge.
Vessels equal to or greater than 20 meters (65.6 feet) in length, carrying persons for the purpose of viewing the fireworks, may take position in an area inside the safety zone at least 200 yards off the bulkhead on the west bank and just off the pierhead faces on the east bank of the East River between the Williamsburg Bridge and a line drawn through the East River Main Channel Lighted Buoy 18 (LLNR 27335), to a point on the Brooklyn shore at North 9th Street. All vessels must be in this location by 6:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) on July 4, 2000.
Once in position within the zone, all vessels must remain in position until released by the Captain of the Port, New York. On-scene-patrol personnel will monitor the number of designated vessels taking position in the viewing area of the zone. If it becomes apparent that any additional spectator vessels in the viewing area will create a safety hazard, the patrol commander may prevent additional vessels from entering it. After the event has concluded and the fireworks barges have safely relocated outside of the main channel, vessels will be allowed to depart the viewing area as directed by the patrol commander.
We created the viewing area within this safety zone in order to reduce significant safety hazards in this area of the East River, due in great part, to the extremely strong currents. Based on experience from similar events in this area of the East River, we are concerned that smaller spectator craft located in between the two fireworks barge sites could drift into the fallout zone of either barge site. Additionally, experience from previous events has also shown that having large and small craft located in a confined area presents safety hazards for both sized vessels due to vessel wake, anchor swing radii, and restricted visibility of larger vessels in a confined area.
One safety zone is required for this large section of the East River because the Coast Guard has a limited amount of assets available to patrol this event of national significance. If we made this zone into two zones, we could not adequately enforce the boundaries of both zones, and the safety of the port and the mariners would be unacceptably compromised because of the two nearby fireworks barge locations in a confined waterway with significant currents.
The Staten Island Ferries may continue services to their ferry slip at Whitehall Street, The Battery, Manhattan, New York. Continuing ferry services in the southwestern portion of the safety zone will not create a hazard nor be threatened by the fireworks display because Vessel Traffic Services New York will monitor and control the transits of these ferries. Failure to allow these continued ferry services will have a negative impact on residents of Staten Island, New York, and those persons traveling to and from Manhattan at the end of the holiday weekend.
The second proposed safety zone includes all waters of the Hudson River north of a line drawn from the southwest corner of Pier 94, Manhattan, to 40°46′31.3″N, 074°00′37.9″W (NAD 1983) onshore in Weehawken, NJ, and south of a line drawn from the northeast corner of Pier D, Weehawken, NJ, to the northwest corner of the northern pier of the West 30th Street Heliport in Manhattan.
The third proposed safety zone includes all waters of Upper New York Bay, east of Liberty Island, bound by the following points: 40°41′33.2″N 074°02′24.4″W; 40°41′11.3″N 074°02′44.4″W; 40°41′02.1″N 074°02′25.1″W; 40°41′09.1″N 074°02′10.2″W; 40°41′25.6″N 074°02′09.6″W (NAD 1983); thence to the point of beginning.
The fourth proposed safety zone includes all waters of Anchorage Channel, Upper New York Bay, bound by the following points: 40°38′12.4″N 074°03′05.6″W; 40°38′01.5″N 074°03′00.7″W; 40°37′21.0″N 074°02′50.0″W; 40°37′15.6″N 074°03′16.6″W; 40°38′08.3″N 074°03′37.4″W (NAD 1983); thence to the point of beginning.
The proposed safety zones are effective from 6:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) until 11:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) on July 4, 2000. If the event is cancelled due to inclement weather, then this section is effective from 6:30 p.m. (e.s.t) until 11:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) on July 5, 2000. The proposed safety zones prevent vessels from transiting these portions of Upper New York Bay, the East River and the Hudson River, and is needed to protect boaters from the hazards associated with fireworks launched from 13 separate barges in the area. No vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port, New York.
These safety zones cover the minimum area needed and impose the minimum restrictions necessary to ensure the protection of all vessels and
Public notifications will be made prior to the event via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, facsimile, OPSAIL Inc.'s website, and Macy's waterways telephone “hotline” at 212-494-5247, which is scheduled to be activated approximately June 1, 2000.
The Coast Guard also proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for the OPSAIL Search and Rescue demonstrations held on and over the Hudson River between Piers 83 and 90. This proposed safety zone includes all waters of the Hudson River bound by the following points: from the southeast corner of Pier 90, Manhattan, where it intersects the seawall, west to approximate position 40°46′10″ N, 074°00′113″1 W (NAD 1983), south to approximate position 40°45′154″1 N, 074°00′125″1 W (NAD 1983), then east to the northeast corner of Pier 83 where it intersects the seawall. This proposed safety zone is effective from 12 p.m. (e.s.t.) until 6 p.m. (e.s.t.), Thursday, July 6, through Saturday, July 8, 2000. It is needed to protect boaters and demonstration participants from the hazards associated with United States Military personnel demonstrating the capabilities of aircraft and watercraft in a confined area of the Hudson River. This safety zone prevents vessels from transiting only a portion of the Hudson River. Marine traffic will still be able to transit through the western 600 yards of the 950-yard wide Hudson River during the Search and Rescue demonstrations. Vessels moored at piers within the safety zone; however, will not be allowed to transit from their moorings without permission from the Captain of the Port, New York, during the effective periods of the safety zone. The Captain of the Port does not anticipate any negative impact on recreational or commercial vessel traffic due to this safety zone.
Public notifications will be made prior to the Search and Rescue Demonstrations via Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, facsimile, and OPSAIL Inc.'s website.
The proposed sizes of the fireworks safety zones were determined using National Fire Protection Association and New York City Fire Department standards for 10-12 inch mortars fired from a barge, combined with the Coast Guard's knowledge of tide and current conditions in these areas. These events are being held in conjunction with OPSAIL 2000. A NPRM was published for OPSAIL 2000 in the
This proposed rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979).
We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Although this regulation prevents traffic from transiting a portion of New York Harbor, the Hudson River, and East River, the effect of this regulation will not be significant for the following reasons: the limited duration that the regulated areas will be in effect and the extensive advance notifications that will be made to the maritime community via the Local Notice to Mariners, facsimile, marine information broadcasts, the sponsor's website and phone hotline, New York Harbor Operations Committee meetings, public meetings for maritime groups, and New York area newspapers, so mariners can adjust their plans accordingly. At no time will commercial shipping access to Port Newark/Port Elizabeth facilities be prohibited. Access to those areas may be accomplished using Raritan Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, and Newark Bay as an alternate route. This will allow the majority of the maritime industrial activity in the Port of New York/New Jersey to continue, relatively unaffected. Similar regulated areas were established for the 1986 and 1992 OPSAIL events, the annual Macy's July 4th fireworks display, and the annual Fleet Week Sea and Air demonstrations. Based upon the Coast Guard's experiences learned from these previous events of a similar magnitude, these proposed regulations have been narrowly tailored to impose the least impact on maritime interests yet provide the level of safety deemed necessary.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Evaluation section above, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in portions of Lower and Upper New York Bay, the Hudson River, and East River during various times from July 4-8, 2000. These regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Although these regulations would apply to a substantial portion of the Port of New York/New Jersey, designated areas for viewing the Fourth of July Fireworks are being established to allow for maximum use of the waterways by commercial tour boats that usually operate in the affected areas. Maritime traffic would also be able to transit around the areas where the Search and Rescue demonstrations are being held. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard would make notifications to the public via mailings, facsimiles, the Local Notice to Mariners and use of the sponsors Internet site. The Coast Guard is also holding public meetings with maritime groups to explain the schedule of events and approved spectator craft viewing areas. In addition, the sponsoring organization, OPSAIL Inc., is planning to publish information of the event in local newspapers, pamphlets, and television and radio broadcasts.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant M. Day, Waterways Oversight Branch, Coast Guard Activities New York (718) 354-4012.
This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13132 and have determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism under that Order.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) governs the issuance of Federal regulations that require unfunded mandates. An unfunded mandate is a regulation that requires a State, local, or tribal government or the private sector to incur direct costs without the Federal Government's having first provided the funds to pay those costs. This proposed rule would not impose an unfunded mandate.
This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.
This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.
We considered the environmental impact of this proposed rule and concluded that, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.1C, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation. This proposed rule fits paragraph 34(g) as it establishes five safety zones. A “Categorical Exclusion Determination” is available in the docket where indicated under
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:
33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Add temporary § 165.T01-009 to read as follows:
(a)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(b)
(c)
(2) No vessels will be allowed to transit the safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port, New York.
(3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated on-scene-patrol personnel. These personnel comprise commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon being hailed by a U. S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed.
(4) Vessels may remain in the safety zone described in paragraph (a)(1) for the purpose of viewing the event in accordance with the following pre-established viewing area: Vessels equal to or greater than 20 meters (65.6 feet) in length, carrying persons for the purpose of viewing the fireworks, may take position in an area at least 200 yards off the bulkhead on the west bank and just off the pierhead faces on the east bank of the East River between the Williamsburg Bridge and a line drawn through the East River Main Channel Lighted Buoy 18 (LLNR 27335), to a point on the Brooklyn shore at North 9th Street. All vessels must be positioned in this viewing area within the safety zone by 6:30 p.m. (e.s.t.) on July 4, 2000.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
EPA is approving revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD). There are six revisions: three rule recissions with accompanying negative declarations for source categories that emit volatile organic compounds (VOC); two negative declarations for source categories that emit oxides of nitrogen (NO
Written comments must be received by June 16, 2000.
Comments should be addressed to: Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's technical support document of each rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions are also available for inspection at the following locations:
Julie A. Rose, Rulemaking Office, AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415) 744-1184).
The rules being approved for recission and the negative declarations being approved for the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) portion of the California SIP are listed in the following Table:
The rule recissions and negative declarations listed above were submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on the dates indicated. For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action that is located in the rules section of this
42 U.S.C. 7401
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; notice of reopening of comment period.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), reopen the comment period on the proposal to list the plant
The reopened comment period closes June 16, 2000.
Copies of the proposed rule are available on the World Wide Web at <mountain-prairie.fws.gov/endspp/plants/>. You may also request copies from, and submit comments and materials concerning this proposed rule to, the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4000 Airport Parkway, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001. Comments and materials received will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
Mike Long, Field Supervisor, Wyoming Field Office (see
On March 24, 1998, we published a rule proposing threatened status for
Comments from the public regarding the accuracy of this proposed rule are sought, especially regarding:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threat (or lack thereof) to this species;
(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat pursuant to section 4 of the Act;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and population size or trend of this species;
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their possible impacts on this species;
(5) Biological or physical elements that best describe
(6) Information regarding genetic differences and similarities within and between populations of
(7) Possible alternative noxious weed control, grazing, farming, and water management practices that will reduce or eliminate impacts to
(8) Other management strategies that will conserve the species throughout its range.
Comments previously submitted during the first comment period need not be resubmitted, as they will be fully considered in the final determination.
Author. The primary author of this document is Mary Jennings of the Wyoming Field Office (see
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Proposed collection, comments requested.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Rural Business-Cooperative Service's (RBS) intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection in support of the program for Rural Cooperative Development Grants.
Comments on this notice must be received by July 17, 2000, to be assured of consideration.
James E. Haskell, Assistant Deputy Administrator, Cooperative Services, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Stop 3250, Room 4016, South Agriculture Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-3250. Telephone (202) 720-8460.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Division, at (202) 692-0043.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of RBS, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy RBS estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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. Comments may be sent to Cheryl Thompson, Regulations and Paperwork Management Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Stop 0742, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250. 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.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment.
Notice is hereby given that the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Bob Quigel, Engineering and Environmental Staff, Rural Utilities Service, Stop 1571, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-1571, telephone (202) 720-0468. The E-mail address is bquigel@rus.usda.gov.
Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation proposes to construct the plant at a 159 acre site east of Fulton, Arkansas. Fulton is located in Hempstead County.
The project, as proposed, would consist of a 153 MW gas-fired, simple cycle combustion turbine and a water-cooled generator. The plant will have a 90-foot exhaust stack, step-up and auxiliary transformers, motor control centers, bus ductwork, an electric substation, and control, maintenance, and operations buildings. The project would require 4 miles of 115 kV transmission line to tie the plant to the existing transmission grid. (The transmission line will be built to 161 kV specifications in anticipation that additional transmission line capacity may be needed in the future.)
The facility will be designed to accommodate conversion of the plant to combined cycle operation, but will be initially operated as a simple cycle plant. The site will also be designed to accommodate the addition of one or more simple or combined cycle units. However, the Environmental
The alternative to be considered by RUS to providing financial assistance to Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation for the construction of the 153 MW plant would be to take no action and, therefore, not provide financial assistance.
Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, the document will be made available for public review for 30 days. Should RUS determine that the overall impacts of the construction and operation of the plant will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment, it will prepare and publish a finding of no significant impact (FONSI).
Availability of the Environmental Assessment and notification of a FONSI will be published in the
Any final action by RUS related to the proposed project will be subject to, and contingent upon, compliance with environmental review requirements prescribed by CEQ and RUS regulations.
An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the City of Midland, grantee of FTZ 165, requesting special-purpose subzone status for the oil refinery complex of Phillips Petroleum Company, located in Borger, Texas. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally filed on May 3, 2000.
The refinery complex (130,000 BPD capacity, 246 storage tanks with 10.3 million barrel capacity) is located at two sites in Borger, Texas: Site 1 (6,045 acres)—main refinery complex, located at Spur 119 North, Borger; Site 2 (585 acres)—crude oil tank farm, located on Highway 136, Borger, 5 miles north of the main refinery complex. The refinery is used to produce fuels, liquid petroleum gases, and refinery by-products including gasoline, jet fuel, aviation gas, distillates, residual fuels, naphthas, motor fuel blendstocks, butane, isobutane, butadiene, propane, benzene, toluene, xylene, acyclic and cyclic hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulfide, carbon black oil, petroleum coke, asphalt and sulfur. Some 10 percent of the crude oil (60 percent of inputs) is sourced from abroad. The application also indicates that the company may in the future import under FTZ procedures some naphthas, virgin gas oil, natural gas condensate and motor fuel blendstocks.
Zone procedures would exempt the refinery from Customs duty payments on the foreign products used in its exports. On domestic sales, the company would be able to choose the Customs duty rates that apply to certain petrochemical feedstocks and refinery by-products (duty-free) by admitting incoming foreign crude in non-privileged foreign status. The duty rates on inputs range from 5.25 cents/barrel to 10.5 cents/barrel. The application indicates that the savings from zone procedures would help improve the refinery's international competitiveness.
In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is July 17, 2000. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to July 31, 2000.
A copy of the application and the accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations:
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On January 26, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for one manufacturer/exporter of the subject merchandise, Clover Enamelware Enterprise, Ltd. of China (“Clover”), and its Hong Kong affiliated reseller, Lucky Enamelware Factory Ltd. (“Lucky”), collectively referred to as Clover/Lucky, for the period December 1, 1998 through November 30, 1999. The Department is rescinding this review after receiving a timely withdrawal from the Petitioner, Columbian Home Products, of its request for review.
May 17, 2000.
Russell Morris, Group II, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-1775.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations at 19 CFR Part 351 (1999).
On December 30, 1999, Petitioner requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of Clover/Lucky, manufacturer and/or reseller of the subject merchandise in the PRC for the period December 1, 1998 through November 30, 1999. On January 26, 2000, the Department published in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because the Petitioner's request for termination was submitted within the 90-day time limit, and there were no requests for review from other interested parties, we are rescinding this review. We will issue appropriate appraisement instructions directly to the U.S. Customs Service. This notice is in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of final results of antidumping duty administrative review of stainless steel wire rod from India.
On January 11, 2000, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have changed our results from the preliminary results of review. The final weighted-average dumping margin for the reviewed firm is listed below in the section entitled “Final Results of the Review.”
May 17, 2000.
Stephen Bailey, Laurel LaCivita or Rick Johnson, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0414, (202) 482-4243 or (202) 482-3818, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Act by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”). In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to 19 CFR Part 351 (1998).
On January 11, 2000, the Department published in the
We have now completed the administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Act.
The product covered by this review is stainless steel wire rod from India. This merchandise is classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTS”) subheadings 7221.00.0005, 7221.00.0015, 7221.00.0020, 7221.00.0030, 7221.00.0040, 7221.00.045, 7221.00.0060, 7221.00.0075, and 7221.00.0080. Although the HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and for U.S. Customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this finding remains dispositive.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum” (“
Based on our analysis of comments received, we have changed our results from the preliminary results of review. For the final results of review, Viraj's duty drawback claims have not been allowed.
We determine that the following percentage margin exists for the period December 1, 1997, through November 30, 1998:
The Department shall determine, and Customs shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to the Customs Service. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), we have calculated exporter/importer-specific assessment rates. We divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed sales by the entered quantity of those reviewed sales for Viraj. We will direct Customs to assess the resulting unit margins against the entered quantity for the subject merchandise on each of Viraj's entries during the review period.
The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of this notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of stainless steel wire rod from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of
The cash deposit rate has been determined on the basis of the selling price to the first unaffiliated U.S. customer. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APOs”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/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.
We are issuing and publishing this determination and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 771(i) of the Act.
1. Valuation of Raw Material Inputs
2. Modvat Tax
3. Duty Drawback
4. Date of Currency Conversion
5. Interest Expense
6. Double-Counting of Profit
7. Clerical Error
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Correction to announcement of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP).
This document contains a correction to an announcement of receipt of an application for an EFP for northern anchovy in an area off San Francisco ordinarily closed to vessels fishing to reduce the catch into products such as fish meal and oil, that was published in the
James Morgan at 310-980-4036.
On May 3, 2000, at 65 FR 25709, NMFS announced receipt of an application for an EFP to harvest northern anchovy off the coast of California in a closed area off of Farallon Islands. That document contained incorrect dates for the Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting.
On page 25709, in the second column, in the second complete paragraph, in the second line, “June 23-26, 2000,” should read “June 26-30, 2000”.
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207.
Thursday, May 25, 2000, 2 p.m.
Room 410, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD.
Part open to the public; part closed.
1. CPSC Vice Chairman.
The Commission will elect a Vice Chairman.
2. Compliance Status Report.
The staff will brief the Commission on the status of various compliance matters.
For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-0709.
Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the Secretary, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207; (301) 504-0800.
Department of Education.
Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2000; correction.
On April 28, 2000, a notice inviting applications for new awards under the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Grant Applications under Part D, Subpart 2 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was published in the
Potential applicants should consult the statement of the final priority published on April 28, 2000 (65 FR 25156) to ascertain the substantive requirements for their applications.
1. In the
Awards may also be made under the Parent Training and Information Centers competition (CFDA 84.328M) to authorized entities in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the freely associated States. However, maximum funding levels have not been specified.
2. In the
The Assistant Secretary rejects and does not consider an application that proposes a budget exceeding the amount listed for any single budget period of 12 months. Awards may also be made under the Parent Training and Information Centers competition (CFDA 84.328M) to authorized entities in Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the freely associated States. However, maximum funding levels have not been specified.
For further information on this priority contact Debra Sturdivant, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Independence Avenue, SW, room 3317, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202-2641. FAX: (202) 205-8717 (FAX is the preferred method for requesting information). Telephone: (202) 205-8038. Internet: Debra_Sturdivant@ed.gov.
If you use a TDD you may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC. area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
The Advisory Council for School-to-Work Opportunities was established by the Departments of Education and Labor to advise the Departments on implementation of the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The Council shall assess the progress of School-to-Work (STW) Opportunities systems development and program implementation; make recommendations regarding progress and implementation of the School-to-Work Opportunities initiative; advise on the effectiveness of the new Federal role in providing venture capital to States and localities to develop STW systems and act as advocates for implementing the STW on behalf of their stakeholders.
The Advisory Council for School-to-Work Opportunities will have an open meeting on Wednesday, May 31, 2000 from 8:30 am to 5 pm and on Thursday, June 1, 2000, from 8 am to 4 The meeting will be held at the Washington Court Hotel, Washington, DC.
The agenda for the meeting on Wednesday, May 31 begins with opening remarks by the Co-Chair of the Advisory Council Jacquelyn Belcher, President, Perimeter College of Decatur, Georgia. Following the opening, the Council will meet with senior representatives of the Departments of Education and Labor, the State Directors for School-to-Work and others involved in School-to-Work system-building to engage in a review of the STW initiative. On Thursday, June 1, Council Chair John McKernan, President of McKernan Enterprises, Portland, Maine will reconvene the Council to continue the discussion of issues related to sustainability of the School-to-Work initiative with the State Directors for STW, with Department of Education and Labor officials and other national, state and local policymakers.
The meetings on Wednesday, May 31 and Thursday, June 1 will be open to the public. Seats will be reserved for the media. Individuals with disabilities in need of special accommodations should contact the Designated Federal Official (DFO), listed below, at least 7 days prior to the meeting.
Stephanie J. Powers, Designated Federal Officials (DFO), Advisory Council for School-to-Work Opportunities, Office of School-to-Work Opportunities, 400 Virginia Avenue, SW, Room 210, Washington, DC 202/401-6222. (This is not a toll free number.)
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Wednesday, June 7, 2000, 6:00-9:30 p.m.
Garden Plaza, 215 S. Illinois Avenue, Oak Ridge, TN.
Theresa Perry, Federal Coordinator, Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Operations Office, P.O. Box 2001, EM-90, Oak Ridge, TN 37831, (865) 576-8956.
Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Hanford Site. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the
Thursday, June 1, 2000: 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.; Friday, June 2, 2000: 8:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Eastern Oregon State University Hoke College Center Multi-Purpose Room La Grande, Oregon
Gail McClure, Public Involvement Program Manager, Department of Energy Richland Operations Office, P.O. Box 550 (A7-75), Richland, WA, 99352; Ph: (509) 373-5647; Fax: (509) 376-1563.
Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy.
Agency information collection activities: Request for emergency review by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has submitted the energy information collection listed at the end of this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for emergency processing under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Supplementary Information contains the following: (1) The collection number and title; (2) a summary of the collection of information, which includes the sponsor (
Comments must be filed by Friday, May 19, 2000.
Address comments to the Mr. Erik Godwin, Department of Energy Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 726 Jackson Place N.W., Washington, DC 20503. (Mr. Godwin may be reached by telephone at (202) 395-3084. Comments should also be addressed to the Statistics and Methods Group at the address immediately below.)
Requests for additional information should be directed to Herbert Miller, Statistics and Methods Group, (EI-70), Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585-0670. Mr. Miller may be contacted by telephone at (202) 426-1103, FAX at (202) 426-1081, or e-mail at Herbert.Miller@eia.doe.gov.
The energy information collection submitted to OMB for review is:
1. EIA-904, “Fuel Used to Replace Natural Gas During Natural Gas Service Interruptions in the Northeast.”
2. The Energy Information Administration plans to collect information from up to 400 companies whose supply of natural gas may have been interrupted during December 1999, or January or February 2000. The form will request information on natural gas and liquid fuel purchases; natural gas and liquid fuels consumed in the period; and fuel storage capacity and inventories. This is a new survey and a new OMB number is being requested. The response obligation will be mandatory.
3. The data will be collected, then summarized and analyzed, and, thereafter, be used for responding to a request from the Secretary of Energy and Congress regarding the level and extent of natural gas interruptions in the Northeastern United States, during December 1999, and January and February 2000.
4. Respondents will be customers of local distribution companies and pipeline companies with interruptible service contracts. These customers may have had their supply of natural gas interrupted, during December 1999, or January or February 2000. The companies were identified by collecting information from natural gas local distribution companies and natural gas pipeline companies in the Northeastern United States.
5. The reporting burden is expected to be 2400 hours (400 respondents × 1 response × 6 hours).
Sections 3506(c) and 3507(j) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13).
Take notice that on May 8, 2000, Southern Company Services, Inc. (SCSI), acting as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah Electric and Power Company (collectively referred to as the Operating Companies), submitted for filing a response to the Staff's deficiency letter issued in this docket on April 14, 2000.
Copies of the filing were served on all intervenors in the proceeding and upon the affected State commissions.
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 285.214). All such motions and protests should be filed on or before May 22, 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 notice of intent has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h. Pursuant to Section 16.19 of the Commission's regulations, the licensee is required to make available the information described in Section 16.7 of the regulations. Such information is available from the license at Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beal Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Interested parties can contact Cheryl Watkins on (415) 973-2189.
i.
j.
k. The project consists of a dam, reservoir, tunnel, penstock, a powerhouse with one generator with a rated capacity of 10,600 kVA and transmission line.
l. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 178. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9(b)(1) each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by April 30, 2003.
m. A copy of the notice of intent is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington,
Take notice that the following notice of intent has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h. Pursuant to Section 16.19 of the Commission's regulations, the licensee is required to make available the information described in Section 16.7 of the regulations. Such information is available from the licensee at Southern Edison Company, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, California 91770. Interested parties can contact Stephen E. Pickett (818) 302-1564.
i.
j.
k. The project consists of a dam having a 325 acre-feet storage capacity, 6-mile long water conveyance tunnel, steel penstock, powerhouse having an installed capacity of 10.8 MW, 33-kV transmission line and appurtenant facilities,
l. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an application for a new license for Project No. 2174. Pursuant to 18 CFR 16.9(b)(1) each application for a new license and any competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license for this project must be filed by March 31, 2003.
m. A copy of the notice of intent is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The notice may be viewed on
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of submission to OMB.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 16, 2000.
Sandy Farmer by phone at 202-260-2740, or via e-mail at “farmer.sandy@epa.gov”, or download a copy of the ICR off the Internet at
Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1911.01, to the following addresses:
If EPA relies on ARs data when establishing or reassessing a tolerance, it must issue a DCI, and if the EPA used the percent of crop treated data estimates for a tolerance action, it may issue a DCI. A DCI is a letter sent to the registrant explaining the data submission requirement, requests specific data, sets out a time frame for a response to EPA, and provides applicable forms and guidelines to assist the registrant with the completion of the DCI request. A registrant must respond within 90 days of receipt of the DCI. The response must describe plans to submit the required data in accordance with time frame specified, and, if applicable, contain suggested protocols for monitoring studies. Failure to generate the requested data, or respond to the DCI in a timely manner could result in Agency action to modify or revoke the tolerance.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act, “burden” means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For this collection, it is the time reading the regulations, planning the necessary data collection activities, conducting tests, analyzing data, generating reports and completing other required paperwork, and storing, filing, and maintaining the data. The 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 number for this information collection appear at the beginning and the end of this document. In addition OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after initial display in the final rule, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2000.
For a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone at (202) 260-2740, by E-Mail at Farmer.Sandy@epamail.epa.gov or download off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr and refer to EPA ICR No.1415.04.
For technical questions about the ICR contact Joyce Chandler at (202) 564-7073, by email at chandler.joyce@epa.gov.
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. 1415.04 and OMB Control No. 2060-0234 in any correspondence.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; addendum to announcement of IRIS 2000 program and request for scientific information on health effects that may result from chronic exposure to chemical substances.
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data base that contains EPA scientific consensus positions on human health effects that may result from chronic exposure to chemical substances in the environment. On January 12, 2000, EPA announced the 2000 IRIS agenda and solicited scientific information from the public for consideration in assessing health effects from specific chemical substances. This notice adds the chemical substances hexachlorobenzene and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-triazine (“RDX”) to the IRIS agenda, and solicits scientific data and evaluations for consideration in EPA's assessments.
Please submit information in response to this notice by July 17, 2000.
Please send relevant scientific information to the IRIS Submission Desk in accordance with the instructions provided under “Submission of Information” in this notice.
For information on the IRIS program, contact Amy Mills, National Center for Environmental Assessment (mail code 8601D), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 20460, or call (202) 564-3204, or send electronic mail inquiries to mills.amy@epa.gov. For general questions about access to IRIS, or the content of IRIS, please call the Risk Information Hotline at (513) 569-7254.
IRIS is an EPA data base containing Agency consensus scientific positions on potential adverse human health effects that may result from chronic (or lifetime) exposure to chemical substances found in the environment. IRIS currently provides health effects information on over 500 specific chemical substances.
IRIS contains chemical-specific summaries of qualitative and quantitative health information in support of the first two steps of the risk assessment process, i.e., hazard identification and dose-response evaluation. IRIS information includes the reference dose for noncancer health effects resulting from oral exposure, the reference concentration for noncancer health effects resulting from inhalation exposure, and the carcinogen assessment for both oral and inhalation exposure. Combined with specific situational exposure assessment information, the summary health hazard information in IRIS may be used as a source in evaluating potential public health risks from environmental contaminants.
EPA's process for developing IRIS consists of: (1) An annual
EPA is adding the chemical substances hexachlorobenzene (CAS No. 118-74-1) and hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-triazine or “RDX,” (CAS No.121-82-4) to its assessment agenda for fiscal year 2000. EPA is hereby requesting scientific information from the public for consideration in these two assessments.
As described in the January 12, 2000,
These joint efforts with other federal agencies is a pilot effort to utilize federal resources more effectively and provide more consistent information to the public. Completion of the hexachlorobenzene and RDX assessments and addition to the IRIS data base is expected by fiscal year 2002.
As in previous
As described in the January 12, 2000,
1. Submission Inventory: First, you should simply provide a list within 60
Alternatively, you may submit the submission inventory and cover letter electronically to IRIS.desk@epa.gov. Electronic information must be submitted in WordPerfect or as an ASCII file. Information will also be accepted on 3.5” disks. All information in electronic form must be identified as an IRIS submission.
2. EPA Replies to Submission Inventory: In the second step, EPA will compare the submission inventory to existing files and identify the information that should be submitted. This step will help prevent an influx of duplicative information. You will receive notification requesting full submission of the selected material.
3. Full Submission of Selected Material: In the third step, you should send in the information indicated by EPA within 30 days of EPA's reply. Prompt response to EPA will ensure that your material can be considered in the assessment in a timely fashion. Submittals should include a cover letter addressing all of the points in item 1 above. In addition, when you submit results of new health effects studies concerning existing substances on IRIS, you should include a specific explanation of how and why the study results could change the information in IRIS.
Please send two copies, at least one of which should be unbound, to the IRIS Submission Desk, as described in Step 1. The IRIS Submission Desk will acknowledge receipt of your information.
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should not be submitted to the IRIS Submission Desk. CBI must be submitted to the appropriate EPA office via established procedures for submission of CBI (see 40 CFR, part 2, subpart B). If you believe that a CBI submission contains information with implications for IRIS, please note that in the cover letter accompanying the submission to the appropriate office.
You may also request to augment your submission with a scientific briefing to EPA staff. Such requests should be made directly to Amy Mills, IRIS Program Manager (see
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
There will be a 2-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) to review the following set of scientific issues being considered by the Agency pertaining to Consultation: National Drinking Water Survey Design for Assessing Chronic Exposure and Mammalian Toxicity Assessment Guidelines for Protein Plant-Pesticides. The meeting is open to the public. Seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis. Individuals requiring special accommodations at this meeting, including wheelchair access, should contact Larry Dorsey or Paul Lewis at the address listed under
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 6 and Wednesday, June 7, 2000, from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held at Sheraton Crystal City Hotel, 1800 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA. The telephone number for the Sheraton hotel is: (703) 486-1111.
Requests to participate may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit III. of the
Larry Dorsey or Paul Lewis, Designated Federal Officials, FIFRA SAP (7101C), Office of Science Coordination and Policy, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5369; fax number: (703) 605-0656; e-mail address: dorsey.larry or lewis.paul@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
Session 1—Under the FQPA, drinking water is considered in aggregate exposure asssesements for pesticide tolerance reassessments. Since targeted monitoring data are needed for refined exposure assessments, OPP has proposed a design framework for assessing annual average pesticide concentrations in surface waters used as drinking water. Details of survey design issues and options will be presented on OPP's proposed design framework and on an independently proposed design framework.
Session 2—For this session, the Agency is soliciting guidance from the Panel on the assessment of the potential mammalian toxicity of proteins expressed as plant-pesticides. Questions will be presented on the use of animo acid homology with known toxins,
Copies of the Panel's report of their recommendations will be available approximately 45 working days after the meeting and will be posted on the FIFRA SAP web site. Or, copies may be obtained by contacting the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) at the address and telephone number listed below in Unit II-2.
1.
2.
You may submit a request to participate in this meeting through the mail, in person, or electronically. Do not submit any information in your request that is considered CBI. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-00660 in the subject line on the first page of your request. Members of the public wishing to submit comments should contact the persons listed above in
Interested persons are permitted to file written statements before the meeting. To the extent that time permits, and upon advanced written request to the persons listed above in
1.
2.
3.
Environmental protection.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice of meeting.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency is announcing the 2000 Annual Meeting of the Ozone Transport Commission. This meeting is for the Ozone Transport Commission to deal with appropriate matters within the Ozone Transport Region in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States, as provided for under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This meeting is not subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended.
The meeting will be held on June 1, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to approximately 1 p.m.
The meeting will be held at the Harraskeet Inn, 162 Main Street, Freeport, Maine 04032; (800) 342-6423.
Judith M. Katz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 814-2900.
Bruce S. Carhart, Ozone Transport Commission, 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 638, Washington, DC 20001; (202) 508-3840; e-mail: ozone@sso.org; website: http://www.sso.org/otc
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contain at Section 184 provisions for the “Control of Interstate Ozone Air Pollution.” Section 184(a) establishes an “Ozone Transport Region” (OTR) comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
The Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation of the Environmental Protection Agency convened the first meeting of the commission in New York City on May 7, 1991. The purpose of the Ozone Transport Commission is to deal with ground level ozone formation, transport, and control within the OTR.
The purpose of this notice is to announce that this Commission will meet on June 1, 2000. The meeting will be held at the address noted earlier in this notice.
Section 176A(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 specifies that the meetings of the Ozone Transport Commission are not subject to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This meeting will be open to the public as space permits.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA has received a specific exemption request from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to use the pesticide buprofezin (CAS No. 95737-68-1) to treat up to 100,000 acres of cotton to control whiteflies. The Applicant proposes the use of a new chemical which has not been registered by the EPA. EPA is soliciting public comment before making the decision whether or not to grant the exemption.
Comments, identified by docket control number OPP-181076, must be received on or before June 16, 2000.
Comments may be submitted by mail, electronically, or in person. Please follow the detailed instructions for each method as provided in Unit I. of the
Andrea Beard, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 308-9356; fax number: (703) 308-5433; e-mail address: beard.andrea@epa.gov.
You may be potentially affected by this action if you petition EPA for emergency exemption under section 18 of FIFRA. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to:
This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table in this unit could also be regulated. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether or not this action applies to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in this document. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
1.
2.
You may submit comments through the mail, in person, or electronically. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that you identify docket control number OPP-181076 in the subject line on the first page of your response.
1.
2.
3.
Do not submit any information electronically that you consider to be CBI. You may claim information that you submit to EPA in response to this document as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public version of the official record. Information not marked confidential will be included in the public version of the official record without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used that support your views.
4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide.
5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
6. Offer alternative ways to improve the proposed rule or collection activity.
7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this document.
8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket control number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and
Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require the exemption. California Department of Pesticide Regulation has requested the Administrator to issue a specific exemption for the use of buprofezin on cotton to control silverleaf whitefly. Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of this request.
As part of this request, the Applicant asserts that a new strain, or possibly a new species, of whitefly, referred to as the strain B of sweet potato whitefly, or the silverleaf whitefly, has been a major pest of cotton since the early 1990s. Since that time, this pest has caused extensive damage to cotton and vegetable crops. The Applicant claims that adequate control will not be achieved with currently registered products and alternative cultural practices. The Applicant points out that large populations of silverleaf whiteflies have demonstrated resistance to available insecticidal control. The Applicant indicates that without adequate control of this pest in cotton, significant economic losses will occur.
The Applicant proposes to make no more than one application of buprofezin, formulated as Applaud 70WP (70% active ingredient (a.i.)), at a rate of 0.35 lb. a.i. per acre, on up to 100,000 acres of cotton, in California. The use season proposed is June 1 to October 15, 2000. If all 100,000 acres were treated, a total of 50,000 lbs. of product, or 35,000 lbs. of active ingredient, would be used.
This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the application itself. The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA require publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific exemption proposing use of a new chemical (i.e., an active ingredient) which has not been registered by the EPA. The notice provides an opportunity for public comment on the application.
The Agency, will review and consider all comments received during the comment period in determining whether to issue the emergency exemption requested by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability.
The Agency has issued Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2000-5 entitled “Guidance for Mandatory and Advisory Labeling Statements.” This PR notice provides guidance to the registrant for improving the clarity of labeling statements in order to avoid confusing directions and precautions and to prevent the misuse of pesticides.
Jeff Kempter, (7505C), Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Bldg., 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (703) 305-5448; fax number: (703) 305-6920; e-mail address: kempter.carlton@epa.gov.
This action is directed to the public in general. Although this action may be of particular interest to those persons who are required to register pesticides. Since other entities may also be
1.
2.
3.
This notice provides guidance to the registrant for improving the clarity of labeling statements in order to avoid confusing directions and precautions, and to prevent the misuse of pesticides. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 2(ee) defines the term “to use any registered pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling” (i.e., misuse) as use of “. . . any registered pesticide in a manner not permitted by the labeling . . . .” For purposes of this notice, the term “use” includes storage, transportation, handling, pre-application activities, mixing and loading, worker notification and worker protection, application, post- application activities and disposal. Registrants are not required to submit applications in response to this notice, however, EPA will review applications in light of the guidance presented here and seek to clarify labeling statements that are unclear or ambiguous. Finally, registrants may no longer add or change advisory labeling statements to existing products by notification as previously permitted by PR Notices 95-2 and 98-10. This PR Notice supersedes those PR Notices concerning the use of notification for adding or modifying advisory statements.
Statements on the pesticide labeling may be interpreted by users differently from what the registrant or EPA intended when the labeling was accepted. If EPA believes that misuse has occurred, an administrative law judge or a court may have to decide whether a product's labeling statements are clear enough for the user to understand how to lawfully use the product. Pesticide labeling needs to clearly identify what is required of the user to handle and apply a pesticide safely. The Agency is engaged in numerous efforts to improve pesticide product labels in general (e.g., the Consumer Labeling Initiative), as well as in specific areas of the labeling (e.g., bee precautionary labeling and pesticide drift labeling).
Mandatory statements, which commonly use imperative verbs such as “must” or “shall,” either require action or prohibit the user from taking certain action. Advisory statements generally provide information, either in support of the mandatory statements or about the product in general. To ensure that the intent of each labeling statement is clear, mandatory statements need to be clearly distinguishable from advisory statements.
Currently, labeling provisions are enforced by taking into consideration all of the information presented on the label and by reading advisory statements in the context of the entire label. Problems can arise when advisory statements are either vague or ambiguous in meaning, or are inconsistent with mandatory labeling statements. In the past, advisory statements have commonly used suggestive verbs such as “should,” “may,” or “recommend” to encourage the user to achieve the directed behavior, but often these statements can be unclear as to whether they are mandatory or advisory. In a recent misuse enforcement action, for example, the person charged with the violation argued that advisory statements misled him into taking action which was inconsistent with the mandatory statements.
Advisory language using terms such as “should,” “may,” and “recommend” can create ambiguities as to the intent of the direction or precaution. Too often, common everyday speech using the word “should” creeps into mandatory label statements where the imperative tense is needed to communicate that certain action is required. Another problem is contradictory headings and statements. A set of mandatory directions preceded by an advisory heading such as “Use Recommendations” potentially conflicts as to the nature of the intended action. Lastly, the use of words such as “should” in advisory language can mistakenly imply that an unaccepted use is permissible. For example, the direction “you should remove all food articles prior to use” on a product that is not registered for any food uses could be mistakenly read to suggest that it is not mandatory to remove all food from the area to be treated.
The Agency seeks to improve mandatory and advisory labeling statements by providing guidance on how they can best be written. Mandatory statements are generally written in imperative or directive terms (such as “shall,” “must,” “do this,” “do not”) so that a typical user will understand that these statements direct the user to take or avoid certain actions, and that failure to follow these instructions is a misuse of the product. Advisory statements are generally best written in descriptive or nondirective terms to support the mandatory statements or provide information. Suggestive terms such as “should,” “may,” or “recommend” may be confusing or ambiguous, or potentially
The PR Notice was developed from a draft document by the same title that was released for public comment on June 2, 1999 (64 FR 29641) (FRL-6079-4). The Agency received comments from various organizations. Each of the commenters offered recommendations for improving the document. All comments were extensively evaluated and considered by the Agency. This revised version embodies some of the recommendations of the commenters. A summary of the public comments, as well as the Agency's response to the comments, is being made available as described in Units I.B.1. and I.B.2.
The PR Notice discussed in this notice is intended to provide guidance to EPA personnel and decision-makers, and to the public. As a guidance document and not a rule, this policy is not binding on either EPA or any outside parties. Although this guidance document provides a starting point for EPA decisions, EPA will depart from this policy where the facts or circumstances warrant. In such cases, EPA will explain why a different course was taken. Similarly, outside parties remain free to assert that this policy is not appropriate for a specific pesticide or that the specific circumstances demonstrate that this policy should be abandoned.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice, request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative cost recovery settlement under Section 122(h)(1) of CERCLA concerning the North Penn Area 1 Superfund Site, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which was signed by the EPA Acting Regional Administrator, Region III, and the Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division. The proposed settlement is intended to resolve an EPA claim under Section 107(a) of CERCLA against the Estate of Harry Maurer. The settlement requires the settling party to pay $20,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency and the United States Department of Justice will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw their consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The agreement has been approved by the Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, or her designee.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2000.
The proposed settlement and additional background information relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Suzanne Canning, Regional Docket Clerk (3RC00), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103, (215) 814-2476. Comments should reference the North Penn Area 1 Superfund Site and EPA Docket No. III-99-008-DC and should be forwarded to Ms. Canning at the above address.
Thomas A. Cinti, Senior Assistant Regional Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 814-2634.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Notice; request for public comment.
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past and projected future response costs concerning the Tri-County/Elgin Landfill site in Kane County, Illinois, with the Precision Diamond Tool Company. The settlement requires Precision Diamond Tool Company to pay $20,000.00 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
On October 13, 1998, EPA sent out
Out of the 386
Precision Diamond Tool Company inadvertently was not included in Appendix A to the Administrative Order on Consent in EPA Docket No. V-W-99-C-507 and did not participate in that settlement. Precision Diamond Tool does, however, have a documented volume. For purposes of this
Under the terms of the settlement, Precision Diamond Tool Company agrees to pay its settlement amount. In exchange for its payment, the United States covenants not to sue or take administrative action pursuant to Sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), relating to the Site. In addition, Precision Diamond Tool Company is entitled to protection from contribution actions or claims as provided by Sections 113(f) and 122(g)(5) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9613(f) and 9622(g)(5), for all response costs incurred and to be incurred by any person at the Site.
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at EPA's Region 5 Office at 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and at the Gail Borden Public Library in Elgin.
Comments must be submitted on or before June 16, 2000.
The proposed settlement is available for public inspection at EPA's Record Center, 7th floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604. A copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Jeffrey A. Cahn, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886-6670. Comments should reference the Tri-County/Elgin Landfill site, Kane County, Illinois, and EPA Docket No. V-W-00-C-585, and should be addressed to Jeffrey A. Cahn, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604.
Jeffrey A. Cahn, Associate Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Mail Code C-14J, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 886-6670.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9601,
Petition for Clarification has been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of this document is available for viewing and copying in Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc. (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to this petition must be filed by June 1, 2000. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreement(s) under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties can review or obtain copies of agreements at the Washington, DC offices of the Commission, 800 North Capitol Street, N.W., Room 962. Interested parties may submit comments on an agreement to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within 10 days of the date this notice appears in the
By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice is hereby given that the following applicants have filed with the Federal Maritime Commission an application for licenses as Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder—Ocean Transportation Intermediary pursuant to section 19 of the Shipping Act of 1984 as amended (46 U.S.C. app. 1718 and 46 CFR Part 515).
Persons knowing of any reason why the following applicants should not receive a license are requested to contact the Office of Transportation Intermediaries, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, D.C. 20573.
Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier and Ocean Freight Forwarder Transportation Intermediary Applicants:
Ocean Freight Forwarders—Ocean Transportation Intermediary Applicants:
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than May 31, 2000.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1. Anthony & Suzanne Steele, Bentonville, Arkansas; to retain voting shares of BOR Bancshares, Inc., Rogers, Arkansas, and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Bank of Rogers, Rogers, Arkansas.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 11, 2000.
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 June 9, 2000.
A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
1. Bankoelwein, Inc., Oelwein, Iowa; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Community Bank of Oelwein, Oelwein, Iowa.
B. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034:
1. Franklin Bancorp, Inc., Washington, Missouri; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the voting shares of Bank of Franklin County, Washington, Missouri.
C. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (Maria Villanueva, Consumer Regulation Group) 101 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94105-1579:
1. Greater Bay Bancorp, Palo Alto, California; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Bank of Santa Clara, Santa Clara, California.
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 June 12, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 12, 2000.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than June 9, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 11, 2000.
The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage
Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.
Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than May 31, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 11, 2000.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
11 a.m., Monday, May 22, 2000.
Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.
Closed.
1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve System employees.
2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.
Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the Board; 202-452-3204.
You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information about the meeting.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreements.
The consent agreements in these five 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 complaints that accompany 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 June 9, 2000.
Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20580.
Richard Parker, FTC/H-374, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20580. (202) 326-3300.
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 agreements containing consent orders to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, have 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 agreements, and the allegations in the complaints. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreements package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for May 10, 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, D.C. 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, 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 agreements containing proposed consent orders from the corporate parents of the five largest distributors of prerecorded music in the United States. The five distributors, Sony Music Distribution (“Sony”), Universal Music & Video Distribution (“UNI”), BMG Distribution (“BMG”), Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation (“WEA”), and EMI Music Distribution (“EMI”), account for approximately 85% of the industry's $13.7 billion in domestic sales. The agreements would settle charges by the Commission that these five companies violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by engaging in practices that restricted competition in the domestic market for prerecorded music.
The proposed consent orders have been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will review the agreements and the comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreements or make final the agreements' proposed orders.
The purpose of this analysis is to invite public comment concerning the consent order. This analysis is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and order or to modify its terms in any way.
There are five separate complaints and proposed consent orders in this matter, one of each of the distributors, which are virtually identical with the exception of minor variations related to the corporate structure of each respondent.
The complaints allege that all five distributors have engaged in acts and practices that have unreasonably restrained competition in the market for prerecorded music in the United States through their adoption, implementation and enforcement of Minimum Advertised Price (“MAP”) provisions of their Cooperative Advertising Programs.
These five companies, which collectively dominate this market, adopted significantly stricter MAP programs between late 1995 and 1996. Under the new MAP provisions, retailers seeking any cooperative advertising funds were required to observe the distributors' minimum advertised prices in all media advertisements, even in advertisements funded solely by the retailers. Retailers seeking any cooperative funds were also required to adhere to distributors' minimum advertised prices on all in-store signs and displays, regardless of whether the distributor contributed to their cost.
Failure to adhere to the respondents' MAP provisions for any particular music title would subject the retailer to a suspension of all cooperative advertising funding offered by the distributor for an extended period, typically 60 to 90 days.
The MAP provisions were implemented with the anticompetitive intent to limit retail price competition and to stabilize the retail prices in this industry. Prior to the adoption of these policies, new retail entrants, especially consumer electronic chains, has sparked a retail “price war” that had resulted in significantly lower compact discs prices to consumers and lower margins for retailers. Some retailers, who could not compete with the newcomers, asked the distributions for discounts or for more stringent MAP provisions to take pressure off their margins.
The complaints allege that the distributors were concerned that declining retail prices could cause a reduction in wholesale prices. Through these stricter MAP programs, the distributors hoped to stop retail price competition, take pressure off their own margins, and eventually increase their own prices. The distributors' actions were effective. Retail prices were stabilized by these MAP programs. Thereafter, each distributor raised its wholesale prices.
While some vertical restraints can benefit consumers (known as “effciencies”) by enhancing interbrand competition and expanding market output, plausible efficiency justifications are absent in this case. Beneficial vertical restraints encourage retailers to provide better services to consumers than would have been provided to the absence of the restraint. However, in this case, the distributors' MAP policies provided no benefits to consumers. In particular, the new retailers that charged lower prices to consumers provided services that were as good as, and in some cases, superior to the services provided by the higher priced retailers they were moving to replace. These policies were plainly not motivated by “free-riding” concerns.
The substantial anticompetitive effects of these programs, balanced against the absence of plausible efficiency rationales for them, give us reason to believe that these programs constitute unreasonable vertical restraints in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act under a rule of reason analysis. Although the Commission has concluded that compliance by retailers with these programs did not constitute per se unlawful minimum resale price maintenance agreements, it should be noted that the MAP provisions implemented here go well beyond typical cooperative advertising programs, where a manufacturer places restraints on the prices its dealers may advertise in a advertisements funded in whole or in part by the manufacturer. Such traditional cooperative advertising programs are judged under the rule of reason. American Cyanamid, 123 F.T.C. 1257, 1265 (1997); U.S. Pioneer Electronics Corp., 115 F.T.C. 446, 453 (1992); The Advertising Checking Bureau, Inc., 109 F.T.C. 146 (1987).
The market structure in which the distributors' MAP provisions have operated also gives us reason to believe that these programs violate Section 5 of the FTC Act as practices which materially facilitate interdependent conduct. The MAP programs were implemented with an anticompetitive intent and they had significant anticompetitive effects. In addition, there was no plausible business justification for these programs.
The wholesale market for prerecorded music is characterized by high entry barriers which limit the likelihood of effective new entry. In this industry, the respondents can easily monitor the pricing and policies of their competition.
The history of MAP policies in this industry also indicates a propensity for interdependent behavior among the distributors. All five distributors adopted MAP policies in 1992 and 1993 that generally required adherence to minimum advertised prices in advertisements paid for by the distributors. In 1995 and 1996, all five distributors expanded the restrictions in their MAP programs to require adherence to minimum advertised prices in advertisements regardless of the funding source. In one case, the new MAP provisions were announced four months prior to the effective date. During this four month hiatus, two other distributors adopted similar provisions. By the end of 1996, all five distributors had adopted MAP provisions that were virtually identical. Shortly thereafter, several distributors embarked on high profile enforcement actions against major discounters who were discounting prices; these enforcement actions were widely publicized by the trade press.
There are five separate consent orders, one for each company.
Part I of the proposed orders establishes definitions. These definitions make clear that the provisions of the order apply to the directors, officers, employees, agents and representative of the five distributors. This section also makes clear that its provisions apply to cooperative funding efforts regardless of whether the retailer sells prerecorded music in traditional retail stores or over the Internet.
Part II of the orders requires all of the distributors to discontinue their MAP programs in their entirety for a period of seven years. The Commission believes this relief is necessary because some of the challenged MAP programs have been in place for more than four years. Quite simply, it will take several years without the MAP restrictions to restore retail price competition.
Part III of the orders contains several prohibitions to ensure that the distributors are unable to maintain the anticompetitive status quo in some other way. Subsection a prohibits the companies from conditioning the availability of any advertising funds on a retailer's actual selling price. Subsection B prohibits the distributors from restricting the availability of any advertising funds on the basis of an advertisement funded solely by its customers that do not adhere to the minimum advertised price. Subsection C prohibits the distributors from making payments that exceed the retailer's promotional costs to ensure compliance with any MAP program. Subsection D prohibits the distributors from controlling their customers' resales prices. Subsection E prohibits, for five years, the distribution from exercising their Colgate rights to unilaterally terminate dealers for failure to comply with any minimum advertised or resale price.
For EMI, BMG, and UNI, Parts IV, V, and VI are various notice provisions requiring the companies to notify their customers and senior management concerning the terms of this order. Part VII establishes that the distributors shall make annual compliance reports concerning their compliance with the terms of this order. Such reports may also be required by the Commission at any time. Part VIII establishes that the order shall terminate in twenty (20) years.
Part IV of the WMG and Sony orders specifically incorporates an exception to the prohibition against RPM that permits distributors to require their dealers to pass-through discounts. The notice and compliance requirements, and term of the order, are the same as for the other three respondents and are found at Parts V, VI, VII and VIII of the orders for WMG and Sony.
By direction of the Commission.
The Commission has unanimously found reason to believe that the arrangements entered into by the five distributors of prerecorded music violate the antitrust laws in two respects. First, when considered together, the arrangements constitute practices that facilitate horizontal collusion among the distributors, in violation of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Second, when viewed individually, each distributor's arrangement constitutes and unreasonable vertical restraint of trade under the rule of reason. A discussion of these violations is spelled out in our Analysis to Aid Public Comments.
The Commission considered carefully whether the anticompetitive vertical restraint should be evaluated under a per se rule or rule of reason. In the past, the Commission has employed the rule of reason to examine cooperative advertising programs that restrict reimbursement of the advertising of discounts, because such programs may be procompetitive or competitively neutral. Statement of Policy Regarding Price Restrictions in Cooperative Advertising Programs—Rescission, 6 Trade Reg. Rep. (CCH) ¶ 39,057. The cooperative advertising programs that were the subject of previous Commission actions involved only advertising paid for in whole or in part by the manufacturer, but did not restrain the dealer from selling at a discount or from advertising discounts when the dealer itself paid for the advertisement. See,
The Minimum Advertised Pricing (“MAP”) policies of the five distributors in this matter go well beyond the cooperative advertising programs with which the Commission has previously dealt: The distributors' MAP policies prohibited retailers from advertising discounts in all advertising, including advertising paid for entirely by the retailer; the MAP policies applied to in-store advertising, excepting only the smallest price labels affixed to the product; and single violation of a distributor's MAP policy carried severe financial penalties, resulting in the loss of all MAP funds for all of the retailer's stores for 60 to 90 days (see Paragraph 7 of each Complaint).
Retailers were free to sell at any price, so long as they did not advertise a discounted price. In fact, there was evidence that some retailers on rare occasions did sell product at a discount without advertising the discounted price, instead advertising simply that the product was available at a “guaranteed low price.” We are therefore reluctant to declare that compliance with the MAP policies by retailers constituted per se unlawful minimum resale price maintenance, because we cannot say that there is sufficient evidence of an agreement by retailers to charge a minimum price. As stated by a majority in In the Matter of American Cyanamid Co., “both the courts and the Commission have judged cooperative advertising cases under the rule of reason, as long as the arrangements do not limit the dealer's right: (1) To discount below the advertised price, and (2) to advertise at any price when the dealer itself pays for the advertisement.” 123 F.T.C. 1257, 1265 (1997) (Statement of Chairman Robert Pitofsky and Commissioners Janet D. Steiger and Christine A.Varney).
In
Nonetheless, we conclude that the distributors' MAP policies are unlawful under a rule of reason analysis. The five distributors together account for over 85 percent of the market (see Paragraph 2 of each Complaint), and each has market power in that no music retailer can realistically choose not to carry the music of any of the five major distributors. The MAP policies were adopted by each of the distributors for the purpose of stabilizing retail prices (see Paragraph 10 of each Complaint). The MAP policies achieved their purpose and effectively stabilized retail prices with consequential effects on wholesale prices, ending the price competition that previously existed in the retail marketplace and the resulting pressure on the distributors' margins (
In the future, the Commission will view with great skepticism cooperative advertising programs that effectively eliminate the ability of dealers to sell product at a discount. The Commission will, of course, consider per se unlawful
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 12, 2000.
Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Matthew Gold or Linda Badger, Federal Trade Commission, Western Region, 901 Market St., Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 356-5276 or 356-5275.
Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721, 15 U.S.C. 46 and § 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 May 11, 2000), on the World Wide Web, at “http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/formal.htm.” A paper 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: 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, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Efamol Nutraceuticals, Inc., (“Efamol”). Efamol is a marketer of dietary supplement products, all of which contain essential fatty acids.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) 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.
This matter involves alleged misleading representations for Efalex and Efalex Focus, two of Efamol's dietary supplement products. The advertisements claimed that these products can mitigate or cure the effects of Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder (“ADD/ADHD”).
The proposed complaint alleges that Efamol could not substantiate the following claims: (1) The Efalex and Efalex Focus can cure, prevent, treat or mitigate ADD/ADHD or its symptoms; and (2) that Efalex and Efalex Focus are effective in reducing attention and behavioral problems. Part I of the proposed order would address these misrepresentations by prohibiting Efamol from making the claims in the future unless it possesses and relies upon competent and reliable scientific evidence that substantiates the claim.
Part II of the proposed order requires Efamol to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence for any claim about the health benefits, efficacy or safety of any food, drug or dietary supplement that contains essential fatty acids. Because all of Efamol's products contain essential fatty acids, this provision would apply to the company's entire current product line.
Part III of the proposed order contains language permitting Efamol to make drug claims that have been approved by the FDA pursuant to either a new drug application or a tentative final or final standard. Part IV states that Efamol would be permitted to make claims that the FDA has approved pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
Parts V-VII of the proposed order contain requirements that Efamol keep copies of relevant advertisements and materials substantiating claims made in the advertisements; provide copies of the order to certain of its current and future personnel; and notify the Commission of changes in the corporate structure that might affect compliance with the order. Part VIII requires Efamol to file one or more reports detailing compliance with the order. Part IX provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years under certain circumstances.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the agreement and proposed order or to modify in any way their terms.
By direction of the Commission.
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 accomplishes 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 July 12, 2000.
Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Matthew Gold or Linda Badger, Federal Trade Commission, 901 Market St., Suite 570, San Francisco, CA. 94103. (415) 356-5276 or 356-5275.
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
Public comment is invited. Comments should be directed to: FTC/Office of the Secretary, Room 159, 600 Pennsylvania, Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20680. Two paper copies of each comment should be filed, and should be accompanied, if possible, by a 3
The Federal Trade Commission has accepted an agreement, subject to final approval, to a proposed consent order from J & R Research, Inc., and its principal, Gerald G. McCarthy (“respondents”). Respondents were general partners in a distributorship of Kaire International, Inc., a multi-level marketing company. Respondents also created and marketed to Kaire distributors audio tapes and other promotional materials touting a Kaire product containing pycnogenol, a substance derived from the bark of the maritime pine tree.
The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for sixty (60) days for the reception of comments by 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 any comments received and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take other appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.
Respondents' advertisements claimed that pycnogenal could mitigate or cure the effects of numerous diseases or disorders. The proposed complaint alleges that respondents could not substantiate claims that pycnogenol: (1) Alleviates rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis and rheumatism; (2) reduces the amount of insulin needed to treat diabetes; (3) treats and/or improves health disorders associated with diabetes, including neuropathy, retinopathy, osteomyelitis, circulatory problems and heart problems; (4) helps treat lupus, Parkinson's Disease, multiple sclerosis and fibromyalgia; (5) treats or improves digestive disorders, including Crohnes Disease and irritable bowel syndrome; (6) helps prevent strokes and the reoccurrence of strokes; (7) dramatically improve physical disabilities caused by stroke; (8) dramatically helps prevent heart disease, inlcuding arterial sclerosis; (9) reduces blood pressure; (10) dramatically improves and helps prevent circulatory problems, including phlebitis, thrombophlebitis, blood clots, and varicose veins; (11) dramatically promotes the shrinkage of tumors and helps prevent tumor formation; (12) treats cancer and/or prolongs the life of cancer victims; (13) reduces or eliminates inflammation of the prostate; (14) eliminates or reduces the incidence of asthma attacks and symptoms caused by allergies; (15) improves eyesight and treats disorders of the retina; (16) helps rebuild joints and soft tissue; (17) greatly accelerates the healing time of injuries; (18) improves or cures skin conditions such as psoriasis and acne; (19) treats Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder; (20) reduces or eliminates the need for medication in individuals with Attention Deficit Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder; and (21) is twenty times more protective as an antioxidant than Vitamin C, and fifty times more protective than Vitamin E.
The complaint further alleges that respondents falsely claimed that scientific research demonstrates that pycnogenol products can alleviate or cure many of these diseases or disorders. Finally, the complaint alleges that respondents could not substantiate its claim that testimonials from consumers appearing in the advertisements for pycnogenol products reflect the typical or ordinary experience of members of the public who use pycnogenol products.
Part I of the proposed consent order would require respondents, when advertising pycnogenol or any other food, drug, or dietary supplement, to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence before making any of the claims that were alleged as unsubstantiated in the complaint. Part II of the proposed order would require respondents to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence before making any claim regarding the benefits, performance, or efficacy of any food, drug, or dietary supplement. Part III of the proposed order would prevent respondents from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research in an advertisement for any product.
Part IV of the proposed order addresses claims made through endorsements or testimonials. Under Part IV, respondents may make such representations if they possess and rely upon competent and reliable evidence that substantiates the representations; or the respondents must disclose either what the generally expected results would be for users of the advertised products, or the limited applicability of the endorser's experience to what consumers may generally expect to achieve. The proposed order's treatment of testimonial claims is in accordance with the Commission's “Guides Concerning Use of the Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” 16 CFR 255.2(a).
Part V of the proposed order contains language permitting respondents to make drug claims that have been approved by the FDA pursuant to either a new drug application or a tentative final or final standard. Part VI states that respondents would be permitted to make claims that the FDA has approved pursuant to the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.
Part VII of the proposed order requires respondents to retain, and make available to the Commission upon request, all advertisements and promotional materials containing any representation covered by the order, as well as any material that it relied upon in disseminating the representation and any materials that contradict, qualify, or call into question the representation.
The remainder of the proposed order contains standard requirements that respondents distribute the order to relevant personnel, that the corporate respondent notify the Commission of any changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance with the order; that the individual respondent notify the Commission of changes in his employments status, and that respondents file one or more reports detailing their compliance with the order.
The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of
By direction of the Commission.
General Accounting Office.
Notice of new exposure draft on accounting for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees.
A summary of the proposed Statement follows:
On May 10, 2000, the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) released for public comment an exposure draft (ED) on accounting for Direct Loans and Loan Guarantees. Contained in the ED is a proposed standard that would require that in a note to their financial statements, reporting entities display for each major program and for the entity as a whole reconciliations between the beginning and ending balances of: (a) The subsidy cost allowance for direct loans and (b) the liability for loan guarantees. Entity management would be responsible for identifying major programs on the basis of each reporting entity's specific circumstances. The proposed standard states that the major programs that are reconciled individually should constitute at least 75 percent of the face amount of the reporting entity's outstanding direct or guaranteed loans. The reconciliation of other programs should be displayed in aggregate.
The proposed requirement for program-by-program reconciliation for major credit programs follows the Board's adoption in SFFAS No. 18 a requirement that reporting entities display reconciliation for direct loan subsidy allowance and loan guarantee liability reported on the entity's balance sheet. The Board believed that while the entity-wide reconciliation will provide information on the aggregate operating results of all credit programs under the entity's management, the program-by-program reconciliation would provide information on the performance of specific programs. Since the entity-wide reconciliation has been adopted in SFFAS No. 18, it is not a subject of the ED. Comments are requested on the proposed requirement for program-by-program reconciliation for major programs.
Comments are also solicited on a number of proposed technical amendments to SFFAS No. 2,
The exposure draft will soon be mailed to FASAB's mailing list subscribers. Additionally, it is available on FASAB's home page
Written comments are requested by August 10, 2000, and should be sent to: Wendy M. Comes, Executive Director, Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, 441 G Street, NW, Suite 6814, Mail Stop 6K17V, Washington, DC 20548.
Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 4412 G St. NW, Room 6814, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No. 92-463.
General Accounting Office.
Notice of meeting on June 8 and 9, 2000.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
A Steering Committee meeting of the Board's Principal Board members will be held immediately after the Board meeting on Friday. Topics to be discussed include:
Any interested person may attend the meeting as an observer. Board discussion and reviews are open to the public.
Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 441 G St. NW, Room 6814, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.
Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. 92-463.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement program to conduct research on Determining the Prevalence of Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in Communities Living Around Hazardous Waste Sites. This addresses the “Healthy People 2010” focus area of Environmental Health.
The purpose of this program is to determine the prevalence of MS among individuals in specific communities near sources of hazardous substances.
Assistance will be provided to the health departments of States or their bona fide agents or instrumentalities. This includes the District of Columbia, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and federally recognized Indian Tribal governments. State organizations, including State universities, State colleges, and State research institutions, must establish that they meet their respective State's legislature definition of a State entity or political subdivision to be considered to be an eligible applicant. Local health jurisdictions may apply with the concurrence of the State Health Officer.
Public Law 104-65 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, cooperative agreement, contract, loan or any other form.
Approximately $140,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund up to two awards. It is expected that the average award will be $70,000, ranging from $50,000 to $90,000. It is expected the awards will begin on or about September 30, 2000, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to two years. Funding estimates may change.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
Funds may be expended for reasonable program purposes, such as personnel, travel, supplies and services. Funds for contractual services may be requested; however, the primary recipient of ATSDR funds must perform a substantive role in carrying out project activities and not merely serve as a conduit for an award to another party or provide funds to an ineligible party. Equipment may be purchased with these funds, however, the equipment proposed should be appropriate and reasonable for the research activity to be conducted. Equipment may be acquired only when authorized, and the application should provide a justification of need to acquire equipment, the description, and the cost of purchase versus lease. At the completion of the project, the equipment must be returned to ATSDR.
Preference will be given to the proposed projects that are conducted in more than one community where MS and hazardous substances have been identified as health concerns.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for activities under 1. (Recipient Activities), and ATSDR will be responsible for the activities listed under 2. (ATSDR Activities).
Applicants addressing the same research issue should be willing to participate in collaborative studies with other ATSDR-sponsored researchers, including developing and using common data collection instruments and procedures, and data management procedures, as determined in post-awarding grantee planning conferences. A study group of all recipient Principal Investigators will be convened to develop a common protocol, interview instruments and data collection procedures.
a. Develop a research project which evaluates the prevalence of MS cases in communities living around hazardous waste sites. Provide scientific information concerning hazardous substances and MS and develop a model for others to determine the prevalence of MS in communities living around hazardous waste sites.
b. Develop the research study protocols and standardized data extraction forms across sites. Develop methods to verify MS diagnosis.
c. Collaborate and share data with other collaborators to answer specific research questions.
d. Conduct data analysis with all collaborators as well as present and publish research findings.
e. Disseminate research results to community members through collaborative relationships with state health and environmental agencies.
a. Provide scientific, epidemiologic, and environmental assistance.
b. Work collaboratively with investigators to help facilitate research activities across sites. Provide assistance on the development of the protocol and evaluation of the data extraction instruments.
c. Preparation and submission of materials to the CDC Internal Review Board (IRB). The CDC IRB will review and approve the protocol initially and on at least an annual basis until the research project is completed.
d. Provide assistance to awardee(s) in the design of a data management system, in the analysis of research information, and the presentation and publication of research findings.
e. Provide technical assistance to awardees (if more than one award is made) to ensure a sharing of information and methodologies, as appropriate.
f. Facilitate an annual meeting between awardee(s) and ATSDR to coordinate planned efforts and review progress.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed so it is important to follow them in laying your program plan. The narrative should be no more than 30 pages, double-spaced, printed on one-side, with 1″ margins, and unreduced fonts (font size 12 point) on 8
The heading should include the title of the cooperative agreement announcement, project title, organization, name and address, project director's name address and telephone number.
A one-page, singled-spaced, typed abstract must be submitted with the
The narrative of each application must address the evaluation component, in addition to the following:
a. Briefly state the applicant's understanding of the need or problem to be addressed, the purpose, and goals over the 2 year period of the cooperative agreement.
b. Describe in detail the objectives and the methods to be used to achieve the objectives of the project. The objectives should be specific, time-phased, measurable, and achievable during each budget period. The objectives should directly relate to the program goals. Identify the steps to be taken in planning and implementing the objectives and the responsibilities of the applicant for carrying out the steps.
c. Provide the name, qualifications, and proposed time allocation of the Principal Investigator who will be responsible for administering the project. Describe staff, experience, facilities, equipment available for performance of this project, and other resources that define the applicant's capacity or potential to accomplish the requirements stated above. List the names (if known), qualifications, and time allocations of the existing professional staff to be assigned to (or recruited for) this project, the support staff available for performance of this project, and the available facilities including space.
d. Document the applicant's expertise, and extent of experience in the areas of multiple sclerosis, environmental health, and population-based epidemiologic studies.
e. Provide letters of support or other documentation demonstrating coordination with all other agencies or organizations described as participating in the project.
f. Describe how the affected communities will be involved in the proposed project.
g. Human Subjects: State whether or not Humans are subjects in this proposal. (See Human Subjects in the Evaluation Criteria and Other Requirements sections.)
h. Inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups: Describe how the CDC/ATSDR policy requirements will be met regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. (See Women, Racial and Ethnic Minorities in the Evaluation Criteria and Other Requirements sections.)
Provide a detailed budget which indicates anticipated costs for personnel, equipment, travel, communications, supplies, postage, and the sources of funds to meet these needs. The applicant should be precise about the program purpose of each budget item. For contracts described within the application budget, applicants should name the contractor, if known; describe the services to be performed; and provide an itemized breakdown and justification for the estimated costs of the contract; the kinds of organizations or parties to be selected; the period of performance; and the method of selection. The budget narrative pages showing, in detail, how funds in each object class will be spent, should be placed directly behind form 424A and not in the body of the application.
In order to enable ATSDR to determine the level of interest in the program announcement, a non-binding letter-of-intent to apply is requested from potential applicants. The letter of intent should be submitted on or before June 15, 2000, to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0937-0189). Forms are available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Internet address, or in the application kit.
On or before July 14, 2000, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date and received in time for submission to the independent review group. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an objective review group appointed by ATSDR.
a. The applicant's understanding of the problems related to community exposures to hazardous substances and concerns regarding MS, and
b. relevance of the proposed program to these and related problems.
a. Applicant's technical experience and understanding (
b. List the names (if known), qualifications, and time allocation of the professional staff to be assigned to (or recruited for) this project and the support staff available for performance of this project.
c. Extent to which the management staff and their working partners are clearly described.
The extent to which the proposed goals and objectives are clearly stated and measurable.
a. The degree to which the applicant demonstrates prior work conducted in communities living near hazardous waste sites concerned with MS in their area.
b. Adequacy of plan to include at least one community where MS has already been identified as health concerns.
c. The extent to which the applicant's plans include accomplishing the activities listed under Recipient Activities in this announcement.
d. The extent to which the applicant's plans and schedule proposed for accomplishing the activities to be carried out in this project are clearly stated, are realistic given the length of the funding period, and can be achieved within the proposed budget.
e. The extent to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes:
(1) The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.
(2) The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.
a. A clear identification and description of the community(ies) to be involved in this project.
b. Adequacy of plan for recruitment and outreach for study participants including the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of the mutual benefits.
c. A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with communities and recognition of mutual benefits.
d. Adequacy of plans to address community concerns and create lines of communication, including letters of support.
e. Adequacy of methods to disseminate the study results to community residents, state and local public health officials, tribal governments, Indian Health Service, and to other concerned individuals and organizations.
The adequacy of the applicant's facilities, equipment, and other resources available for performance of this project.
Does the application adequately address the requirements of 45 CFR 46 for the protection of human subjects?
The budget will be evaluated to the extent that it is reasonable, clearly justified, and consistent with the intended use of funds.
Provide CDC with the original and two copies of:
1. Semi-annual progress report.
2. Financial Status Report (FSR) no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period.
3. Final financial status report and performance report, no more than 90 days after the end of the project.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment 1 in the application kit.
This program is authorized in Sections 104(i)(1)(E) and (15) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) [42 U.S.C. 9604 (i)(l)(E) and (15)]. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.161.
Please refer to Program Announcement 00114 when you request information.
This and other ATSDR announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address: http://www.cdc.gov. Click on “Funding” then “Grants and Cooperative Agreements.”
To receive additional written information and to request an application kit, call 1-888-GRANTS4 (1-888 472-6874). You will be asked to leave your name and address and will be instructed to identify the Announcement number of interest.
If you have questions after reviewing the contents of all the documents, business management technical assistance may be obtained from: Nelda Y. Godfrey, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Suite 3000, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-4146, Telephone (770) 488-2722, E-mail address: nag9@cdc.gov.
For program assistance, contact: Curtis Noonan, Epidemiologist, Health Investigations Branch, Division of Health Studies, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., Mail Stop E-31, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404) 639-5150, E-mail address: cen9@cdc.gov.
In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is providing opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects. To request more information on the proposed projects or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer on (404) 639-7090.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques for other forms of information technology. Send comments to Anne E. O'Connor, CDC Assistant Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, MS-D24, Atlanta, GA 30333. Written comments should be received within 60 days of this notice.
Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP). The REACH 2010 Demonstration Program is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services' response to the President's Race Initiative and to the Healthy People 2010 goal to eliminate disparities in the health status of racial and ethnic minorities. The purpose of REACH 2010
As part of the President's Race Initiative, it is imperative that REACH 2010 demonstrate success in reducing health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations. Toward that end, it is of critical importance that CDC collect uniform survey data from each of the 17 communities funded for the Phase II REACH 2010 Demonstration Program. The same survey will be conducted in each community; it will contain questions that are standard public health performance measures for each health priority area. Surveys will be administered by either telephone or household interview. These surveys will be administered annually for four years using a different sample from each community.
The total annualized burden hours for this project is 4080 hours.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-7090. Send written comments to CDC, Desk Officer; Human Resources and Housing Branch, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235; Washington, DC 20503. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.
1. Emergency Epidemic Investigations—(0920-0008)—Extension—Epidemiology Program Office (EPO)—One of the objectives of CDC's epidemic services is to provide for the prevention and control of epidemics and protect the population from public health crises such as man made or natural biological disasters and chemical emergencies. This is carried out, in part, by training investigators, maintaining laboratory capabilities for identifying potential problems, collecting and analyzing data, and recommending appropriate actions to protect the public's health. When state, local, or foreign health authorities request help in controlling an epidemic or solving other health problems, CDC dispatches skilled epidemiologists from the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) to investigate and resolve the problem. Resolving public health problems rapidly ensures costs effective health care and enhances health promotion and disease prevention. Annually, the EIS Program coordinates 400 Epidemic Assistance Investigations (Epi-Aids) and state-based field investigations. Epidemics are prevented and controlled by mobilizing and deploying CDC staff, primarily EIS officers to respond rapidly to disease outbreaks and disaster situations. At the request of public health officials—at the state, national, or international level—CDC provides assistance by participating in epidemiologic field investigations. The purpose of the Emergency Epidemic Investigation surveillance is to collect data on the conditions surrounding and preceding the onset of a problem. The data must be collected in a timely fashion so that information can be used to develop prevention and control techniques, to interrupt disease transmission and to help identify the cause of an outbreak. Since the events necessitating the collections of information are of an emergency nature, most data collection is done by direct interview or written questionnaire and are one-time efforts related to a specific outbreak or circumstance. If during the emergency investigation, the need for further study is recognized, a project is designed and separate OMB clearance is required. Interviews are conducted to be as unobtrusive as possible and only the minimal information necessary is collected. The Emergency Epidemic Investigations is the principal source of data on outbreaks of infectious and noninfectious diseases, injuries, nutrition, environmental health and occupational problems.
Each investigation does contribute to the general knowledge about a particular type of problem or emergency, so that data collections are designed taking into account similar situations in the past. Some questionnaires have been standardized, such as investigations of outbreaks aboard aircraft or cruise vessels.
The Emergency Epidemic Investigations provides a range of data on the characteristics of outbreaks and those affected by them. Data collected include demographic characteristics, exposure to the causative agent(s), transmission patterns and severity of the outbreak on the affected population. These data, together with trend data, may be used to monitor the effects of change in the health care system, planning of health services, improving the availability of medical services and assessing the health status of the population.
Users of the Emergency Epidemic Investigations data include, but are not limited to EIS Officers in investigating the patterns of disease or injury, investigating the level of risky
It is difficult to predict the number of epidemic investigations which might occur in any given year. The annual burden hours are estimated to be 3,000.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement program with the Montana Tech University (MTU) for longitudinal studies of rodent reservoirs of hantaviruses in the northwestern United States (U.S.). CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of “Healthy People 2010”, a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life. This announcement is related to the focus areas of Immunization and Infectious Diseases. For the conference copy of “Healthy People 2010” visit the internet site http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
The purpose of this cooperative agreement is to continue studies of hantavirus reservoir populations at previously established sites in Cutbank, Polson, Cascade, Gold Creek, Wisdom, and CM Russell Reserve, Montana. The goal of the research is to conduct longitudinal mark-recapture studies to identify and determine the distribution and dynamics of populations of rodents that are confirmed or potential reservoirs of hantaviruses. Preliminary studies have documented the effects of weather fluctuation and other ecological variables on the rodent populations at the designated study sites. The major objective of this cooperative agreement is to support research that appropriately builds upon the ecological information developed at the established sites.
Assistance will be provided only to MTU. No other applications are solicited.
MTU was the only applicant that applied under the original Program Announcement 96044 and was subsequently awarded. In previous studies, MTU developed an extensive database on population dynamics and hantavirus infection in rodents and associated environmental conditions at six trapping sites from 1994 to 2000. This unique dataset is the baseline data for the proposed longitudinal studies which will compare newly collected information with the 1994-2000 data. In order to provide for the continuity of long-term data, it is crucial that the proposed study be conducted at the identical sites using the same methodology as the previous studies.
Approximately $135,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund one award. It is expected that the award will begin on or about September 30, 2000, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to 5 years. The funding estimate may change.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress and availability of funds.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. (Recipient Activities) and CDC will be responsible for conducting activities under 2. (CDC Activities).
a. Design and conduct longitudinal mark recapture studies of rodents on existing established grids in the northwestern U.S., to identify and determine the distribution and dynamics of populations of rodents that are confirmed or potential reservoirs of hantaviruses.
b. Use ecological techniques that provide continuity of rodent sampling and processing so that data can be appropriately analyzed and correlated with previously collected ecological data from the established sites. Ecological techniques should include capture-mark-release and bleeding of captured animals.
c. Collect and submit blood samples on all captured animals to appropriate laboratories for further analysis and storage.
d. Identify captured rodents and perform morphological measurements and other observations necessary for characterization of rodents.
e. Analyze and publish study results from the individual study sites.
a. Provide consultation and scientific and technical assistance in the design, conduct, and evaluation of the project.
b. Perform appropriate laboratory testing and analysis of blood samples from captured animals, upon request.
c. Analyze study results in collaboration with the recipient.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. The application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out the program plan. The narrative should be no more than 10 double-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one-inch margins, and unreduced font.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0348-0043). Forms are available at the following Internet Address: www.cdc.gov/...Forms, or in the application kit. On or before July 1, 2000, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to
The application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Provide CDC with the original plus two copies of:
1. Progress reports (semiannual);
2. Financial Status Report (FSR), no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. Final FSR and performance report, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the application kit.
This program is authorized under sections 301(a) and 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. sections 241(a) and 247b(k)(2)], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
This and other CDC [ATSDR] announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address—http://www.cdc.gov Click on “funding” then “Grants and Cooperative Agreements.”
To obtain additional information, contact: Merlin Williams, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Room 3000, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone: (770)488-2765, E-mail address: mqw6@cdc.gov.
For program technical assistance, contact: Dr. James N. Mills, Special Pathogens Branch, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, N.E., M/S G-14, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: (404)639-1396.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a cooperative agreement program for the development and testing of new medications for emerging infectious diseases. CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of “Healthy People 2010,” a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life. This announcement is related to the focus areas of Immunization and Infectious Diseases. For the conference copy of “Healthy People 2010”, visit the internet site http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
The purpose of this program is for the development and testing of new anti-infectious agents developed from natural products primarily for use in humans. Of particular, but not exclusive interest are anti-infective agents for parasitic diseases. Projects may include, but are not limited to a range of activities such as identifying promising agents, purifying or creating them, optimizing them for clinical use, and testing them.
Applications may be submitted by public and private nonprofit organizations and by governments and their agencies; that is, universities, colleges, research institutions, hospitals, other public and private nonprofit organizations, State and local governments or their bona fide agents, and federally recognized Indian tribal governments, Indian tribes or Indian tribal organizations.
Approximately $1,500,000 is available in FY 2000 to fund one award. It is expected the award will begin on or about September 1, 2000, and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to three years. The funding estimate may change.
A continuation award within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the activities under 1. (Recipient Activities) and CDC will be responsible for conducting activities under 2. (CDC Activities):
a. Develop and implement strategies for selection of emerging infectious disease(s) that affect humans and or acquiring or developing new medications for treatment of those diseases using natural products. This includes studying the pharmacologic and biologic characteristics of natural product structures and analogs and designing molecules using computer methods for known biochemical targets.
b. Use combinatorial methods to optimize anti-infectives resulting from these approaches.
c. Develop strategies and capacity to produce adequate quantities of compound, for example, by using an automated organic synthesizer or other technology.
d. Develop and implement a systematic approach to in vitro testing of drug candidates.
e. Conduct in vivo testing of promising candidates if appropriate.
f. Develop a plan for enhancing commercial interest in promising drugs.
g. Publish or disseminate results of research.
a. Provide technical assistance in the design and conduct of the research, as needed.
b. Perform selected laboratory tests, as requested.
c. Provide biological materials (
d. Assist in the development of assays for evaluating pharmacokinetics of new drugs as necessary or appropriate.
e. Assist in the development of a research protocol for Institutional Review Board (IRB) review by all cooperating institutions participating in the research project. The CDC IRB will review and approve the protocol initially and on at least an annual basis until the research project is completed.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out your program plan. The narrative should be no more than 10 double spaced pages printed on one side, with one inch margins and unreduced font.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS 5161-1 (OMB Number 0937-0189). Forms are in the application kit.
On or before July 1, 2000, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” Section of this announcement.
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date and received in time for submission to the independent review group. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)
The application will be evaluated against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
Extent to which applicant demonstrates a clear understanding of the background, purpose, and objectives of the focus area being addressed and the relevance of disease(s) to be studied. Extent to which applicant demonstrates that the proposed project addresses the purpose. Extent to which the applicant demonstrates that the proposed program collaborates with and does not duplicate existing rational development efforts.
Extent to which applicant describes adequate resources and facilities (both technical and administrative) to use natural products, computer-aided drug design, and development of analogs of known drugs to develop strategies for producing adequate quantities of compound, for example, by using automated organic synthesis or other technologies for conducting the project. Extent to which applicant documents that professional personnel involved in the project are qualified and have past experience and achievements in research related to that proposed as evidenced by curriculum vitae, publications, etc. If applicable, extent to which applicant includes letters of support from participating non-applicant organizations, individuals, etc., and the extent to which such letters clearly indicate the author's commitment to participate as described in the operational plan.
a. Extent to which applicant describes measurable and time-phased objectives of the proposed project which are consistent with the purpose of the focus area being addressed. (10 points)
b. Extent to which applicant presents a detailed operational plan for initiating and conducting the project which clearly and appropriately addresses all recipient activities for the specific programmatic focus area being addressed. Extent to which applicant clearly identifies specific assigned responsibilities of all key professional personnel. Extent to which the plan clearly describes applicant's technical approach/ methods for conducting the proposed studies and extent to which the approach/methods are feasible, appropriate, and adequate to accomplish the objectives. Extent to which applicant describes specific study protocols or plans for the development of study protocols that are appropriate for achieving project objectives. Extent to which applicant clearly describes collaboration with others during various phases of the project. (25 points)
c. The degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes (a) the proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation, (b) the proposed
(d) a statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits. (5 points)
Extent to which applicant provides a detailed and adequate plan for evaluating progress toward achieving project process and outcome objectives. (5 points)
Extent to which the line-item budget is detailed, clearly justified, and consistent with the purpose and objectives of this program.
Does the application adequately address the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects?
Does the application adequately address the requirements of PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals?
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of
1. progress reports (semiannual);
2. financial status report, no more than 90 days after the end of the budget period; and
3. final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the application kit.
This program is authorized under section 301(a) and 317(k)(2) of the Public Health Service Act, [42 U.S.C. Sections 241(a) and 247b(k)(2)], as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
To obtain additional information, contact: Andrea Wooddall, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Room 3000, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, Telephone number 770-488-2749, Email address ayw3@cdc.gov
For program technical assistance, contact: Sue Binder, M.D., Division of Parasitic Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone number 770-488-7793, Email address scb1@cdc.gov
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2000 funds for a grant to conduct mind/body research.
CDC is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of “Healthy People 2010” a national activity to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve the quality of life. This announcement is related to the focus areas of Disability and Secondary Conditions, and Physical Activity and Fitness. Other health objectives for the nation can ultimately be addressed through mind/body research because approaches that evoke the relaxation response may impact positively on a variety of chronic health conditions and disabilities targeted by the 2010 objectives.
For the conference copy of “Healthy People 2010”, visit the internet site: <http://www.health.gov/healthypeople>.
The purpose of this program is to generate knowledge through basic and clinical research about the effectiveness of a relaxation or stress reduction approach such as meditation or progressive muscle relaxation that evokes changes in psychophysiology and can, consequently, impact positively on physical and mental health. These psychophysiology outcomes, collectively labeled the relaxation response, include decreased heart rate, blood pressure, muscle tension, metabolism, breathing rate, and brain wave activity. Project objectives and activities should add to the literature, and include those that articulate the acute (changes that occur as a result of a single session) and chronic (changes that occur as a result of numerous sessions repeated over time) benefits of an approach that evokes the relaxation response. Such efforts should be highlighted by identifying and advancing knowledge about the causal mechanisms underlying the neural and systemic adaptations that trigger the relaxation response (
Numerous medical conditions, including hypertension, pain, and stress related mood disturbance, have responded favorably to treatment using approaches that evoke the relaxation response. Little is known about the processes that account for the improvements in health. This project requires that multi-disciplinary and well controlled study(ies) with healthy or clinical populations be conducted to investigate the physiological basis for treatment of modality effectiveness, as well as psychosocial attributes influencing successful treatment response.
Applications may be submitted by public and private nonprofit organizations and by governments and their agencies; that is, universities, colleges, research institutions, hospitals, other public and private nonprofit organizations, State and local governments or their bona fide agents, and federally recognized Indian tribal governments, Indian tribes, or Indian tribal organizations.
Applicants must provide proof of their non-profit status. See Attachment I for additional requirements.
Public Law 104-65 states that an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, cooperative agreement, contract, loan, or any other form.
Approximately $862,000 will be available in FY 2000 to fund one award. It is expected that the awards will begin on or about September 30, 2000 and will be made for a 12-month budget period within a project period of up to three years. Funding estimates may change.
Continuation awards within an approved project period will be made on the basis of satisfactory progress as evidenced by required reports and the availability of funds.
In conducting activities to achieve the purpose of this program, the recipient will be responsible for the following:
1. Identify a manager/coordinator with the authority and responsibility to conduct and manage all components of the project.
2. Create the capacity to attract and motivate persons to initiate and maintain research interventions/protocols.
3. Variables included in the program are dependent on the acute or chronic research questions. Study variables may include blood pressure measures, muscle tension/electromyographic activity (EMG), signaling molecules, biochemical markers and immunologic profiles characteristic of the relaxation response, electroencephalographic measures (EEG), functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), measures of heart rate/heart rate fluctuations, and pain measures, as well as valid and reliable, state or trait psychometric measures (
4. Evaluate the causal mechanisms and effectiveness of a relaxation approach which evokes psychophysiological changes (collectively known as the relaxation response), that can, consequently, maintain or improve physical and/or mental health in one or more select populations (
a. Identify, and advance the knowledge related to, the acute psychophysiological response(s) and reliability of the response(s) that occur as a result of a single relaxation session (
b. Identify, and advance the knowledge related to, chronic psychophysiological responses (health promotion/disease prevention benefits) that occur as a result of involvement in multiple “relaxation” sessions repeated over a period of time (
c. Identify and describe the underlying processes, trigger, or causal mechanisms that mediate the relaxation approach, relaxation response and related health outcomes relationships.
5. Evaluate, and ultimately identify and describe characteristics (determinants/correlates) of those who initiate, adhere to, and benefit from, an approach which evokes the relaxation response; to include subject attributes such as belief systems, healthy versus chronic disease patients, gender, age, and race/ethnicity.
6. Publish the results of the research in journals and etc.
Use the information in the Program Requirements, Other Requirements, and Evaluation Criteria sections to develop the application content. Your application will be evaluated on the criteria listed, so it is important to follow them in laying out the program plan. The narrative addressing the scored criteria should be no more than 25 double-spaced pages, printed on one side, with one inch margins, and unreduced font. The application should be organized in the following sections.
Provide a clear and concise written statement of the project's purpose and major objectives, an outline of the major activities, and a time line of key milestones.
a. Describe the literature and demonstrate how mind (cognition) and body (physiology) interact.
b. Describe the impact on one or more health outcomes.
c. Synthesize state-of-the-art findings regarding the effectiveness of an approach that evokes the relaxation response that has been used with healthy persons and/or persons with chronic disease or disability, including documentation/referencing of the applicants own systematic and ongoing line of mind/body inquiry as evidenced by publications and/or presentations at professional scientific meetings.
d. Describe the unmet needs and information gaps as they relate to advancing a coordinated and comprehensive effort to promote health through the relaxation response, and how this project would move toward addressing these needs and gaps (
a. Describe the applicant's capability to conduct the project, taking into account its institutional experience, evidence of leadership, and ability to successfully do multi-disciplinary research for those activities required.
b. Describe the applicant's ability to attract and retain subjects such as establishing collaborations with one or more community-based partner(s) (health maintenance organizations; health clinics; foundations, schools) that can serve as a subject/patient/client referral source.
c. Describe the applicant's capacity to provide evidence of effective collaborations and linkages with partners, to meet the requirements of the project, including, if warranted, documented letters of support and commitments from those collaborating entities.
d. Describe the capacity of the applicant to gather necessary confidential, demographic and health outcome information regarding the study participants' characteristics that predict engaging in, maintaining, and/or benefitting from a relaxation approach, including the kinds and sources of information to be obtained, analyzed, and publicized, the staff/organizations charged with its control, and how these data would be protected and used.
a. Describe the research question(s) (that will advance the knowledge), scientific methods, and data analyses to
b. Describe the research question(s) (that will advance the knowledge), scientific methods, and data analyses to be employed to evaluate the chronic (
c. Describe the scientific methods to evaluate the hypothesized causal mechanisms that mediate the relaxation approach, relaxation response, and health outcomes relationship(s).
d. Describe the approach to (1) gather information on the determinants related to initiating, maintaining, and benefitting from a relaxation approach, including a brief review of currently available evidence, and/or plans to collect and analyze data that leads to an understanding of correlates which may predict who is attracted to initiating a relaxation approach, adherence rates to a relaxation approach, and the benefits gained (based on factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, health status, and one or more assessments related to belief systems, positive or negative affect, or other pertinent constructs); and (2) assess the perceptions, outcome expectancies, enjoyment, and/or actual response(s) or outcomes of persons based on their status as novice or experienced practitioners of a relaxation approach.
a. Present a management work plan for conducting the project, including the process (approach and methods) by which the applicant will meet established goals and objectives.
b. Provide a description of specific goals, objectives and time lines.
c. Provide a description of the major tasks and responsibilities for key positions including the applicant organization (include an organization chart and denote the relationship of this project within the applicant organization).
d. Describe how the applicant will evaluate its work plan, all collaborations, and activities related to the scope of the project.
Provide a line-item budget with a detail narrative justification that is consistent with the purpose and objectives of this grant.
Adequately address the requirements of Title 45CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects.
Submit the original and two copies of PHS-398 (OMB Number 0925-0001) (adhere to the instructions on the Errata Instruction Sheet for PHS-398). Forms are in the application kit.
On or before July 14, 2000, submit the application to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement. Deadline: Applications shall be considered as meeting the deadline if they are either:
(a) Received on or before the deadline date; or
(b) Sent on or before the deadline date. (Applicants must request a legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark or obtain a legibly dated receipt from a commercial carrier or U.S. Postal Service. Private metered postmarks shall not be acceptable as proof of timely mailing.)
Each application will be evaluated individually against the following criteria by an independent review group appointed by CDC.
This includes the degree to which the applicant:
a. Describe (1) the literature demonstrating how mind (cognition) and body (physiology) interact, and (2) impact on one or more health outcomes.
b. Synthesizes state-of-the-art findings regarding the effectiveness of an approach that evokes the relaxation response that has been used with healthy persons and/or persons with chronic disease or disability, including documentation/referencing of the applicants own systematic and ongoing line of mind/body inquiry as evidenced by publications and/or presentations at professional scientific meetings.
c. Describes the unmet needs and information gaps as they relate to advancing a coordinated and comprehensive effort to promote health through the relaxation response, and how this project would move toward addressing these needs and gaps (
a. The capability of the applicant to conduct the project, taking into account its institutional experience, evidence of leadership, and ability to successfully do multi-disciplinary research for those activities required.
b. The ability of the applicant to attract and retain subjects such as establishing collaborations with one or more community-based partner(s) (health maintenance organizations; health clinics; foundations, schools) that can serve as a subject/patient/client referral source.
c. The capacity of the applicant to provide evidence of effective collaborations and linkages with partners, to meet the requirements of the project, including, if warranted, documented letters of support and commitments from those collaborating entities.
d. The capacity of the applicant to gather necessary confidential, demographic and health outcome information regarding the study participants' characteristics that predict engaging in, maintaining, and/or benefitting from a relaxation approach, including the kinds and sources of information to be obtained, analyzed, and publicized, the staff/organizations charged with its control, and how these data would be protected and used.
a. Describe the research question(s) (that will advance the knowledge), scientific methods, and data analyses to be employed to assess the acute psychophysiological responses/benefits (
b. The research question(s) (that will advance the knowledge), scientific methods, and data analyses to be employed to evaluate the chronic (
c. The scientific methods to evaluate the hypothesized causal mechanisms that mediate the relaxation approach, relaxation response, and health outcomes relationship(s). (20 points)
d. The approach to (1) gather information on the determinants related to initiating, maintaining, and benefitting from a relaxation approach, including a brief review of currently available evidence, and/or plans to collect and analyze data that leads to an understanding of correlates which may predict who is attracted to initiating a relaxation approach, adherence rates to a relaxation approach, and the benefits gained (based on factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, health status, and one or more assessments related to belief systems, positive or negative affect, or other pertinent constructs); and (2) assess the perceptions, outcome expectancies, enjoyment, and/or actual response(s) or outcomes of persons based on their status as novice or experienced practitioners of a relaxation approach. (10 points)
a. The management work plan for conducting the project, including the process (approach and methods) by which the applicant will meet established goals and objectives.
b. The presentation of those specific goals, objectives and time lines.
c. The description of the major tasks and responsibilities for key positions including the applicant organization (include an organization chart and denote the relationship of this project within the applicant organization).
d. The description of how the applicant will evaluate his/her work plan, all collaborations, and activities related to the scope of the project.
e. The degree to which the applicant has met the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research. This includes:
(1) The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation.
(2) The proposed justification when representation is limited or absent.
(3) A statement as to whether the design of the study is adequate to measure differences when warranted.
(4) A statement as to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study participants include the process of establishing partnerships with community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.
This criteria includes the adequacy of the budget justification and its relationship to program operations and services. Each line item of the budget must be well justified in a detailed narrative with special attention given to contractual requests including the responsibilities of consultants, percentage time equivalents, hourly or daily rates, etc.
The relevance of this section to the other evaluation criteria will be measured on the extent to which the budget narrative is reasonable, clearly documented, accurate, and consistent with the purpose of this announcement.
Does the application adequately addresses the requirements of Title 45 CFR Part 46 for the protection of human subjects?
Provide CDC with original plus two copies of:
1. Annual progress reports;
2. Financial status report, due no more than 90 days after the end of each budget period; and
3. Final financial status and performance reports, due no more than 90 days after the end of the project period.
Send all reports to the Grants Management Specialist identified in the “Where to Obtain Additional Information” section of this announcement.
The following additional requirements are applicable to this program. For a complete description of each, see Attachment I in the application kit.
This program is authorized under the sections 301(a) and 317(k)(2) the Public Health Service Act, (42 U.S.C. 241(a) and 247b(k)(2)), as amended. The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number is 93.283.
This announcement and other CDC program announcements can be found on the CDC home page Internet address: http://www.cdc.gov. Click on “Funding” then “Grants and Cooperative Agreements.”
To obtain additional information, contact: Cynthia Collins, Grants Management Specialist, Grants Management Branch, Procurement and Grants Office, Announcement 000118, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2920 Brandywine Road, Room 3000 Atlanta, GA 30341-4146, telephone (770)-488-2757, E-mail: coc9@cdc.gov.
For program technical assistance, contact: Deborah Jones, Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, Atlanta, GA 30341-3724, telephone (770) 488-5593, E-mail address: DAJones@cdc.gov.
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), DHHS.
Notice of appeal.
By designation of the Administration for Children and Families, a member of the Departmental Appeals Board will be the presiding officer for appeals concerning ACF's imposition of Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System penalties for the States of California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York North Carolina,
Requests to participate as a party or as amicus curiae must be submitted to the Board in the form specified at 45 CFR 213.15 by June 1, 2000.
Sara Anderson, Staff Attorney, Departmental Appeals Board, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 637-D, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201, Telephone Number (202) 690-6044.
Notice of appeal is hereby given as set forth in the following letter, which has been sent to the following addressees:
This letter constitutes notice of a proceeding pursuant to 45 CFR part 213 to review the imposition of penalties by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) for noncompliance with the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System requirements.
Section 479 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 6779) required the Department of Health and Human Services to provide for the implementation of an Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) for the collection of data relating to adoption and foster care in the United States. The regulation implementing section 479, found at 45 CFR 1355.40, set forth standards for the collection and reporting of this data and penalties for failure to comply with those standards.
Beginning 1999, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) imposed a series of penalties for State's failure to meet the requirements of 45 CFR 1355.40 for the report periods October 1, 1997 through March 31, 1998, April 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998; and October 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999.
The States of California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin (the Appellants) appealed the imposition of such penalties. Initially, the Appellants appealed the penalties pursuant to section 1123A(c) of the Act and 45 CFR part 16. Subsequently, the Appellants and ACF agreed that the penalties would be reviewed pursuant to 45 CFR part 213.
The issue to be addressed in this Part 213 hearing is whether Appellants are subject to penalties under the AFCARS regulations on the ground that their AFCARS submissions were noncompliant and thereby constituted substantial failures of title IV-E State plan compliance.
This hearing will be upon briefs and other written submissions in lieu of live testimony unless the presiding officer determines, either sua sponte or in response to a request by any party, that the presentation of live testimony is necessary to assist the presiding officer in arriving at a recommended decision in any case. If a hearing for testimony is found to be necessary, it will be held on June 29 and 30, 2000, in the Departmental Appeals Board Hearing Room, Room 644-G, Hubert Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 20201.
Further, the parties have agreed as follows:
ACF will refund penalty payments made by Appellants and Appellants may retain all AFCARS penalty amounts without interest, pending a determination by the Assistant Secretary for ACF.
ACF will not require payment of additional penalties for noncomplaint AFCARS submissions, and no interest shall run on such unpaid penalties, until after a final determination in these Part 213 proceedings by the Assistant Secretary.
The merits of all AFCARS penalties appealed in these cases, as well as subsequent penalties issued against the Appellants prior to the Assistant Secretary's final determination will be incorporated into the Part 213 proceedings.
Discovery proceedings in the prior Board cases will be made part of the Part 213 proceeding.
The Assistant Secretary's decision will be the final decision of the Department.
I have designated Judith A. Ballard, a Departmental Appeals Board Member, as the presiding officer pursuant to 45 CFR 213.21. ACF and the Appellants are now parties in this matter. 45 CFR 213.15(a).
A copy of this letter will appear as a Notice in the
Any interested person or organization wishing to participate as amicus curiae may also file a petition with the presiding officer, which shall conform to the requirements at 45 CFR 213.15(c)(2). This petition should be filed within 15 days after this notice, in time to permit the presiding officer an adequate opportunity to consider and rule upon it.
Any further inquiries, submissions, or correspondence regarding this matter should be filed in an original and two copies with Ms. Ballard at the Departmental Appeals Board, Room 637-D, Hubert H. Humphrey, Building, 200 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20201, where the record in this matter will be kept. Each submission must include a statement that a copy of the material has been sent to the other party, identifying when and to whom the copy was sent. Please refer to Board Docket Nos. A-2000-59 (California, Florida, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin);
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, DHHS.
Notice.
The Head Start Act, as amended 42 U.S.C. 9801
The Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Head Start Bureau announces the availability of $1,000,000 in funds for one Priority Area: Head Start—Higher Education Hispanic Service Partnerships (HS-HEHSP). This priority area will support efforts to improve the quality and long-term effectiveness of Head Start and Early Head Start programs serving Hispanic children and their families by developing models of academic training and forming partnerships between the Higher Education Institutions and local Head Start and Early Head Start programs.
The closing date and time for receipt of application is July 12, 2000 at 5 p.m. (Eastern Time Zone).
Applications should be submitted to the ACYF Operations Center at: HS-HEHSP, 1815 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300 Arlington, Virginia 22209. However, in order to satisfactorily compete under this announcement it will be necessary for potential applicants to read the full announcement with application guidelines, which is available through the addresses listed below.
Applications, including all necessary forms can be downloaded from the Head Start web site at
ACYF Operations Center at: 1815 N. Fort Myer Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, Virginia 22209 or (1-800) 351-2293.
Reviewers will consider the following factors when assigning points.
The extent to which the application identifies relevant physical, economic, social, financial, institutional or other problems requiring a grant; demonstrates the need for assistance; and states the principal and subordinate objectives of the project.
The extent to which the application identifies the results and benefits to be derived; describes the anticipated contribution to policy, practice, theory and/or research, specific benefits should be described for both the Higher Education Institution and Head Start/Migrant Head Start/Early Head Start partners.
The extent to which the application outlines an acceptable plan of action pertaining to the scope of the project which details how the proposed work will be accomplished, including a timeline; list of each organization, consultants, including the evaluator, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution; and assures the adequacy of time devoted to the project by key staff. The key staff should be knowledgeable of Head Start, Migrant Head Start and Early Head Start. The applicant must fully describe the approach and/or methodology and delineate the relationship of each task to the accomplishment of the proposed objectives. There should be evidence that the planned approach reflects sufficient input from and partnership with Head Start/Migrant Head Start/Early Head Start and the Higher Education Institution.
The extent of the demonstrated capacity of the applicant organization, key leaders, managers and project personnel to:
(1) Provide high quality, relevant, and responsive training to Head Start staff;
(2) Assure participating project staff are competent to plan and deliver appropriate course material to Head Start trainees that is culturally relevant;
(3) Manage the implementation of the training grant in an effective and timely manner; and
(4) Manage successful partnership that involve sharing resources, staffing, and facilities.
The extent to which the project's costs are reasonable and appropriate in view of the activities to be carried out and the anticipated outcomes. Provide a line item detail for the costs of attendance of two representatives of the project (one from the Higher Education Institution and one from the participating Head Start partner) to attend a two-day meeting in Washington, DC. It is the expectation that applicants should limit budget projections to those costs necessary to build institutional capacity for and execute training and career development partnerships with participating Head Start grantees.
This program is covered under Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, and 45 CFR part 100, Intergovernmental Review of Department of Health and Human Services Program and Activities. Under the Order, States may design their own processes for reviewing and commenting on proposal Federal assistance under covered programs.
* All States and Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnestoa, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New
Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards.
SPOCs are encouraged to eliminate the submission of routine endorsements as official recommendations.
Additonally, SPOCs are requested to clearly differentiate between mere advisory comments and those official State process recommendations which may trigger the accommodation or explain rule.
When comments are submitted directly to ACF, they should be addressed to: William Wilson, Head Start Bureau, 330 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20447, Attn: Head Start-Higher Education Hispanic Service Partnerships. A list of the Single Points of Contact (SPOCs) for each State and Territory can be found on the following web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants/spoc.html.
Family and Youth Services Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, ACF, HHS.
This notice announces the availability of financial assistance for FY 2000 Basic Center Program for Runaway and Homeless Youth (BCP), FY 2001 Transitional Living Program (TLP), FY 2000 Street Outreach Program (SOP), and the FY 2000 Youth Development State Collaboration Demonstration Projects (SCDP).
This Notice announces the availability of the official FY 2000 Program Announcement. The official announcement must be used to apply for grant funding under the competitive grant areas and is available by calling or writing the ACYF Operations Center (address below) or by downloading the announcement from the FYSB website at
The deadlines for
Applications may be hand delivered to the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. (EDT), Monday through Friday (excluding Federal Holidays).
Applicants are responsible for mailing and delivering applications well in advance of deadlines to ensure that the applications are received on time. Applications received after 4:30 p.m. (EDT) on the deadline date will be classified as late. Postmarks and other similar documents do not establish receipt of an application.
ACF will not accept applications delivered by fax or e-mail regardless of date or time of submission and receipt.
Grant awards for FY 2000 funds will be made by September 30, 2000 for the Basic Center and Street Outreach Program. Transitional Living Program grant awards for FY 2001 will be made after September 30, 2000. Grant awards for the Youth Development State Collaboration Demonstration Projects will be made by September 30, 2000, based on the availability of funds. If funds are not available for the State Collaboration Projects on September 30, 2000, we anticipate that successful applicants will be awarded funding during the second quarter of FY 2001 (January, February, and March, 2001).
The estimated funds available for new starts and the approximate number of new grants that may be awarded under this program announcement are as follows:
In addition to the new start grants, the Administration for Children and Families has provided for noncompetitive continuation funds to current grantees in the following programs:
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the official Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Current Basic Center grantees with project periods ending on or before September 30, 2000, and all other eligible applicants not currently receiving Basic Center funds may apply for a new competitive Basic Center grant under this announcement.
Current Basic Center Program grantees (including subgrantees) with one or two years remaining on their current grant and the expectation of continuation funding in FY 2000 may not apply for a new Basic Center grant for the community they currently serve. These grantees will receive instructions from their respective ACF Regional Offices on the procedures for applying for noncompetitive continuation grants.
• Alleviate problems of runaway and homeless youth;
• Reunite youth with their families and encourage the resolution of intrafamily problems through counseling and other services;
• Strengthen family relationships and encourage stable living conditions for youth; and
• Help youth decide upon constructive courses of action.
Current TLP grantees with project periods ending on or before September 30, 2001, and all other eligible applicant not currently receiving TLP funds may apply for a new competitive TLP grant under this announcement for awards in FY 2001.
Current TLP grantees (including subgrantees) with one or two years remaining on their current awards and the expectation of continuation funding in Fiscal Year 2001 may not apply for a new TLP grant under this announcement. These grantees will receive instructions from their respective ACF Region/Hub Offices on the procedures for applying for non-competitive continuation grants.
Current Street Outreach Program grantees with project periods ending on or before September 30, 2000, and all other eligible applicants not currently receiving SOP funds may apply for a new competitive SOP grant under this announcement.
Current Street Outreach Program grantees (including subgrantees) with one or two years remaining on their current grant and the expectation of continuation funding in FY 2000 may not apply for a new Street Outreach grant for the community they currently serve. These grantees will receive instructions from their respective ACF Regional Offices on the procedures for applying for continuation grants.
Applications will be judged on how clearly they identify the physical, economic, social, financial, institutional, and/or other problem(s) requiring a solution. The need for assistance must be demonstrated and the principal and subordinate objectives of the project must be clearly stated. Applications will need to specify the goals and objectives of the project and how implementation will fulfill the purposes of the program. Applications should describe the conditions of youth and families in the area to be served; the incidence and characteristics of runaway, homeless or street youth and their families; the existing support systems for at-risk youth and families in the area, including other agencies providing services to runaway and homeless youth in the area.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applications will be judged on how clearly they identify the results and benefits to be derived, specify services to be provided, who will receive services, where and how these services will be provided, and how the services will benefit the youth families and the community to be served. Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area
Applications will be judged on how clearly they outline a plan of action which: describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished; accounts for all functions or activities identified in the application; cites factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and reasons for taking the proposed approached rather than others. Applications are encouraged to describe any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Applications will be expected to provide quantitative monthly or quarterly projections of the accomplishments to be achieved for each function or activity in such terms as the number of youth to be served and the results of those services, including data required for annual reporting to the Secretary of HHS. Applicants must agree to cooperate with any research or evaluation efforts sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families and to submit the required Annual Report to the Secretary of HHS on program activities and accomplishments with statistical summaries and other required program and financial reports, as instructed by FYSB.
Applications will be judged on the extent to which they described the program's youth development approach or philosophy and indicate how it underlies and integrates all proposed activities. Applicants will be expected to list organizations, cooperating entities, consultants, or other key individuals who will work on the project along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution; describe formal service linkages and plans for coordination with other agencies; describe plans for conducting outreach and encouraging awareness of and sensitivity to the diverse needs of runaway and homeless youth who represent particular ethnic and racial backgrounds and sexual orientations. Applicants are encouraged to describe the type, capacity and staff supervision of the shelter that will be available for youth.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applicants will be judged on whether they provide a resume and biographical sketch for each key person appointed and a job description for each vacant key position. A biographical sketch will also be required for new key staff as appointed. Applicants will be expected to list organizations and consultants who will work on the program along with a short description of the nature of their effort or contribution.
Applicants will be expected to provide information on plans for training project staff as well as staff of cooperating organizations and individuals and state the expected or estimated ratio of staff to youth.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applicants will be expected to provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners such as organizational charts, financial statements, audit reports or statements from CPAs/Licensed Public Accounts. Any non-profit organization submitting an application must submit of its non-profit status in its application at the time of submission. Bonus points shall be awarded to applicant organizations who have demonstrated experience in providing services to runaway, homeless and street youth.
Applicants will be expected to provide a plan for project continuance beyond grant support, including a plan for securing resources and continuing project activities after Federal assistance has ceased and an annotated listing of applicant's funding sources. Such plans should include written agreements, if applicable, between grantees and subgrantees or subcontractors or other cooperating and letters of support and statements from community, public and commercial leaders that support the project proposed for funding.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applicants will be expected to provide a detailed line item budget and a narrative budget justification that describes how the categorical costs are derived. Applicants will be judged on how clearly they discuss the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs and how clearly they describe the fiscal control and accounting procedures that will be used to ensure prudent use, proper disbursement and accurate accounting of funds received.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applications will be judged on how clearly they specify the goals and objectives to be addressed through the Youth Development State Collaboration Demonstration Project and how these objectives are relevant to youth-related needs within the State or Tribal jurisdiction. For the purpose of this project, youth are defined as individuals between the ages of 10-24.
Applicants are expected to discuss the State's or Tribe's current framework of philosophy for addressing youth issues, including how that framework is reflected in policies and existing youth services. Applicants are expected to describe any youth development activities that are currently in place at the State or Tribal level, how those activities affect local youth services and the need for further efforts in this area. Applicants should discuss the extent of current coordination among State or Tribal agencies and programs on youth issues and existing coordination with local youth service providers, as well as the need for additional collaboration.
Applicants should describe the ability to leverage strong commitment and support at the executive level for this project.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applications will be judged on the extent to which they clearly describe interim and final results and benefits expected of this project, especially in regard to support of youth development and coordination around youth issues and services, including changes in policies, processes, programs and initiatives resulting from this grant, how these changes will be implemented, and the expected legislative, programmatic or administrative results.
Applicants are expected to describe planned results of efforts to strengthen and/or establish effective communication and collaboration and how these will enhance services to young people, providing concrete examples of desired changes in local services and State or Tribal policy making processes.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applications will be judged on how clearly they outline a plan of action which describes the scope and detail of how the proposed work will be accomplished; accounts for all functions or activities identified in the application; includes information that clarifies the activities that will be undertaken to introduce and support a youth development approach at the State or Tribal and local levels; cites factors which might accelerate or decelerate the work and reasons for taking the proposed approach rather than others; describes any unusual features of the project such as design or technological innovations, reductions in cost or time, or extraordinary social and community involvement.
Applicants are expected to discuss legislative, administrative and judicial factors that may be barriers to increased collaboration and the establishment and support of a youth development approach and should describe plans to address and overcome these barriers. Applicants are expected to clearly identify a State or Tribal Youth Development Coordinator who will be responsible for activities under this grant and must also identify where the project will be located organizationally.
Applications will be judged on how clearly they explain the methodology that will be used for interim and final evaluation of the project.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applicants are expected to provide a resume and biographical sketch for each key person appointed and a job description for each vacant key position. A biographical sketch will also be required for new key staff as appointed.
Applications should demonstrate sufficient personnel resources and staff competence to assure that project activities can be successfully carried out and list each consultant, or key individuals who will work on the project.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applicants are expected to provide information on the applicant organization(s) and cooperating partners, including information such as organization charts, along with a brief description of the nature of their contribution and knowledge of and experience with youth development, youth issues and youth and family services.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Applicants are expected to provide a detailed line item budget and a narrative budget justification that described how the categorical costs are derived; discusses the necessity, reasonableness, and allocability of the proposed costs; and discusses and justifies the costs of the proposed project in terms of types and quantities of activities to be implemented and the anticipated results and benefits.
Applicants are expected to describe the fiscal control and accounting procedures that will be used to ensure the prudent use, proper disbursement and accurate accounting of funds received under this program announcement.
Applicants must refer to the specific evaluation criteria for each competitive area contained in the full Program Announcement in order to adequately prepare their applications.
Most portions of this program are covered under Executive Order 12372,
All States Territories except Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Palau, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and American Samoa have elected to participate in the Executive Order process and have established Single Points of Contact (SPOCs). Applicants from these twenty-three jurisdictions need take no action regarding E.O. 12372. Applicants for projects to be administered by Federally-recognized Indian Tribes are also exempt from the requirements of E.O. 12372. Otherwise, applicant should contact their SPOCs as soon as possible to alert them of the prospective applications and receive any necessary instructions. Applicants must submit any required material to the SPOCs as soon as possible so that the program office can obtain and review SPOC comments as part of the award process. It is imperative that the applicant submit all required materials, if any, to the SPOC and indicate the date of this submittal (or the date of contact if no submittal is required) on the Application for Federal Assistance, Standard Form 424, item 16.
Under 45 CFR 100.8(a)(2), a SPOC has 60 days from the application deadline to comment on proposed new or competing continuation awards. A list of the Single Points of Contact for each State and Territory can be found on the web site
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), announcement is made of the following National Advisory body scheduled to meet during the month of June 2000.
The meeting is open to the public.
Anyone requiring information regarding the Committee should contact Peter C. van Dyck, M.D., M.P.H., Executive Secretary, ACIM, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Room 18-05, Parklawn Building, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone (301) 443-2170.
Individuals who are interested in attending any portion of the meeting or who have questions regarding the meeting should contact Ms. Kerry P. Nesseler, HRSA, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Telephone (301) 443-2170.
Agenda items are subject to change as priorities are further determined.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of application.
The following applicant has applied for a permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531,
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass) piping plover (
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MI 55111-4056, and must be received within 30 days of the date of this publication.
Documents and other information submitted with this application are available for review by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Operations, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, MI 55111-4056. Telephone: (612/713-5343); FAX: (612/713-5292).
Notice; request for comments.
The FGDC is conducting a pubic review of the National Hydrographic Data Content Standard for Coastal and Inland Waterways (hereafter called the Hydrographic Standard). The purpose of this public review is to
Participants in the public review are encouraged to provide comments that address specific issues/changes/additions that may result in revisions to the draft Hydrographic Standard. After formal endorsement of the standard by the FGDC, the standard and analysis of the comments will be made available to the public.
Comments must be received on or before August 31, 2000.
The draft standard may be downloaded via Internet address
Request for printed copies of the standard should be addressed to “Hydrographic Data Content Standard,” FGDC Secretariat, U.S. Geological Survey, 590 National Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192 or facsimile 703-648-5755 or Internet at gdc@usgs.gov.
Reviewer's comments may be sent to FGDC via Internet mail to gdc-hydro
Geospatial hydrographic data for waterways, shorelines, coastlines, etc. that supports transportation applications has been specified as one of the key framework information layers for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). The objective of the Hydrographic Standard project is to develop a nationally focused hydrographic data content standard for spatial data that supports safety of navigation. When complete, this standard will provide a consistent catalog of terms and definitions (semantics) to ensure uniform interpretation of information across a variety of organizations that develop and use hydrographic feature data and applications. This standard is based upon a well known logical data model for geospatial data of features, attributes, and domain values that is consistent with the spatial Data Transfer Standard/Federal Information Processing Standard (SDTS/FIPS 173 part 2).
The scope of this Hydrographic Standard project first focused on developing a catalog of hydrographic feature terms and definitions pertaining to navigation of coastal and inland waterways. In that the guidance from the NSDI concentrated on transportation/navigation, the team limited the scope to information relating to charting and electronic chart display applications. This standard will
There has never been a national data content standard for hydrographic data that support navigation applications; yet there has been interest from federal agencies, private industry, and the public for a uniform presentation of this type information for some time. A data content standard that supports navigation applications will ensure effective use of geospatial data across different agencies, organizations, and other users.
This standard was developed under the guidance and procedures specified by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) under the authority of the Bathymetric Subcommittee. The FGDC announced the initiation of this Hydrographic Standard project in the
The first step after the formation of a Hydrographic Standard project team was to agree upon the scope of this Hydrographic Standard. The project team then reviewed key documents that consisted of adopted standards and systems that had developed and used hydrographic feature data. The next step for the project team was to develop a master list of candidate features extracted from the following standards documents:
• International Hydrographic Organization's S57 (IHO S-57) Appendix A, Object Catalog for Digital Hydrographic Data, an intergovernmental consultative and technical organization working to support the safety of navigation and the protection of the marine environment.
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO) Digital Geographic Information Exchange Standard (DIGEST) Part 4, Feature Attribute Coding Catalog (FACC), a comprehensive coding scheme for features and their attributes. This allows for joint naval operations between sovereign countries and requires naval personnel to have familiarity amongst traditional S-57 and FACC.
• Tri-Service Spatial Data Standard (TSSDS Release 1.8), which is primarily used for civil and military installation mapping and facility management.
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Regional Engineering and Environmental Geographic Information System (REEGIS) project's data dictionary for inland waterways and primarily used by the USACE for engineering, navigation and flood control structures along the Mississippi River.
Next, the project team reviewed the master feature list and eliminated those clearly outside of the agreed to scope. A detailed comparison of feature terms and definitions extracted from the aforementioned standards was conducted. From this effort, the team was able to derive a standard feature term and definition for each feature. As a byproduct of this activity, a matrix was developed, which provides a mapping to related terms, or features, contained in each or the source standards. These matrices are included as appendices.
The project team has extracted all the attributes derived from the aforementioned standards and culled this list of attributes down to a subset of core attributes to include in the hydrographic standard. The project team created a domain list for each “category” of feature to facilitate the cross-reference. Other attributes have been grouped into logical collections applicable to individual features to ease implementation. Finally, a draft Hydrographic Standard document was generated to include the features, attributes, and domain terms and definitions lists, and additional descriptive documentation as specified by the FGDC directives on creating an NSDI standard.
The Bathymetric Subcommittee originally proposed the development of this Hydrographic Standard as an FGDC standard. The Bathymetric Subcommittee and the Standards Working Group of the FGDC will pursue a joint FGDC and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) adoption of this standard. This joint approach will require the development of an ANSI standard proposal and potentially a joint ANSI and FGDC public review. The Bathymetric Subcommittee will consider (at a later date) promoting parts of this standard (e.g., inland waterways information) that are not currently part of the S-57 standard to International Hydrographic Organization for inclusion in their standard.
This Hydrographic Data Content Standard for Coastal and Inland Waterways will facilitate semantic consistency when capturing geospatial hydrographic information in a GIS or CADD database. This standard will support the exchange of spatial data between different GIS/CADD software packages. The standard will also facilitate effective exchange of geospatial data across multiple agencies, organizations and other users. This standard will provide for consistency of semantics contained in spatial hydrographic data that enable the development of consistent military and commercial navigation applications for that query, analyze this information and interpreted this information for display of electronic charts. Cost savings associated with reducing the translating geospatial hydrographic information and building navigation applications should also be realized.
The U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service (NOS), NOAA Coastal Services Center will maintain the National Hydrographic Data Content Standard for Coastal and Inland Waterways for the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Address general questions concerning the content of this standard to David Stein, Secretary, FGDC Bathymetric Subcommittee at NOAA Coastal Services Center; 2234 South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, SC 29405-2413 or by E-mail: Dave.Stein@noaa.gov.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
This action informs the public of the transfer of PD lands into trust for the Coquille Tribe and designated as the Coquille Forest.
Gregg Nelson, BLM Coos Bay District, 1300 Airport Land, North Bend, Oregon 97459, 541-751-4473.
Title V, Sec. 501(a) of the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996, contained in Division B of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriation Act of 1997, Public Law 104-208, mandated the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to transfer into trust certain federal lands in perpetuity for the Coquille Tribe. The legislation directed that the transferred land be designated as the Coquille Forest. That land transfer was completed on September 30, 1998. The legislation also required redesignation of sufficient land to revested O&C and reconveyed CBWR grant land status to maintain the current (pre-transfer) flow of revenue to the O&C counties. Other than the proposed change in status, redesignated lands will continue to be managed in accordance with the current Coos Bay District Resource Management Plan completed in May, 1995.
The following PD lands in Lane, Douglas, and Curry Counties, Oregon have been examined and found suitable for redesignation and conversion to O&C status for management under the provisions of the O&C Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 874):
The above mentioned lands total 5,451.16 acres, more or less.
The following PD lands in Coos County, Oregon has been examined and found suitable for redesignation and conversion to CBWR status for management under the provisions of the O&C Act of August 28, 1937 (50 Stat. 874):
The above mentioned lands total 2,730.47 acres, more or less.
Detailed information regarding this action is available for review at the office of the Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management, 1300 Airport Lane, North Bend, Oregon 97459.
For a period of 45 days from the publication of this notice in the
Interested parties may submit comments involving the suitability of these PD lands for redesignation to O&C and CBWR status. Comments on the redesignation 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.
Comments received on the redesignation will be answered by the State Director with the right to further comment to the Secretary. In the absence of any adverse comments, the redesignation will become effective 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of realty action; direct sale of public lands in Sweetwater County.
The Bureau of Land Management has determined that the lands described below are suitable for public sale under section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1713:
The above lands aggregate 0.06 acre.
Becky Heick, Realty Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, 280 Highway 191 North, Rock Springs, Wyoming 82901, 307-352-0344.
The Bureau of Land Management proposes to sell the surface estate of the above land to Mr. David Palmer, an adjacent landowner, by direct sale, at fair market value. The disposal of this land will allow for the development of a subdivision lot, in which the 0.06 acre of land will provide the required set back distances for a dwelling.
The proposed sale is consistent with the Green River Resource Management Plan and would serve important public objectives which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly elsewhere. The lands contain no other known public values. The planning document and environmental assessment covering the proposed sale are available for review at the Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office Office, Rock Springs, Wyoming.
Conveyance of the above public lands will be subject to:
1. Reservation of a right-of-way to the United States for ditches and canals pursuant to the Act of August 30, 1890, 43 U.S.C. 945.
2. Reservation of all minerals pursuant to section 209(a) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1719.
There will be no decrease of federal acres or AUMs within the Rock Springs Grazing Allotment due to the small size of the subject parcel.
Upon publication of this notice in the
For a period of 45 days after issuance of this notice, interested parties may submit comments to the Field Manager, Rock Springs Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, 280 Hwy. 191 North, Rock Springs, WY. Any adverse comments will be evaluated by the State Director who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action. In the absence of any objections, this proposed realty action will become final.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before May 6, 2000. Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60 written comments concerning the significance of these properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation may be forwarded to the National Register, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW, NC400, Washington, DC 20240. Written comments should be submitted by June 1, 2000.
Piggott, 00000604.
Hot Springs, 00000606
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective June 2, 1999, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and the Department of Commerce by Bethlehem Steel Corporation (Bethlehem, PA); U.S. Steel Group (Pittsburgh, PA); Ispat Inland, Inc. (East Chicago, IL); LTV Steel Co., Inc. (Cleveland, OH); National Steel Corporation (Mishawaka, IN); Gulf States Steel, Inc. (Gadsden, AL); Steel Dynamics, Inc. (Butler, IN); Weirton Steel Corporation (Weirton, WV); and the United States Steelworkers of America, Pittsburgh, PA. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by the Department of Commerce that imports of cold-rolled steel from Turkey and Venezuela were being sold at LTFV within the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on May 4, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3297 (May 2000), entitled Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Turkey and Venezuela: Investigations Nos. 731-TA-839-840 (Final).
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on May 3, 1999 (64 FR 23675) and determined on August 25, 1999 that it would conduct full reviews (64 FR 46407, August 25, 1999). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on May 9, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3296 (May 2000), entitled Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide from Greece and Japan: Investigations Nos. 731-TA 406 and 408 (Review).
Issued: May 12, 2000.
By order of the Commission.
Application booklets—Attorney General's Honor program, Summer law intern program.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval is sought for the information collection listed below. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments. Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 30 days until June 16, 2000. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 Code of Federal Regulation, Part 1320.10. Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the 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 Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Clarisa Rodriguez-Coelho, Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC, 20530. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to 202-395-7285. Comments may also be
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency/component, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies/components estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, 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 collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Overview of this information collection:
(1)
(2)
(3) The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection. Form number: None. Office of Attorney Personnel Management, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract. Primary: Individuals or households. Other: None. This data collected is the only vehicle for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hire graduating law students. This application form submitted voluntarily, submitted only once a year by students/judicial law clerks who will be in this applicant pool only once; and the information sought by relates to the hiring criteria established as an internal matter by DOJ personnel.
(5)
(6)
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed Job Corps Center to be located at the former Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center, 5445 Point Clair Road, Carville, Iberville Parish, Louisiana.
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR part 1500-08) implementing procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Job Corps gives final notice of the proposed construction of a new Job Corps Center at the former Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center, 5445 Point Clair Road, Carville, Iberville Parish, Louisiana, and that this construction will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment. In accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d) and 40 CFR 1501.4(e)(2), a preliminary FONSI for the new Job Corps Center was published in the March 27, 2000
ETA has reviewed the conclusion of the environmental assessment (EA), and agrees with the finding of no significant impact. This notice serves as the Final Finding of No Significant Impact for the new Job Corps Center at the former Gillis W. Long Hansen's Disease Center, 5445 Point Clair Road, Carville, Iberville Parish, Louisiana. The preliminary FONSI and the EA are adopted in final with no change.
May 17, 2000.
Eric Luetkenhaus, Employment and Training Administration, Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-4659, Washington, DC, 20210; (202) 219-5468 ext 118 (this is not a toll-free number).
Notice.
The Department of Labor, 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 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 provide 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. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is soliciting comments concerning the proposed revision of the Labor Market Information (LMI) Cooperative Agreement. A copy of the proposed information collection request (ICR) can be obtained by contacting the individual listed in the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Sytrina D. Toon, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room 3255, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20212, telephone number 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll free number).
Sytrina D. Toon, BLS Clearance Officer, telephone number 202-691-7628. (See
The BLS enters into Cooperative Agreements with State Employment Security Agencies (SESAs) annually to provide financial assistance to the SESAs for the production and operation of the following LMI statistical programs: Current Employment Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Covered Employment and Wages Report, and Mass Layoff Statistics. The Cooperative Agreement provides the basis for managing the administrative and financial aspects of these programs.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
The existing collection of information allows Federal staff to negotiate the Cooperative Agreement with the SESAs, and to monitor their financial and programmatic performance and adherence to administrative requirements imposed by regulations implementing OMB Circular A-102 and other grant-related regulations. The information collected also is used for planning and budgeting at the Federal level and in meeting Federal reporting requirements.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the Working Group assigned by the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans to study the issue of phased retirement will hold an open public meeting on Thursday, June 1, 2000 in Room N-5437 A-D, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 9:30 a.m. to approximately noon, is for Working Group members to hear testimony concerning workforce demographic trends and current practices in phased retirement plans.
Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before May 26, 200 to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Working Group should forward their request to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact Sharon Morrissey by May 26 at the address indicated in this notice.
Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the meeting if received on or before May 26.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting will be held Thursday, June 1, 2000 of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Working Group assigned to study Long-Term Care: Issues and Solutions
The session will take place in Room N-5437 A-D, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 1 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m., is for working group members to take testimony focusing on long-term care indemnification in the marketplace today. Subtopics will be: Who purchases long-term policies? What services are typically included: What do they cost? What factors influences cost? How can policies be made more affordable to the consumer?
Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before May 26, 2000 to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, room N-54677, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Working Group should forward their request to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact Sharon Morrissey by May 26 at the address indicated in this notice.
Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the meeting if received on or before May 26.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 110th open meeting of the full Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans will be held Friday, June 2, 2000 in Room N-5437 A-D, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Third and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
The purpose of the meeting, which will begin at 1:30 p.m. and end at approximately 3 p.m., is for the three working groups to provide progress reports on their topics of study and for the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration to update members on current employee benefit activities.
Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement pertaining to any topics the Council elected to study for the year by submitting 20 copies on or before May 26, 2000 to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Suite N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210.
Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Advisory Council should forward their requests to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations will be limited to ten minutes, time permitting, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities, who need special accommodations, should contact Sharon Morrissey by May 26 at the address indicated.
Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the meeting if received on or before May 26, 2000.
Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, a public meeting will be held Friday, June 2, 2000 of the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and Pension Benefit Plans Working Group assigned to study benefit continuity after organizational restructuring.
The session will take place in Room N-5437 A-D, U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 9:30 a.m. to approximately noon, is for working group members to continue taking testimony on the legal framework governing employee benefit plan continuity during organizational restructuring and ramifications for these plans under Title I and II of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before May 26, 2000 to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations wishing to address the Working Group should forward their request to the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact Sharon Morrissey by May 26 at the address indicated in this notice.
Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the record without testifying Twenty (20) copies of such statements should be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the meeting if received on or before May 26.
The Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation will meet on May 25, 2000, via conference call. The meeting will begin at 4:00 p.m. and continue until conclusion of the Board's agenda.
750 First Street, NE, 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20002, in Room 11026.
Open.
1. Approval of the agenda.
2. Consider and act on the Board of Director's comments on the Inspector General's Semiannual Report to Congress for the Period October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000.
3. Consider and act on other business.
Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, (202) 336-8800.
Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments, Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend the meeting may notify Shannon Nicko Adaway, at (202) 336-8800.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: New
2. The title of the information collection: Generic Customer Satisfaction Survey
3. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 671, Request for Review of a Customer Satisfaction Survey Under Generic Clearance
4. How often the collection is required: Occasionally
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Voluntary reporting by the public and NRC licensees
6. An estimate of the number of responses: 1250 (250 responses/survey x 5 surveys)
7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 1250
8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 313 (1250 responses x 0.25 hrs/response)
9. An indication of whether section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 applies: N/A
10. Abstract: Voluntary customer satisfaction surveys will be used to contact users of NRC services and products to determine their needs, and how the Commission can improve its services and products to better meet those needs. In addition, focus groups will be contacted to discuss questions concerning those services and products. Results from the surveys will give insight into how NRC can make its services and products cost effective, efficient, and responsive to its customer needs. Each survey will be submitted to OMB for its review.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (lower level), Washington, DC. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide web site (http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/PUBLIC/OMB/index.html). The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by June 16, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date.
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-20, issued to Consumers Energy Company (the licensee) for operation of the Palisades Plant located in Van Buren County, Michigan.
The proposed amendment would change the expiration date of the operating license to 40 years from the date of issuance of the license rather than the date of the construction permit. Specifically, the proposed amendment would change the expiration date of Palisades Plant Facility Operating License No. DPR-20, as stated in License Condition 2.H of the Amended Facility Operating License from “midnight on March 14, 2007” to “midnight on March 24, 2011.”
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
By June 16, 2000, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made 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 which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to Arunas T. Udrys, Esquire, Consumers Energy Company, 212 West Michigan Avenue, Jackson, MI 49201, attorney for the licensee.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
If a request for a hearing is received, the Commission's staff may issue the amendment after it completes its technical review and prior to the completion of any required hearing if it publishes a further notice for public comment of its proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration in accordance with 10 CFR 50.91 and 50.92.
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated April 27, 2000, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov).
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of May 15, 22, 29, June 5, 12, and 19, 2000.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.
Public and closed.
There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of June 5.
The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording) (301) 415-1292.
Bill Hill, (301) 415-1661.
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/schedule.htm
This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to it, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations Branch, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1661). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or dkw@nrc.gov.
Pursuant to Public Law 97-415, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. Public Law 97-415 revised section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), to require the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, under a new provision of section 189 of the Act. This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from April 22, 2000, through May 5, 2000. The last biweekly notice was published on May 3, 2000 (65 FR 25761).
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not: (1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received before action is taken. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this
By June 16, 2000, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) The nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington DC, by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the attorney for the licensee.
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 factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).
Standard 1—Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change will change the Reactor Protection System (RPS) reactor coolant flow trip setpoints. The RPS functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The changes to the low reactor coolant flow trip setpoints will reduce or eliminate unnecessary challenges to the RPS. Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
These changes will result in an increased time delay for the RPS low reactor coolant flow trip. The reanalysis of the affected Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Chapter 15 event (UFSAR 15.3.4, Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break with Loss of Offsite Power), with the increased time delay, shows that the dose consequences for this event remains bounded by the UFSAR analysis. Therefore, this change does not involve a significant increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
Standard 2—Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change will change the RPS reactor coolant flow trip setpoints. The RPS functions to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The changes to the low reactor coolant flow trip setpoints will reduce or eliminate unnecessary challenges to the RPS. The proposed change only changes the mitigating actions of the RPS, without changing the required function of the RPS. Therefore, the change to the low reactor coolant flow trip setpoints does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Standard 3—Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The proposed change will change the RPS reactor coolant flow trip setpoints. The reanalysis of the affected UFSAR Chapter 15 event (UFSAR 15.3.4, Reactor Coolant Pump Shaft Break with Loss of Offsite Power), with the revised reactor coolant flow trip setpoints, shows that the minimum departure from nucleate boiling ratio (DNBR) and specified acceptable fuel design limits (SAFDLs) for this event remains bounded by the UFSAR analysis. Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on that review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
1. Operation with the maximum 24 hour average UHS water temperature as high as 90.5°F does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The BSEP SW [Service Water] system is designed to provide cooling water for the removal of heat from equipment required for a safe reactor shutdown following a Design Basis Accident (DBA) or transient. This equipment includes the Diesel Generators (DGs), Residual Heat Removal (RHR) pump seal coolers, room cooling units for Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) equipment, and Residual Heat Removal Service Water (RHRSW) heat exchangers. The SW system also provides cooling to other components, as required, during normal operation. The SW system is not an initiator of any previously evaluated accident. The safety related components associated with SW cooling have been analyzed for a maximum UHS temperature of 92°F. The proposed change maintains this maximum UHS temperature. As such, the qualification of safety related components is not affected. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of a previously evaluated accident is not increased.
The new maximum 24 hour average UHS water temperature limit of 90.5° F has been evaluated and it was determined that the SW system will maintain sufficient heat removal capability. Existing TS operability requirements for the UHS ensure that conservatively bounding assumptions used in the analysis of the SW system's heat removal capability will be met, or the UHS will be declared inoperable. As such, the consequences of previously analyzed accidents are not affected[.]
2. Operation with the maximum 24 hour average UHS water temperature as high as 90.5°F will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Increasing the maximum 24 hour average UHS water temperature does not create the possibility of an accident of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis report. UHS water temperature does not represent an accident initiator. There is no physical change to any plant structure, system, or components. Therefore, there is no possibility of an accident of a different type.
Increasing the maximum 24 hour average UHS water temperature does not create the possibility of a malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously. The safety related components associated with SW cooling have been analyzed for a maximum UHS temperature of 92°F. This maximum UHS temperature is maintained by the proposed change. As such, this condition does not introduce the possibility of a malfunction of a different type than any evaluated.
3. Operation with the maximum 24 hour average UHS water temperature as high as 90.5°F does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
UHS temperature limits are established to ensure that the SW system is able to provide sufficient cooling water for the removal of heat from equipment, such as the DGs, RHR pump seal coolers, ECCS room cooling units, and RHRSW heat exchangers, required for a safe reactor shutdown following a DBA or transient. CP&L has performed an analysis which demonstrates that this capability is not reduced with the increased maximum 24 hour average UHS water temperature limit. Existing TS operability requirements for the UHS ensure that conservatively bounding assumptions used in the analysis of the SW system's heat removal capability will be met, or the UHS will be declared inoperable. As such, the ability of the SW system to perform its intended safety function is not affected and the margin of safety is not reduced.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
NRC Section Chief: Richard P. Correia.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequence of an accident previously evaluated?
No. The proposed change to the technical specifications and bases incorporate the use of Mark-B11 fuel assemblies with M5 cladding. The analyzed events are initiated by the failure of specific plant structures, systems, or components. The change in fuel assembly design or cladding material does not impact the condition or performance of those structures, system, or components. Therefore, the proposed changes will not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The accident analyses have been evaluated to address the changes in the fuel design and cladding material. The results of this evaluation demonstrate that the applicable acceptance criteria are met. Thus, the proposed changes will not increase the consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
No. The proposed changes to the technical specifications are to support implementation of Mark-B11 fuel assemblies with M5 cladding. The changes in fuel design and cladding material do not alter the operating characteristics of the plant. In addition, the fuel handling equipment is compatible with the Mark-B11 fuel assembly design. Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
No. The margin of safety is established through the design of the plant systems, structures, components, and the parameters within which the plant is operated. The proposed change does not involve any significant physical change to the plant. The primary design changes, which enhance nuclear, thermal-hydraulic and mechanical performance, include the following:
1. Reduced diameter fuel rod,
2. Flow mixing vanes on five of the six intermediate spacer grids,
3. Improved grid restraint system, and
4. M5 fuel rod cladding.
The changes in fuel design and cladding material have been evaluated which demonstrates that all of the applicable acceptance criteria are met. Based on this, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Duke has concluded based on the above that there are no significant hazards considerations involved in this request.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this
1. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change is in accordance with NRC guidance in GL 99-02 which states that new testing protocol is more accurate and demanding than older tests. The acceptance criteria for charcoal efficiency has been made more stringent and there is no change to an operating parameter of any system, component or structure. Therefore, the probability of occurrence of the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the SAR [Safety Analysis Report] will not increase as a result of this change.
2. The proposed TS change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change revises the testing standard for activated charcoal efficiency to a more conservative methodology while increasing the acceptance criteria through the application of a safety factor. There is no change to an operating parameter of any system, component, or structure. Therefore, the proposed activity does not create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any previously identified in the SAR.
3. The proposed TS change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed change does not involve a reduction in the margin of safety. The change is primarily administrative, adheres to NRC guidance, and is more conservative than the previously employed standard. The change does not modify an operating parameter of any system, or component structure. Therefore, there is no reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The requested license amendment does not authorize any plant activities beyond that allowed by 10 CFR Chapter I or beyond that considered in the DSAR [Defueled Safety Analysis Report]. The bounding accident described in the DSAR for potential airborne activity is the postulated resin cask drop accident in the Low Level Radioactive Waste Storage Building. This accident is expected to contain more potential airborne activity than can be released from other decommissioning events. The radionuclide distribution assumed for the spent resin cask has more transuranics (the major dose contributor) than the distribution in the components involved in other decommissioning accidents. The accidents considered in the DSAR include: 1) Explosion of Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) Leaked from a Front End Loader or Forklift, 2) Explosion of Oxyacetylene During Segmenting of the Reactor Vessel Shelf, 3) Release of Radioactivity from the RCS Decontamination Ion Exchange Resins, 4) Gross Leak During In-Situ Decontamination, 5) Segmentation of RCS Piping with Unremoved Contamination, 6) Fire Involving Contaminated Clothing or Combustible Waste, 7) Loss of Local Airborne Contamination Control During Blasting or Jackhammer Operations, 8) Temporary Loss of Services, 9) Dropping of Contaminated Concrete Rubble, 10) Natural Phenomena and 11) Transportation Accidents. The probabilities and consequences for these accidents are estimated in the basis documentation for DSAR Section 7. No systems, structures, or components that could initiate or be required to mitigate the consequences of an accident are affected by the proposed change in any way not previously evaluated in the DSAR. Since Maine Yankee does not exceed the salient parameters associated with the plant referenced in the basis documentation in any material respects, it is concluded that these probabilities and consequences are not increased. Therefore, the proposed change to the Maine Yankee License does not involve any increase in the probability or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The requested license amendment does not authorize any plant activities which could precipitate or result in any accidents beyond that considered in the DSAR. The accidents previously evaluated in the DSAR are described above. These accidents are described in the basis documentation for DSAR Section 7. The proposed change does not affect plant systems, structures, or components in any way not previously evaluated in the DSAR. Since Maine Yankee does not exceed the salient parameters associated with the plant referenced in the basis documentation in any material respects, it is concluded that these accidents appropriately bound the kinds of accidents possible during decommissioning. Therefore, the proposed change to the Maine Yankee License would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. The proposed change does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The margin of safety defined in Maine Yankee's license basis for the consequences of decommissioning accidents has been established as the margin between the bounding decommissioning accident and the dose limits associated with the need for emergency plan offsite protection, namely the Environmental Protection Agency Protective Action Guidelines EPA-PAGs. As described above, the bounding decommissioning accident is the postulated resin cask drop accident in the Low Level
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the requested amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, and configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained. The proposed changes do not alter or prevent the ability of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) to perform their intended function to mitigate the consequences of an initiating event within the acceptance limits assumed in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
The proposed changes do not affect the source term, containment isolation or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the Seabrook Station UFSAR. Further, the proposed changes do not increase the types and amounts of radioactive effluent that may be released offsite, nor significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational/public radiation exposures. The proposed change to SR 4.8.1.2 provides additional requirements for operation of the facility. These additional requirements are not initiators of analyzed events and will not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of accident or transient events. The proposed change does not adversely affect previously evaluated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes do not involve physical alteration of plant SSCs or changes in parameters governing the manner in which the plant is operated and maintained in a state of readiness. The changes do not introduce a new mode of plant operation.
As discussed in the above narrative, the proposed change to SR 4.8.1.2 provides additional requirements for operation of the facility. These additional requirements are not initiators of analyzed events and will not alter assumptions relative to mitigation of accident or transient events. The proposed change does not adversely affect previously evaluated accidents.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed changes do not involve a reduction in a margin of safety because they do not adversely affect assumptions used in transient or safety analyses. The details associated with the involved specifications are not required to be in the TS to provide adequate protection of the public health and safety, since the TS still retains the requirement for compliance with the applicable standards. The level of safety of facility operation is unaffected by the changes since there is no change in the intent of the TS requirements of ensuring fuel oil is of the appropriate quality for diesel generator use.
The proposed change to the A.C. Sources—Shutdown SR imposes an additional level of requirements that are more restrictive than the current TS requirements for operation of the facility in Modes 5 and 6. The additional requirements being proposed enhance assurance that the same fuel oil quality requirements are met, and visual inspection activities conducted, whenever a diesel generator is required to be OPERABLE.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed changes to relocate Technical Specifications 3/4.9.5, 3/4.9.6 and 3/4.9.7 to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM) are administrative in nature and do not adversely affect accident initiators or precursors nor alter the design assumptions, conditions, configuration of the
The subject specifications relocated to the Technical Requirements Manual will continue to be administratively controlled. The TRM is a licensee-controlled document, which contains certain technical requirements and is the implementing manual for the Technical Specification Improvement Program. Changes to these requirements are reviewed and approved in accordance with Seabrook Station Technical Specification, Section 6.7.1.i, and as outlined in the TRM.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change does not alter the design assumptions, conditions, or configuration of the facility or the manner in which the plant is operated. There are no changes to the source term or radiological release assumptions used in evaluating the radiological consequences in the Seabrook Station UFSAR. The proposed change has no adverse impact on component or system interactions. The proposed change will not adversely degrade the ability of systems, structures and components important to safety to perform their safety function nor change the response of any system, structure or component important to safety as described in the Seabrook Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). The proposed changes are administrative in nature and do not change the level of programmatic and procedural details of assuring operation of the facility in a safe manner. Since there are no changes to the design assumptions, conditions, configuration of the facility, or the manner in which the plant is operated and surveilled, the proposed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously analyzed.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
There is no adverse impact on equipment design or operation and there are no changes being made to the Technical Specification required safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety. The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not reduce the level of programmatic or procedural controls associated with the activities presently performed via Technical Specifications 3/4.9.5, 3/4.9.6 and 3/4.9.7.
Future changes to the subject technical requirements will be reviewed and approved in accordance with Seabrook Station Technical Specification, Section 6.7, and as outlined in the Technical Requirements Manual. Specifically, all changes to the Technical Requirements Manual require a 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation and will be reviewed and approved by the Station Operations Review Committee (SORC) prior to implementation.
Therefore, relocation of the requirements contained in Technical Specifications 3/4.9.5, 3/4.9.6 and 3/4.9.7 to the Technical Requirements Manual does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety provided in the existing specifications.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis, and based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The operation of the Salem units in accordance with the proposed changes will not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The proposed TS changes do not involve any physical changes to plant structures, systems, or components (SSC). The FHV, CREACS, and ABV systems will continue to function as designed. The FHV, CREACS, and ABV systems are designed to mitigate the consequences of an accident. The proposed changes also will not affect the sequence of any accidents previously analyzed. The proposed TS surveillance requirement changes implement testing methods that demonstrate charcoal filter capability and establish acceptance criteria, which ensure that Salem's design basis assumptions continue to be met. The proposed surveillance requirement acceptance criteria ensure that the FHV, CREACS, and ABV safety functions will be accomplished. Therefore, the proposed TS changes would not result in a significant increase of the consequences of an accident previously evaluated, nor do they involve an increase in the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
The operation of the Salem units in accordance with the proposed changes does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. The proposed TS changes do not involve any physical changes to the design of any plant SSC. The design and operation of the FHV, CREACS, and ABV systems are not changed from those currently described in Salem's licensing basis. The FHV, CREACS, and ABV systems will continue to function as designed to mitigate the consequences of an accident. Implementing the proposed charcoal filter testing methods and acceptance criteria does not change the operation of the FHV, CREACS, and ABV systems that would create a different type of accident previously evaluated. In addition, the proposed TS changes do not alter the conclusions described in Salem's licensing basis regarding the safety-related functions of these systems. Therefore, the proposed TS changes do not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The operation of the Salem units in accordance with the proposed license amendment will not be changed nor result in a significant reduction to margins of safety. The licensee is not proposing any modifications to FHV, CREACS, and ABV systems design or operation, and there are no changes being made to the TS-required safety limits or safety system settings that would adversely affect plant safety. The proposed changes modify the TSs to reference appropriate test parameters for performing laboratory testing of nuclear-grade charcoal in engineered safety feature filtration systems in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989. The imposition of the more conservative charcoal filter testing requirements associated with ASTM D3803-1989 will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
Missile generation from a Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) flywheel could damage the reactor coolant system, the containment, or other equipment or systems important to safety. The fracture mechanics analysis performed to support the change shows that a preexisting flaw of an initial size at the detection threshold level will not grow to a flaw size necessary to create flywheel missiles within the life of the plant. The fracture mechanics analysis conservatively assumes minimum material toughness properties, maximum flywheel speed, location of flaw in the highest stress region of the flywheel, and a number of start/stop cycles eight times greater than the design basis. Therefore, an existing flaw in the flywheel will not grow to a size that exceeds the allowable flaw size for either normal operating or accident conditions over the plant life. On this basis, the extension of the 3-year interval inspection to a 10-year interval will not involve a significant increase in the probability of an accident previously considered. The proposed changes do not increase the amount of radioactive material available for release or modify any systems used for preventing or mitigating such releases during accident conditions. Therefore, these changes do not involve a significant increase in the consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed changes will not change the design configuration, or method of operation of the plant. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Response: No.
Significant conservatisms have been used in the calculation of allowable flaw size (critical flaw size) and flaw growth for each RCP flywheel design. These include minimum fracture toughness properties, code reference crack growth rate curves, maximum flywheel accident speed, postulated flaw location at the highest stress region of the flywheel, and a number of start/stop cycles that is eight times the number expected in a plant life. The final flaw size has been determined to remain smaller than the allowable flaw size for the flywheel under the relevant design conditions, including postulated accident conditions. Therefore, the extension of the 3-year interval inspection to a 10-year interval will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
A. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The capability of the accumulators to perform their safety function is not affected by this change. All components and system functional requirements remain the same. There are no new sequences of events which would increase the probability of an accident analyzed in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Therefore, the proposed activity does not increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated in the FSAR. The fuel cladding peak temperature established by the ECCS [Emergency Core Cooling System] evaluation model remains below 2200 degrees Fahrenheit for a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). As such, the assumptions on fuel failure and isotope release post-LOCA do not change from the information presented in the FSAR.
B. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The primary function of the CLAs is in the event of a large break LOCA to support accident mitigation. CLAs are not a contributor to events that could generate accidents. The CLA system volume capability bounds this change in operational limits and the system is not physically changing. Therefore, the proposed activity does not create a possibility for an accident of a different type than any evaluated previously.
C. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The safety function provided by the CLAs is to inject core cooling water into the reactor coolant system when system pressure decreases below a predetermined value during a LOCA. The timing (function of pressure) and amount (function of volume) of cooling water is modeled in the ECCS evaluation model. The proposed changes to the accumulator operational limits have been evaluated using the Sequoyah plant specific ECCS model. The evaluation shows an increase in the peak fuel cladding temperature from 2162 degrees Fahrenheit to 2185 degrees Fahrenheit. The results confirm that existing LOCA safety analysis acceptance criteria (established by 10 CFR 50.46) continue to be met for the revised accumulator limits. The safety analysis acceptance criteria continues to be met with the revised limits. The 23 degree increase in the peak fuel cladding temperature associated with accumulator operation is not a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
A. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The proposed change to WBN Technical Specification LCO 3.9.4, Refueling Operations—Containment Penetrations, would allow both doors of the containment personnel airlocks and certain containment penetration flow paths to be open during core alterations and movement of irradiated fuel within containment under specific administrative controls. The proposed change is consistent with NRC approved TS travelers TSTF-68, R2 and TSTF-312, R1, and proposes controls similar to the administrative controls currently allowed by WBN TS (LCO 3.6.3) for containment penetrations during more restrictive, higher operational modes. The administrative controls will ensure appropriate personnel are aware of the open personnel airlocks and penetration flow paths and ensure designated individual(s) are assigned to promptly close the airlock doors and penetration flow paths in the event of a fuel handling accident (FHA) inside containment. Timely closure of penetration flow paths and closure of the airlock doors following containment evacuation will ensure that the unlikely transmission of radioactive material from the reactor building to the auxiliary building is minimized.
In order to minimize the consequences of any leakage of radionuclides past these open penetrations during the period of time before their closure, additional procedural controls will be provided to ensure the integrity of the WBN auxiliary building secondary containment enclosure (ABSCE) boundary and proper auxiliary building gas treatment system (ABGTS) operation. These controls will ensure that in the event of a fuel handling accident (FHA) inside containment, the following will be promptly accomplished: shutdown and isolation of the reactor building purge air ventilation system, auxiliary building isolation, and initiation of ABGTS. Therefore, through the use of these controls for the proposed license amendment, the offsite dose consequences of a FHA inside containment with open airlock doors and/or open penetration flow paths remain well within the 10 CFR 100 limits and within the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 19 for control room operator dose.
[The licensee's application also states that “The results for the fuel handling analysis inside containment with open airlock doors and/or open penetration flow paths are bounded by the current analysis.”]
The containment personnel airlock doors and containment penetration flow paths are not initiators to any previously evaluated accident for WBN. In addition, the position of the airlock doors and penetration flow paths during refueling operations has no affect on the probability of the occurrence of any accident previously evaluated. The proposed revision does not alter any plant equipment or operating practices in such a manner that the probability of an accident is increased. Since the probability of a accident is not affected by the positions of the containment personnel airlock doors, and because the doses remain within acceptable limits, the proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
B. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
The open containment personnel airlock doors and containment penetration flow paths are not accident initiators and do not represent a significant change in the configuration of the plant. The proposed allowance to open the containment personnel airlock doors and penetrations during refueling operations will not adversely affect plant safety functions or equipment operating practices such that a new or different accident could be created. Therefore, since plant safety functions are not adversely affected and the isolation status of containment personnel airlock doors and penetration flow paths do not contribute to the initiation of postulated accidents, the proposed revision will not create a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
C. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
WBN Technical Specification LCO 3.9.4 closure requirements for containment penetrations ensure that the consequences of a postulated FHA inside containment during core alterations or fuel handling activities remain within acceptable limits. The LCO establishes containment closure requirements, which limit the potential escape paths for fission products by ensuring that there is at least one integral barrier to the release of radioactive material. The proposed change to allow the containment personnel airlock doors and containment penetration flow paths to be open during refueling operations under administrative controls does not significantly affect the expected dose consequences of a FHA because of the absence of containment pressurization during refueling. Without this motive force, the potential for additional offsite dose consequence is unlikely. The proposed administrative controls provide assurance that prompt closure of the airlock doors and penetration flow paths will be accomplished in the event of a FHA inside containment thus minimizing the transmission of radioactive material from the reactor building to the auxiliary building. Under the proposed TS change, the provisions to ensure shutdown and isolation of the reactor building purge air ventilation system, auxiliary building isolation, and initiation of ABGTS and to promptly isolate open penetration flow paths and close the airlock doors following containment evacuation, provide assurance that the offsite dose consequences of a FHA inside containment will remain well within the 10 CFR 100 limits and within the limits of 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 19 for control room operator dose. Therefore, the proposed change to the WBN Technical Specifications does not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
The following notices were previously published as separate individual notices. The notice content was the same as above. They were published as individual notices either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this biweekly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. They are repeated here because the biweekly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving no significant hazards consideration.
For details, see the individual notice in the
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these actions was published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see: (1) The applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The March 16, 2000, submittal contained clarifying information only,
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 28, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 28, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 26, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 21, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Date of initial notice in
The January 6, 2000, letter reduced EFPY from 20 years, requested in the July 15, 1999, letter, to 16 years. This change is bounded by, and did not change the scope of, the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 24, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The April 27, 2000, letter did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the amendment beyond the scope of the initial notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 3, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 4, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Date of initial notice in
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 27, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comment received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 8, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 28, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated February 24, 2000, issued with the February 24, 2000, Order approving the transfer as noticed in the
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The March 31, 2000, letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2000.
Date of initial notice in
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 8, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The March 27, 2000 letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 1, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of this amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated April 25, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 1, 2000.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application for the amendment complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
Because of exigent or emergency circumstances associated with the date the amendment was needed, there was not time for the Commission to publish, for public comment before issuance, its usual 30-day Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a Hearing.
For exigent circumstances, the Commission has either issued a
In circumstances where failure to act in a timely way would have resulted, for example, in derating or shutdown of a nuclear power plant or in prevention of either resumption of operation or of
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance of the holding and completion of any required hearing, where it has determined that no significant hazards consideration is involved.
The Commission has applied the standards of 10 CFR 50.92 and has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The basis for this determination is contained in the documents related to this action. Accordingly, the amendments have been issued and made effective as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.12(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment, (2) the amendment to Facility Operating License, and (3) the Commission's related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment, as indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).
The Commission is also offering an opportunity for a hearing with respect to the issuance of the amendment. By June 16, 2000, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC and electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web site,
As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made 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 which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Since the Commission has made a final determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, if a hearing is requested, it will not stay the effectiveness of the amendment. Any hearing held would take place while the amendment is in effect.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above date. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and to the attorney for the licensee.
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).
Public Comments requested as to proposed no significant hazards consideration: No.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment, finding of emergency circumstances, consultation with the State of South Carolina, and final no significant hazards consideration determination are contained in a Safety Evaluation dated May 5, 2000.
Postal Rate Commission.
Notice of Docket No. A2000-1.
The Commission has established a docket to consider an objection to the closing of the Roanoke, WV post office. It also has issued a procedural schedule.
See
Correspondence should be addressed to Margaret P. Crenshaw, Secretary, Postal Rate Commission, 1333 H Street NW., Suite 300, Washington, DC 20268-0001.
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, (202) 789-6820.
On May 10, 2000, the Postal Rate Commission (PRC) issued a notice and order (No. 1292) accepting an appeal of the closing of the Roanoke, West Virginia post office, ZIP Code 26423. The appeal was filed by Robert J. Conley, president of the Lewis County Commission, on behalf of the Commission and post office customers, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 404(b)(5). The appeal has been assigned Docket No. A2000-1 and a procedural schedule has been established.
The appeal was filed April 21, 2000. The categories of issues apparently raised are the effect on the community (39 U.S.C. 404(b)(2)(A)) and effect on postal services (39 U.S.C. 404(b)(2)(C)).
After the Postal Service files the administrative record and the Commission reviews it, the Commission may find that there are more legal issues than those set forth above. Or, the Commission may find that the Postal Service's determination disposes of one or more of those issues.
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of management and Budget for extension and approval.
Form 8-A (OMB Control No. 3235-0056, SEC File No. 270-54) is a registration statement for certain classes of securities pursuant to Section 12(b)
Form 18-K (OMB Control No. 3235-0120; SEC File No. 270-108) is used as an annual report for foreign governments and political subdivisions with securities listed on a United States exchange. Form 18-K permits verification of compliance with securities law requirements and assures the public availability and dissemination of such information. The information collected on Form 18-K must be filed with the Commission annually. Form 18-K is a public document Form 18-K takes approximately 8 hours to prepare and is filed by 20 respondents for a total of 160 burden hours.
Written Comments are invited on (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 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 collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
Please 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.
The Department of State announces a meeting of the U.S. State Department—Overseas Security Advisory Council on June 28 and 29, at the Drake Hotel, Chicago, Illinois. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b[c] [1] and [4], it has been determined the meeting will be closed to the public. Matters relative to classified national security information as well as privileged commercial information will be discussed. The agenda will include updated committee reports, a world threat overview and a round table discussion that calls for the discussion of classified and corporate proprietary/security information as well as private sector physical and procedural security policies and protective programs at sensitive U.S. Government and private sector locations overseas.
For more information contact Marsha Thurman, Overseas Security Advisory Council, Department of State, Washington, D.C. 20522-1003, phone: 202-663-0533.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of intent to rule on application.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Mid Delta Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990) (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 158).
Comments must be received on or before June 16, 2000.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered in triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Airport District Office, Federal Aviation Administration, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to Mr. Clifton E. Nash, Airport Director of the City of Greenville at the following address: 166 Fifth Avenue, Suite 300, Greenville, MS 38703-9737.
Air carriers and foreign air carriers may submit copies of written comments previously provided to the City of Greenville under section 158.23 of Part 158.
Patrick Vaught, Program Manager, FAA/Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-2307, 601-664-9885. The application may be reviewed in person at this same location.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC at Mid Delta Regional Airport under the provisions of the Aviation Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation At of 1990) (Public Law 101-508) and Part 158 of the Federal Aviation Regulation (14 CFR Part 258).
On May 10, 2000, the FAA determined that the application to impose and use the revenue from a PFC submitted by City of Greenville was substantially complete within the requirements of section 158.25 of Part 158. The FAA will approve or disapprove the application, in whole or in part, no later than August 32, 000.
The following is a brief overview of the application.
Air Taxi/Commercial Operators filing Form 1800-31.
Any person may inspect the application in person at the FAA office listed above under
In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application, notice and other documents germane to the application in person at the City of Greenville, Mid Delta Regional Airport.
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice; correction.
The Department of Veterans Affairs published a document in the
Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420, at (202) 273-8605.
In the
1. On page 20851, in the second column, the first full paragraph is corrected to read:
“Interested persons are invited to submit written comments, suggestions, or objections regarding the proposed routine use of the system of records to the Director, Office of Regulations Management (02D), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 1154, Washington, DC 20420. All relevant material received before June 16, 2000 will be considered.”
2. On page 20851, in the third column, the first full paragraph is corrected to read:
“If no public comment is received during the 30-day review period allowed for public comment, or unless otherwise published in the
3. On page 20851, in the third column, following the conclusion of the preamble, add the following:
In the system of records identified as 27VA047, “Personnel and Accounting Pay System—VA,” as set forth in the
Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purpose of such uses:
28. Information from this system of records may be disclosed in response to legal processes, including interrogatories, served on the Agency in connection with garnishment proceedings against current or former VA employees under 5 U.S.C. 5520a.
In rule document 00-11259, beginning on page 26904, in the issue of Tuesday, May 9, 2000, make the following corrections:
1. On page 26912, in the third column, in §210.2, five stars should be added after the definition of “
2. On page 26915, the first table should read as follows:
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), USDA.
Notice of request for proposals and request for input.
The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 established new authority for a program of Federal grants to support the development of community food projects designed to meet the food needs of low-income people; increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs; and promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues.
This RFP sets out the objectives for these projects, the eligibility criteria for projects and applicants, and the application procedures. Proposals are requested for (1) projects designed to increase food security in a community (termed Community Food Projects), and (2) projects that provide Training and Technical Assistance on a nationwide basis to entities interested in developing Community Food Projects (termed T&TA Projects).
This RFP contains the entire set of instructions needed to apply for a Fiscal Year (FY) 2000 Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program grant.
By this notice, CSREES additionally solicits stakeholder input from any interested party regarding the FY 2000 Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program for use in development of any future requests for proposals for this program.
Proposals must be received on or before June 29, 2000. Proposals received after this date will not be considered for funding. Comments regarding this request for proposals are requested within six months from the issuance of this notice. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 303, Aerospace Center; 901 D Street, SW, Washington, DC 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2245.
Written comments should be submitted by mail to: Policy and Program Liaison Staff; Office of Extramural Programs; USDA-CSREES; STOP 2299; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2299; or via e-mail to: RFP-OEP@reeusda.gov. In your comments, please include the name of the program and the fiscal year of the RFP to which you are responding.
Dr. Mark R. Bailey, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 2241, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-2241; telephone: (202) 401-1898; mbailey@reeusda.gov, or Dr. Elizabeth Tuckermanty, Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, STOP 2240, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-2240, telephone: (202) 205-0241; Internet: etuckermanty@reeusda.gov.
CSREES is soliciting comments regarding this solicitation of applications from any interested party. These comments will be considered in the development of any future RFP for the program. CSREES has determined that this program is not an agricultural research, extension, or education program for the purposes of section 103(c)(2) of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, 7 U.S.C. 7613(c)(2). Therefore, CSREES is not required by statute to solicit stakeholder input regarding this RFP. CSREES, however, always welcomes constructive comments from interested parties regarding an RFP or particular program. Comments should be submitted as provided for in the
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 10.225, Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program.
Section 25 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended by Section 401(h) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Pub. L. No. 104-127) (7 U.S.C. 2034), authorized a new program of Federal grants to support the development of community food projects.
a.
Community Food Projects are intended to take a comprehensive approach to developing long-term solutions that help to ensure food security in communities by linking the food production and processing sectors to community development, economic opportunity, and environmental enhancement. Comprehensive solutions may include elements such as: (i) Improved access to high quality, affordable food among low-income households; (ii) expanded economic opportunities for community residents through local businesses or other economic development, improved
Project goals should integrate multiple objectives into their design. Proposed projects should seek to address impacts beyond a specific goal such as increasing food produced or available for a specific group. Goals and objectives should integrate economic, social, and environmental impacts such as job training, employment opportunities, small business expansion, neighborhood revitalization, open space development, transportation assistance or other community enhancements.
Proposed projects should seek comprehensive solutions to problems across all levels of the food system, not only short-term food relief. This point is emphasized because some proposals submitted previously were primarily for expanding applicant efforts in food relief and assistance, or for connecting established or partially established programs (such as community gardens and farmers' markets), with little evidence of strategic planning and participation by stakeholders in the proposed project design. Proposals should emphasize a food system and/or food security approach and show evidence of information sharing, coalition building, and substantial community linkages.
Applicants should be aware of several USDA and Federal policy initiatives that have the potential to strengthen the impact and success of some Community Food Projects. These include the Department's Community Food Security Initiative and its seven action areas of local infrastructure, economic and job security, Federal nutrition assistance safety net, supplemental food provided by nonprofit groups, food production and marketing, education and awareness, and research, monitoring, and evaluation.
Other related Federal activities include: food recovery and gleaning efforts; connecting low-income urban consumers with rural food producers; aiding citizens in leaving public assistance and achieving self-sufficiency; and utilizing microenterprise and/or development projects related to community food needs. Other relevant and ongoing Federal initiatives include: USDA farmers' markets; USDA's Office of Sustainable Development and Small Farms; USDA and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development designated Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities; and the AmeriCorps National Service Program.
Applicants should recognize the role played by food and nutrition assistance programs administered by USDA. Applicants may choose to discuss, in their proposals, the utilization of these programs by the community in connection with the proposed Community Food Project. These programs include: the Food Stamp Program; child nutrition programs such as the School Lunch, School Breakfast, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Supplemental Nutrition, Child and Adult Care Food, and Summer Food Service Programs; and commodity distribution programs.
Resources available from other Federal programs such as the Community Food and Nutrition Program (CFNP) and Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI) program (administered by the Office of Community Services within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), may also impact Community Food Projects.
The primary objectives of the CFPCGP are to increase the food self-reliance of communities; promote comprehensive responses to local food, farm and nutrition issues; develop innovative linkages between the public, for-profit, and nonprofit food sectors; and encourage long-term planning activities and comprehensive multi-agency approaches.
Community Food Projects are intended to bring together stakeholders from the distinct parts of the food system. Solutions to hunger and access to food should reflect a process that involves partnership building among the public, private nonprofit, and for-profit sectors. Together, these parties can address issues such as: the capacity of the community to produce food and support local growers; the need for, and location of, grocery stores that market affordable, high quality food; transportation to provide access to food supplies; economic opportunities for residents to increase income, thereby increasing economic access to high quality nutritious food; community development issues; and the environment. Wherever possible, Community Food Projects should support food systems based on strategies that improve the availability of high-quality locally or regionally produced foods to low-income people.
Community Food Projects should build on these local experiences and encourage innovative long-term efforts. A project should be designed to endure and outlive the one-time infusion of Federal funds. Community Food Projects should be designed to become self-supporting (or have a sustainable funding source). Projects also should have the potential to be a replicable model. Examples of previously funded Community Food Projects may be viewed on the Internet in the CFPCGP website at http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/cfp/community.htm.
A T&TA project proposal should demonstrate an applicant's technical expertise in the above noted areas. The proposal should also show that the applicant organization has the capacity to provide training and technical assistance to applicants on a regional or national basis, through regional workshops, electronic media, or other appropriate means. Additionally, the applicant should also demonstrate capacity or experience in being able to assist successful applicants in carrying out their projects. Organizations that can demonstrate an involvement in community food security issues and programs are strongly encouraged to apply.
The amount of funds available in FY 2000 for support of grant awards under this program is approximately
Applicants should request a budget commensurate with the proposed project. However, no single grant shall exceed $100,000 in any single year or more than $250,000 over three years.
Applicants, regardless of the type of project, may request one, two, or three years of funding, but in all cases, the grant term may not exceed three years for any one project. A Community Food Project may be supported by only a single grant under this program.
Awards will be made based on the merit of the proposed project with budgets considered only after the merits of the project have been determined. USDA reserves the right to negotiate final budgets with successful applicants. The grantee shall perform a substantive portion of the project. No more than one-third of a Community Food Project award, as determined by budget expenditures, may be subawarded to for-profit organizations. For additional knowledge or expertise that is not available within the applicant organization, funds for expert consultation may be included in the “All Other Direct Costs” section of the proposed budget.
For the purpose of awarding grants under this program, the following definitions are applicable:
Private, nonprofit or other entities meeting the following three requirements are eligible to receive a Community Food Project grant:
a. Have experience in the area of:
i. Community food work, particularly concerning small and medium-size farms, including the provision of food to people in low-income communities and the development of new markets in low-income communities for agricultural producers; or
ii. Job training and business development activities for food-related activities in low-income communities;
b. Demonstrate competency to implement a project, provide fiscal accountability, collect data, and prepare reports and other necessary documentation; and
c. Demonstrate a willingness to share information with researchers, practitioners, and other interested parties.
Private, nonprofit or other entities meeting the following three requirements are eligible to apply for and receive a T&TA grant under this program:
a. Have the capacity to provide, on a regional or national basis, training and technical assistance in community food security, including the assessment of community food needs, appraisal of existing community assets pertaining to food security issues, coalition building, project development, evaluation and completion, proposal preparation, and fund raising;
b. Demonstrate competency to implement a T&TA project, provide fiscal accountability, collect data, and prepare reports and other necessary documentation; and
c. Demonstrate a willingness to share information with researchers, evaluators, practitioners, and other interested parties.
Applicants are encouraged to seek and create partnerships with public or private, nonprofit or for-profit entities, including links with academic and/or other appropriate professionals, community-based organizations, and local government entities. Only the applicant must meet the eligibility requirements. Project partners and collaborators need not meet the eligibility requirements.
Successful Community Food Project applicants must provide matching funds amounting to at least 50 percent of the total cost of the project during the term of the grant award. The Federal share of a Community Food Project costs can be no more than 50 percent of the total. Matching funds are not required for T&TA grants.
Community Food Project grantees may provide matching funds through cash and/or in-kind contributions, including third-party in-kind contributions, fairly evaluated, including facilities. The non-Federal share of the funding may come from State government, local government, other non-profit entities, or private sources. Examples of qualifying matching contributions may include direct costs such as: rent for office space used exclusively for the funded project; duplication or postage costs; and staff time from an entity other than the applicant for job training or nutrition education.
Program application materials are available at the CFPCGP website (http://www.reeusda.gov/crgam/cfp/community.htm). Program application materials also are available from the Proposal Services Unit, Office of Extramural Programs, USDA/CSREES at (202) 401-5048. These materials may also be requested via Internet by sending a message with your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and phone number to psb@reeusda.gov. If calling or sending e-mail, please indicate that you want a copy of the application materials for the Fiscal Year 2000 Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program.
The proposal should follow these guidelines, enabling reviewers to more easily evaluate the merits of each proposal in a systematic, consistent fashion:
(a) The proposal should be prepared on only one side of the page using standard size (8
(b) Each page of the proposal, beginning after the Project Summary, and including the budget pages, required forms, and any appendices, should be numbered sequentially in the top right hand corner.
(c) The proposal should be stapled in the upper left-hand corner. Do not bind. An original and 8 copies (9 total) must be submitted in one package.
Each copy of each grant proposal must have as its cover page an “Application for Funding”, Form CSREES-661. One copy of the application, preferably the original, must contain the pen-and-ink signature(s) of the proposing project director(s) (PD) and the authorized organizational representative who possesses the necessary authority to commit the organization's time and other relevant resources to the project. Any proposed PD or co-PD whose signature does not appear on Form CSREES-661 will not be listed on any resulting grant award. Complete both signature blocks located at the bottom of the “Application for Funding” form.
Form CSREES-661 serves as a source document for the CSREES grant database; it is therefore important that it be completed accurately. The following items are highlighted as having a high potential for errors or misinterpretations:
(a) Title of Proposed Project (Block 6). The title of the proposed project must be brief (80-character maximum), yet represent the major thrust of the effort being proposed.
(b) Blocks 7., 13., 18., 19., 20., and 21. have been completed for you.
(c) In Block 8., enter “Community Food Project”, or “T&TA Project.”
(d) Principal Investigator(s)/Project Director(s) (PI/PD) (Block 15). Note that providing a Social Security Number is voluntary, but is an integral part of the CSREES information system and will assist in the processing of the proposal.
(e) Other Funding Agencies (Block 22). List the names or acronyms of all other public or private funding agencies including other agencies within USDA and other programs funded by CSREES to whom your application has been or might be sent. In the event you decide to send your application to another organization or agency at a later date, you must inform the identified CSREES Program Director as soon as practicable. Submitting your proposal to other potential funding agencies will not prejudice its review by CSREES; however, duplicate support for the same project will not be provided.
For consistency and ease in locating information, each proposal must contain a detailed Table of Contents just after the cover page. The Table of Contents should contain page numbers for each component of the proposal.
The Project Summary must be 250 words or less, on a separate page which should be placed immediately after the Table of Contents and should not be numbered. The names and organizations of all PDs and co-PDs should be listed on this form, in addition to the title of the project. The summary should be a self-contained, specific description of the activity to be undertaken and should focus on overall project goal(s) and supporting objectives, and plans to accomplish the project goal(s). The importance of a concise, informative Project Summary cannot be overemphasized.
If an applicant has previously received CFPCGP support, information on the results from prior funding must be included. For each award received, list the CFPCGP award number, the title of the project, the amount and period of support, a brief summary of the results completed, and the actual and anticipated long-term effects of these results. This information should be provided on a separate page, immediately following the project summary.
For Community Food Project Proposals, the Project Narrative shall not exceed 10 single- or double-spaced pages of written text. To ensure fair and equitable competition, reviewers are instructed to read only the first 10 pages of a project narrative and may ignore information on additional pages. The Project Narrative must repeat and respond to the eight points in (a) through (h) below:
a.
b.
Include a description of the relevant experience of each organization, including the applicant organization, that will be involved, and any project history. Proposals should demonstrate extensive community linkages and coalitions. Letters from the organizations involved acknowledging their support and contributions must be provided in an appendix to the proposal. Letters specifying the type and amount of support, where appropriate, are strongly encouraged to provide evidence of community involvement.
c.
d.
e.
f.
In addressing the objectives, applicants may want to describe how the project fosters: innovative linkages and coalitions between two or more sectors of the food system; entrepreneurial, job training, and microenterprise opportunities; and short-term and long-term planning to promote community food security through multiple activities conducted in collaboration with other entities.
g.
Through CFPCGP project operations and an evaluation of them, USDA also hopes to learn more about what happens to make such projects succeed, partially succeed, or fail. Therefore, proposals are encouraged that include both process evaluations (developing and monitoring indicators of progress towards the objectives) and outcome evaluations (to determine whether the objectives were met). Applicants should seek the help of experts in evaluation design and implementation, as appropriate.
h.
For T&TA project proposals, the Project Narrative shall not exceed 10 pages. To ensure fair and equitable competition, reviewers are instructed to read only the first 10 pages of a project narrative and to ignore information on additional pages. The project narrative must repeat and respond to the following six points in (a) through (f) below:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Identify the key personnel to be involved in the project, including the project director, if known, and describe their relevant experience. In the Appendix, include resumes or vitae that provide adequate information for reviewers to make an informed judgment as to the capabilities and experience of the key personnel. For new positions in the project or for positions that are currently unfilled, a job description should be provided. An applicant should include an organizational chart, if available, detailing where the project fits in the overall organization.
If it will be necessary to enter into formal consulting or collaborative arrangements with others, such arrangements should be fully explained and justified. Evidence, in the form of a letter or e-mail from the collaborator/subcontractor that details the services that will be provided, and a budget and a budget narrative, should be provided as an appendix to the grant application. If the need for consultant services is anticipated, the proposal narrative should provide a justification for the use of such services, a statement of work to be performed, the rate of pay, and a resume or curriculum vita for each consultant. For purposes of proposal development, informal day-to-day contacts between key project personnel and outside experts are not considered to be collaborative arrangements and thus do not need to be detailed.
All anticipated subcontractual arrangements also should be explained and justified in this section. A proposed statement of work and a budget and budget narrative for each arrangement involving the transfer of substantive programmatic work or the providing of financial assistance to a third party must be provided.
If you expect to enter into subcontractual arrangements, please note that the provisions contained in 7 CFR part 3019, USDA Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grant and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations, and the general provisions contained in 7 CFR part 3015.205, USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, flow down to
a. Budget Form—Prepare the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program budget form in accordance with instructions provided. A separate budget form is required for each year of requested support. In addition, a cumulative budget and budget narrative (see section b. below) is required detailing the total support requested for the overall project period. The budget form may be reproduced as needed by applicants. Funds may be requested under any of the categories listed on the form, provided that the item or service for which support is requested is allowable under the authorizing legislation, the applicable Federal cost principles, and these program guidelines, and can be justified as necessary for the successful conduct of the proposed project.
The following guidelines should be used in developing your proposal budget(s):
1. Salaries and Wages. Salaries and wages are allowable charges and may be requested for personnel who will be working on the project in proportion to the time such personnel will devote to the project. If salary funds are requested, the number of Senior and Other Personnel and the number of CSREES-Funded Work Months must be shown in the spaces provided. Grant funds may not be used to augment the total salary or rate of salary of project personnel or to reimburse them for time in addition to a regular full-time salary covering the same general period of employment. Salary funds requested must be consistent with the normal policies of the institution.
2. Fringe Benefits. Funds may be requested for fringe benefit costs if the usual accounting practices of your organization provide that organizational contributions to employee benefits (social security, retirement, etc.) be treated as direct costs. Fringe benefit costs may be included only for those personnel whose salaries are charged as a direct cost to the project.
3. Nonexpendable Equipment. Nonexpendable equipment means tangible nonexpendable personal property including exempt property charged directly to the award having a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost of $5,000 (or lower, depending on institutional policy) or more per unit. As such, items of necessary instrumentation or other nonexpendable equipment should be listed individually by description and estimated cost in the Budget Narrative. This applies to revised budgets as well, as the equipment item(s) and amount(s) may change.
4. Materials and Supplies. The types of expendable materials and supplies which are required to carry out the project should be indicated in general terms with estimated costs in the Budget Narrative.
5. Travel. The type and extent of travel and its relationship to project objectives should be described briefly and justified. Airfare allowances normally will not exceed round-trip jet economy air accommodations. U.S. flag carriers must be used when available. See 7 CFR part 3015.205(b)(4) for further guidance.
All successful applicants should plan to attend an evaluation training meeting. Therefore applicants should include in their proposed budget request funding for two persons to travel to Washington, DC to attend a two to three day meeting. More information will be provided once successful applicants are identified.
6. All Other Direct Costs. Anticipated direct project charges not included in other budget categories must be itemized with estimated costs and justified in the Budget Narrative. This also applies to revised budgets, as the item(s) and dollar amount(s) may change. Examples may include space rental at remote locations, subcontractual costs, and charges for consulting services, telephone, facsimile, shipping costs, and fees necessary for laboratory analyses. You are encouraged to consult the “Instructions for Completing the Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program Budget” for additional guidance relating to this budget category. Form AD-1048 must be completed by each subcontractor or consultant and retained by the grantee.
7. Indirect Costs—If available, the current rate negotiated with the cognizant Federal negotiating agency should be used. Indirect costs may not exceed the negotiated rate. If a negotiated rate is used, the percentage and base should be indicated in the space allotted under item K. on the Budget Form. If no rate has been negotiated, a reasonable dollar amount for indirect costs may be requested, which will be subject to approval by USDA. In the latter case, if a proposal is recommended for funding, an indirect cost rate proposal must be submitted prior to award to support the amount of indirect costs requested. CSREES will request an indirect cost rate proposal and provide instructions, as necessary. A proposer may elect not to charge indirect costs and, instead, use all grant funds for direct costs. If indirect costs are not charged, the phrase “None requested” should be written in this space.
b. Budget Narrative—All budget categories, with the exception of Indirect Costs for which support is requested, must be individually listed (with costs) and justified on a separate sheet of paper and placed immediately behind the Budget Form.
c. Matching Funds—As stated in part I.E., matching funds are mandatory for Community Food Projects. (Matching funds are not mandatory for T&TA projects.) Proposals should include written verification of commitments of matching support (including both cash and in-kind contributions) from third parties. Written verification means:
(i) For any third party cash contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each donation, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) the dollar amount of the cash donation; and (5) a statement that the donor will pay the cash contribution during the grant period; and
(ii) For any third party in-kind contributions, a separate pledge agreement for each contribution, signed by the authorized organizational representatives of the donor organization and the applicant organization, which must include: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the donor; (2) the name of the applicant organization; (3) the title of the project for which the donation is made; (4) a good faith estimate of the current fair market value of the third party in-kind contribution; and (5) a statement that the donor will make the contribution during the grant period.
The sources and amounts of all matching support from outside the applicant institution should be summarized on a separate page and placed in the proposal immediately following the Budget Narrative. All pledge agreements must be placed in the proposal immediately following the summary of matching support.
The value of applicant contributions to the project shall be established in accordance with applicable cost principles. Applicants should refer to the following for further guidance and other requirements relating to matching and allowable costs: 7 CFR part 3019, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations; OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions; OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations; Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR subpart 31.2, Principles for determining costs with profitmaking firms and those nonprofit organizations that are specifically excluded from the provisions of OMB Circular No. A-122); and 7 CFR part 3015, the USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations.
All proposals must contain Form CSREES-663 listing other current publicly or privately supported (including in-house) projects to which key personnel identified in the proposal have committed portions of their time, whether or not salary support for person(s) involved is included in the budget for this proposed project. Analogous information must be provided for any pending proposals that are being considered by, or that will be submitted in the near future to, other possible sponsors, including other USDA Programs or agencies. Concurrent submission of identical or similar proposals to other possible sponsors will not prejudice proposal review or evaluation by CSREES for this purpose. However, a proposal that duplicates or overlaps substantially with a proposal already reviewed and funded (or to be funded) by another organization or agency will not be funded under this program. Note that the project being proposed should be included in the pending section of the form.
By signing Form CSREES-661 the applicant is providing the certifications required by 7 CFR part 3017, regarding Debarment and Suspension and Drug Free Workplace, and 7 CFR part 3018, regarding Lobbying. The certification forms are included in the application package for informational purposes only. These forms should not be submitted with the proposal since by signing form CSREES-661 your organization is providing the required certifications. If the project will involve a subcontractor or consultant, the subcontractor/consultant should submit a form AD-1048 to the grantee organization for retention in their records. This form should not be submitted to USDA.
As outlined in 7 CFR part 3407 (CSREES supplemental regulations implementing NEPA), the environmental data for any proposed project is to be provided to CSREES so that CSREES may determine whether any further action is needed. In most cases, however, the preparation of environmental data may not be required. Certain categories of actions are excluded from the requirements of NEPA.
In order for CSREES to determine whether any further action is needed with respect to NEPA, pertinent information regarding the possible environmental impacts of a particular project is necessary; therefore, Form CSREES-1234, “NEPA Exclusions Form,” must be included in the proposal indicating whether the applicant is of the opinion that the project falls within a categorical exclusion, the specific exclusion, and the reasons therefore. Form CSREES-1234 and supporting documentation should be included as the last component of the proposal.
Even though a project may fall within the categorical exclusions, CSREES may determine that an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement is necessary for an activity. This will be the case in rare instances when substantial controversy on environmental grounds exists or other extraordinary conditions or circumstances are present which may cause such activity to have a significant environmental effect.
Proposals must be received on or by June 29, 2000. Proposals received after this date will not be considered for funding.
An original and eight copies must be submitted. All copies of the proposal must be submitted in one package.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to submit completed proposals via overnight mail or delivery service to ensure timely receipt by the USDA. The address for hand-delivered proposals or proposals submitted using an express mail or overnight courier service is: Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Room 303, Aerospace Center; 901 D Street, SW; Washington, DC 20024.
Proposals sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be sent to the following address: Community Food Projects Competitive Grants Program; c/o Proposal Services Unit; Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service; U.S. Department of Agriculture; STOP 2245; 1400 Independence Avenue, SW; Washington, DC 20250-2245.
The receipt of proposals will be acknowledged by e-mail. Therefore, applicants are encouraged to provide e-mail addresses, where designated, on the Form CSREES-661. If the applicant's e-mail address is not indicated, CSREES will acknowledge receipt of the proposal by letter.
Once the proposal has been assigned an identification number, please cite that number on all future correspondence. If the applicant does not receive an acknowledgment within 60 days of the submission deadline, please contact the Program Director.
Each proposal will be evaluated in a two-part process. First, each proposal will be screened to ensure it meets the basic eligibility requirements as set forth in this RFP. Proposals not meeting the eligibility requirements will be returned without review. Second, each proposal that meets the eligibility requirements will be evaluated and judged on its merits by expert reviewers.
Since the award process must be completed by September 30, 2000, applicants should submit fully developed proposals that meet all the requirements set forth in this RFP and have fully developed budgets as well. However, USDA does retain the right to conduct discussions with applicants to resolve technical and/or budget issues as it deems necessary.
A number of expert reviewers will conduct the merit review based on the evaluation criteria. These reviewers will be drawn from a number of areas, among them government, universities, non-profit organizations, and other pertinent entities involved in community food security or similar activities. The views of the individual reviewers will be used by CSREES to
There is no commitment by USDA to fund any particular proposal or to make a specific number of awards. Care will be taken to avoid actual, potential, and the appearance of conflicts of interest among reviewers. Evaluations will be confidential to USDA staff members, expert reviewers, and the project director(s), to the extent permitted by law.
The evaluation of Community Food Project proposals by expert reviewers will be based on the following criteria, weighted relative to each other, and assigned a point value, as noted in the parentheses following each criteria discussion.
1. How well the proposed project addresses the three statutory CFPCGP objectives of: (i) Meeting the food needs of low-income people; (ii) increasing the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs; and (iii) promoting comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues (25 points);
2. How significant are the food security issues that will be addressed by the proposed project, and is there an informative description of the community, its characteristic, assets, and needs (15 points);
3. The appropriateness of the goals and purposes of the project and how these goals will be achieved. Proposed project activities should be designed to address one or more of the following goals, which will be given equal weight: (i) Developing linkages between two or more sectors of the food system; (ii) supporting the development of entrepreneurial activities; (iii) developing innovative linkages between the for-profit and nonprofit food sectors; and (iv) encouraging long-term planning activities and multi-system, interagency approaches (20 points);
4. The relevance of the experience of the organizations that are involved in the proposed project, including the applicant entity, and the type and extent of support that other organizations will be providing. Applicant organizations should demonstrate a history of commitment to and direct involvement in food security projects in low-income communities or in communities with low-income groups. The qualifications of staff involved with the proposed project and/or organizational leadership should reflect the expertise necessary to carry out the proposed activities or similar types of activities. Experience in and connections with the community will be considered as important as academic or professional credentials in this regard (20 points);
5. The viability of plans for realistically achieving self-sufficiency with a one-time infusion of Federal funds. Entrepreneurial projects should provide evidence (
6. The strength of the proposed project's evaluation component and how it will contribute to the evaluation of the CFPCGP on a national basis (8 points); and
7. The time line for accomplishing project goals and objectives is realistic and achievable (2 points).
The evaluation of T&TA Projects by expert reviewers will be based on the following criteria, weighted relative to each other, and assigned a point value, as noted in the parentheses following each criteria:
1. How well the proposed project assists applicants, eligible entities, and others in understanding the three statutory CFPCGP objectives of: (i) Meeting the food needs of low income people; (ii) increasing the self-reliance of communities in providing for their own food needs; and (iii) promoting comprehensive responses to local food, farm, and nutrition issues (35 points);
2. The appropriateness of goals and purposes of the project and how those goals will provide T&TA activities that will assist organizations and individuals regionally or nationwide in addressing the CFPCGP goals of: (i) Developing linkages between two or more sectors of the food system; (ii) supporting the development of entrepreneural activities; (iii) developing innovative linkages between the for-profit and nonprofit food sectors; and (iv) encouraging long-term planning activities and multiple activities conducted in collaboration with other entities (30 points);
3. The experience of the applicant and other organizations (if any) to be involved in the proposed project. Applicants should demonstrate a history of or the capability for involvement in T&TA on Community Food Projects or other similar programs. The relevant qualifications of staff involved in the proposed project should be provided (20 points) and;
4. The timeline for accomplishing the planning, scheduling, and delivery of T&TA is realistic and achievable (15 points).
During the evaluation process, extreme care will be taken to prevent any actual or perceived conflicts-of-interest that may impact review or evaluation. For the purpose of determining conflict-of-interest the academic and administrative autonomy of an institution shall be determined by reference to the January 1998 issue of the Codebook for Compatible Statistical Reporting of Federal Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions, prepared by Quantum Research Corporation for the National Science Foundation.
Names of submitting institutions and individuals, as well as proposal content and evaluations, will be kept confidential, except to those involved in the review process, to the extent allowed by law. In addition, the identities of expert reviewers will remain confidential throughout the entire review process. Therefore, the names of reviewers will not be released to applicants.
Copies of summary reviews, not including the identity of reviewers, will be sent to the applicant PD after the review process has been completed.
Within the limit of funds available for such purpose, the awarding official of CSREES shall make grants to those responsible, eligible applicants whose proposals are judged most meritorious under the procedures set forth in this RFP. The date specified by the Administrator as the effective date of the grant shall be no later than September 30. It should be noted that the project need not be initiated on the grant effective date, but as soon thereafter as practical so that project goals may be attained within the funded project period. All funds granted by CSREES under this RFP shall be expended solely for the purpose for which the funds are granted in accordance with the approved application and budget, the regulations, the terms and conditions of the award, the applicable Federal cost principles, and the Department's assistance regulations (parts 3015, 3016, and 3019 of 7 CFR).
Specific management information relating to an applicant shall be submitted on a one-time basis as part of the responsibility determination prior to the award of a grant identified under this RFP, if such information has not been provided previously under this or another CSREES program. CSREES will provide copies of forms recommended for use in fulfilling these requirements as part of the preaward process.
The grant award document shall include at a minimum the following:
(a) Legal name and address of performing organization or institution to whom the Administrator has awarded the grant;
(b) Title of project;
(c) Name(s) and address(es) of project director(s) chosen to direct and control approved activities;
(d) Identifying grant number assigned by the Department;
(e) Project period, specifying the amount of time the Department intends to support the project;
(f) Total amount of Departmental financial assistance approved by the Administrator during the project period;
(g) Legal authority(ies) under which the grant is awarded;
(h) Approved budget plan for categorizing allocable project funds to accomplish the stated purpose of the grant award; and
(i) Other information or provisions deemed necessary by CSREES to carry out its respective granting activities or to accomplish the purpose of a particular grant.
The notice of grant award, in the form of a letter, will be prepared and will provide pertinent instructions or information to the grantee that is not included in the grant award document.
All grants awarded under this program will be awarded using a funding mechanism whereby CSREES agrees to support a specified level of effort for a predetermined time period without additional support at a future date.
Unless the terms and conditions of the grant state otherwise, the grantee may not in whole or in part delegate or transfer to another person, institution, or organization the responsibility for use or expenditure of grant funds.
(a) The permissible changes by the grantee, PD(s), or other key project personnel in the approved project grant shall be limited to changes in methodology, techniques, or other aspects of the project to expedite achievement of the project's approved goals. If the grantee or the PD(s) is uncertain as to whether a change complies with this provision, the question must be referred to the CSREES Authorized Departmental Officer (ADO) for a final determination.
(b) Changes in approved goals or objectives shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the CSREES ADO prior to effecting such changes. In no event shall requests for such changes be approved which are outside the scope of the original approved project.
(c) Changes in approved project leadership or the replacement or reassignment of other key project personnel shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the awarding official of CSREES prior to effecting such changes.
(d) Transfers of actual performance of the substantive programmatic work in whole or in part and provisions for payment of funds, whether or not Federal funds are involved, shall be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to effecting such transfers, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of the grant.
(e) Changes in Project Period: The project period may be extended by CSREES without additional financial support, for such additional period(s) as the ADO determines may be necessary to complete or fulfill the purposes of an approved project. Any extension of time shall be conditioned upon prior request by the grantee and approval in writing by the ADO, unless prescribed otherwise in the terms and conditions of a grant, but in no case shall a grant period of performance exceed three (3) years.
(f) Changes in Approved Budget: Changes in an approved budget must be requested by the grantee and approved in writing by the ADO prior to instituting such changes if the revision will involve transfers or expenditures of amounts requiring prior approval as set forth in the applicable Federal cost principles, Departmental regulations, or in the grant award.
Several other Federal statutes and regulations apply to grant proposals considered for review and to grants awarded under this program. These include but are not limited to:
7 CFR Part 1.1—USDA implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.
7 CFR Part 3—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-129 regarding debt collection.
7 CFR Part 15, subpart A—USDA implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
7 CFR Part 3015—USDA Uniform Federal Assistance Regulations, implementing OMB directives (
7 CFR Part 3016—Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
7 CFR Part 3017—USDA implementation of Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) and Governmentwide Requirements for Drug-Free Workplace (Grants).
7 CFR Part 3018—USDA implementation of Restrictions on Lobbying. Imposes on recipients of Federal contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and loans prohibitions and requirements for disclosure and certification related to lobbying.
7 CFR Part 3019—USDA implementation of OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3052—USDA implementation of OMB Circular No. A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-profit Organizations.
7 CFR Part 3407—CSREES supplemental regulations for implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
29 U.S.C. 794 (section 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973) and 7 CFR Part 15d (USDA implementation of statute)—prohibiting discrimination based upon physical or mental handicap in Federally assisted programs.
35 U.S.C. 200
(1) When a proposal results in a grant, it becomes a part of the record of the Agency's transactions, available to the public upon specific request. Information that the Secretary determines to be of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature will be held in confidence to the extent permitted by law. Therefore, any information that the applicant wishes to have considered as confidential, privileged, or proprietary should be clearly marked within the proposal.
(2) When a proposal does not result in a grant the original copy will be retained by the CSREES for a period of one year. Other copies will be destroyed. Such a proposal will be released only with the consent of the applicant or to the extent required by law. A proposal may be withdrawn at any time prior to the final action thereon.
For the reasons set forth in the final Rule-related Notice to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983), this program is excluded from the scope of the Executive Order 12372 which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as amended (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the collection of information requirements contained in this Notice have been approved under OMB Document No. 0524-0022.
The Secretary intends to reserve $2,250,000 from these funds for evaluation, technical assistance, and school networking activities.
The size of awards will be based on a number of factors. These factors include the scope, quality, and comprehensiveness of the proposed program and the size of the population to be served.
Applicants applying for implementation grants are required to provide detailed budget information for the total grant period requested. To provide the applicant maximum flexibility regarding start-up and maintenance costs, the Secretary anticipates awarding the entire grant amount for both planning and implementation at the time of the initial award.
The following standards are preferred: (1) A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″ (one side only) with one-inch margins (top, bottom, and sides). (2) All text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs, must be double-spaced (no more than three lines per vertical inch). If using a proportional computer font, applicants are requested to use a 12-point font.
The page limit does not apply to the cover sheet, the one-page abstract, budget section, appendices, and forms and assurances. However, all of the application narrative must be included in the narrative section.
The recent violent incidents in a number of schools across the country deeply disturbed Americans. The incidents reinforced what many educational practitioners and researchers were already highlighting as a problem—the impersonal nature of large high schools that leave too many young people feeling apathetic, isolated, and alienated from their peers, schools, and communities.
Research on school size has created a widespread movement towards smaller schools and the creation of smaller learning communities within large high schools. In 1996, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, in conjunction with the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, issued a report entitled, “Breaking Ranks: Changing an American Institution.” The report recommends that high schools break into units of no more than 600 students: (1) To ensure that teachers and students get to know and care about each other; and (2) to provide teachers with opportunities to use a variety of instructional strategies that accommodate and engage individual learners.
These recommendations are supported further by a growing body of research on the association between smaller learning environments and positive student outcomes. In general, smaller learning communities have been found to have positive effects on students' relationships with peers, teachers, and staff, and their extracurricular participation. Students participating in smaller learning communities also have been found to have better attendance, higher course passage rates, and fewer suspensions compared to demographically similar students in more traditional high school settings (Oxley, 1990; Fine 1994). Further studies suggest that, for example, the benefits of smaller schools may include higher rates of school satisfaction, school completion, or postsecondary enrollment (Raywid 1995; Klonsky 1995; Funk and Bailey 1999; Kemple and Snipes 2000). New research suggests that smaller school size may even help compensate for the adverse effects of poverty on student achievement in elementary, middle, and secondary schools (Rural School and Community Trust: http://ruralchallengepolicy.org.
National statistics show that approximately 70 percent of American
Researchers have suggested that the positive outcomes associated with smaller schools stem from the schools' ability to create close, personal environments in which teachers can work collaboratively, with each other and with a small set of students, to challenge students and support learning. A variety of strategies, such as block scheduling and teacher advisories, are thought to provide important supports for smaller learning environments. Some data suggest that these approaches offer substantial advantages to both teachers and students (Ziegler 1993; Caroll 1994).
The Smaller Learning Communities grant program is authorized under section 10105 of part A of title X of the ESEA (see Appendix A). Title X authorizes the Secretary to support nationally significant programs and projects to: (1) Improve the quality of education; (2) assist all students in meeting challenging State content standards; and (3) contribute in achieving the National Education Goals.
The goal of the Smaller Learning Communities grant program is to encourage large high schools to undertake research-based strategies in developing, implementing, and expanding smaller learning communities. Strategies for recasting large schools as a set of small learning communities are described in the Conference Report for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000 [Pub. L. 106-113, H.R. Conference Report No. 106-479, at 1240(1999)]. These strategies include but are not limited to—(1) Establishing small learning clusters, “houses,” career academies, magnet schools, or other approaches to creating schools within schools;
(2) Block scheduling;
(3) Personal adult advocates, teacher-advisory systems, and other mentoring strategies;
(4) Reducing teaching loads; and
(5) Other innovations designed to create a more personalized high school experience for students and improve student achievement.
The definitions and terms used above are expanded in Appendix B.
Title X [part A, section 10105 (a)] of ESEA specifies particular content that all Smaller Learning Communities grant applications must include (this is called “required content”). Each of these required items has been incorporated into the selection criteria that are published in this notice. Required content is repeated in Appendix C.
Title X [part A, section 10105 (b)] also provides examples of activities that may be funded by a grant, and thus may be included in a proposal. These examples are listed in Appendix D as “allowable activities.”
The Smaller Learning Communities grant program will award two types of grants—planning grants and implementation grants.
The purpose is to provide grantees the opportunity to develop a plan for recasting a large high school (or high schools) as a set of small learning communities. Thus, the planning and development activities described in the applicant's planning grant proposal shall result in the production and submission of a viable implementation plan, including the elements described in Appendix C of this notice. Schools with a viable implementation plan will be able to take the next step, which is to implement the plan and create the smaller learning communities. The Department may hold future competitions for implementation grants limited to LEAs that have successfully developed implementation plans through planning grants.
Planning grants will also describe schools' overall need for the project.
To apply for implementation funds, applicants must be prepared either to implement a new smaller learning community program within each targeted high school, or to expand an existing smaller learning community program. Thus, applications for an implementation grant must describe a viable implementation plan. Implementation grants will also describe schools' overall need for the project.
Both planning and implementation grant applicants must describe their:
(a) Project goals,
(b) Measurable objectives,
(c) Measures of student outcomes and performance, and
(d) Indicators to gauge progress toward meeting project goals and objectives. These elements form the basis for a student database and reporting system.
The Secretary requires grantees with implementation grants to have a data collection system with the capacity to produce annual performance reports. These reports will record the grantee's yearly progress toward expected programmatic outcomes. The Secretary will use these reports to measure the success of the grantee's project, as well as the progress of the Department of Education's Smaller Learning Communities grant program nationwide. Outcome and performance measures that will be required include:
(1) Number of students scoring at each proficiency level for each subject measured by the State (or district) assessment.
(2) Number of students taking the SAT and ACT, and their average scores.
(3) Number of students who take courses for which they receive both high school and college credit.
(4) Number of students completing high school.
(5) Number of students involved in extracurricular activities.
(6) Number of incidents of student violence.
(7) Number of expulsions, suspensions or other disciplinary actions.
(8) Number of reported incidents of student alcohol or drug use.
(9) Overall reported average daily attendance for October.
The actual performance report form is undergoing separate OMB review.
Implementation grant applicants will be required to submit, with their applications, initial baseline data for each measure of student outcomes and performance named above. Baseline data will describe the same school year upon which grant eligibility has been established. These data may be reported in either the application narrative or in an appendix. Upon notification of award, grantees with implementation grants will be required to submit student outcome and performance data for three years preceding the baseline year.
To share information about the Smaller Learning Communities grant program, the Department held a series of regional-based outreach sessions. Information disseminated at these sessions is available on the website listed below. The Department will also
(1) The Secretary invites applications that plan to develop, implement, or expand a smaller learning community in high schools currently enrolling 2,500 or more students in grades 9 and above. Applicants may provide data reflecting enrollment during the current school year or the most recently completed school year.
(2) The Secretary invites applications that plan to develop, implement, or expand a smaller learning community in high schools residing within designated Empowerment Zones or Enterprise Communities. Applicants must provide proof of such designation within their application.
Under the Smaller Learning Communities grant program competition announced in this notice, a technical review panel will make a careful evaluation of applications. Each panelist will evaluate the applications against the criteria listed below. The panel results are advisory in nature and not binding on the Secretary. The Secretary will use the following selection criteria and associated point values in evaluating applications for planning and implementation grants:
(a) The maximum score for all of these criteria is 100 points.
(b) The maximum score for each criterion is indicated in parentheses. Within each criterion, the Secretary evaluates each factor equally.
(a)
(1) The description and documentation of the need for the services to be provided and the need for the activities to be carried out by the proposed project, in targeted schools, consistent with the social and educational problems and issues generally associated with the impersonal nature of large high schools. Need may consider factors such as: enrollment; attendance and drop-out rates, incidents of violence, drug and alcohol use and disciplinary actions; percentage of students who pass graduation exams or local assessments, enroll in advanced level courses, register for college entrance exams and matriculate into postsecondary institutions or training; percentage of students that have limited English proficiency, that are considered migrant youth, that come from low-income families or are otherwise considered disadvantaged; the applicant's fiscal capacity to fund programs described here without Federal assistance; or other local need factors as described by the applicant.
(2) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses (including the nature and magnitude of those gaps and weaknesses) in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project.
(b)
(1) Involve and document the support of stakeholders, both within the school community (
(2) Collect and use data that describe school needs.
(3) Use research-based findings in the proposed restructuring of the learning environment.
(c)
(1) Are based on a commitment to meet the needs of all students and ensure the successful completion of their education or career goals.
(2) Will establish smaller learning communities having clear goals and objectives connected to a mission statement and to student needs.
(3) Are likely to prepare the applicant to implement smaller learning communities.
(4) Follow a timeline appropriate to the goals and outcomes to be achieved.
(5) Involve key personnel who are qualified to undertake project activities.
(d)
(1) The requested budget adequately supports the proposed activities.
(2) State, local, and other Federal funds will be used to support the development of the plan.
(3) The administrative and managerial relationship between the LEA and the smaller learning community demonstrates a commitment to the concept of a smaller learning community and the planning process.
(a)
(1) The description and documentation of the need for the services to be provided and the need for the activities to be carried out by the proposed project, in targeted schools, consistent with the social and educational problems and issues generally associated with the impersonal nature of large high schools. Need may consider factors such as: enrollment; attendance and drop-out rates, incidents of violence, drug and alcohol use and disciplinary actions; percentage of students who pass graduation exams or local assessments, enroll in advanced level courses, register for college entrance exams and matriculate into postsecondary
(2) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses (including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses) in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project.
(b)
(1) Substantively involves and documents the support of stakeholders both within the school community (e.g., administrators, teachers, other staff, students, and parents) and within the greater community (e.g., such as representatives of institutions of higher education, employers, workforce investment boards, youth councils, and community-based organizations).
(2) Uses research-based findings and outside technical assistance in the proposed restructuring.
(c)
(1) The goals and objectives of the smaller learning communities correspond to identified needs, to a mission statement, and are written in terms of student outcomes, including achievement.
(2) The proposed smaller learning communities will enable all students to reach challenging State content standards and performance standards, ensuring the successful completion of high school and preparation for college or a career.
(3) The curriculum and instructional practices within each smaller learning community are aligned to its goals and to its theme or emphases, where they exist.
(4) Professional development activities offered to teachers, non-instructional school staff, and others are aligned with smaller learning community goals.
(5) The applicant provides a rationale for—
• Identifying grade levels and ages of students to be served by the smaller learning community; and
• The methods and timetable for placing students in the smaller learning community.
Students are not to be placed according to ability, performance, or any other measure of merit.
(6) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including—
• The past experience, training, and clearly defined responsibilities of personnel who have key roles in carrying out the project; and
• The timelines and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(d)
(1) Collecting student performance data for—
• Required annual performance reports;
• Baseline data (refer to “Reporting Requirements and Expected Outcomes”) and data for three years preceding the baseline (the latter due upon award); and
• Monitoring and understanding changes in student outcomes for continuous improvement.
(2) Describing, on an annual basis, the smaller learning communities and related program changes undertaken to make the smaller learning communities safe and successful. This information will be reported in the Annual Performance Report.
(e)
(1) The State, local, and other Federal funds will be used to support the implementation of the plan.
(2) The applicant will limit equipment and other purchases in order to maximize the amounts spent on delivery of services to students.
(3) The applicant demonstrates a commitment to sustaining the project beyond the period covered by the Federal grant.
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
The objective of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and to strengthen federalism by relying on State and local processes for State and local government coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
Applicants must contact the appropriate State Single Point of Contact to find out about, and to comply with, the State's process under Executive Order 12372. Applicants proposing to perform activities in more than one State should immediately contact the Single Point of Contact for each of those States and follow the procedures established in each State under the Executive order.
If you want to know the name and address of any State Single Point of Contact (SPOC), see the list published in the
In States that have not established a process or chosen a program for review, State, area-wide, regional, and local entities may submit comments directly to the Department.
Any State Process Recommendation and other comments submitted by a State Single Point of Contact and any comments from State, area-wide, regional, and local entities must be mailed or hand-delivered by the date indicated in this notice to the following address: The Secretary, E.O. 12372-CFDA #84.215L, U.S. Department of Education, Room 7E200, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-0125.
We will determine proof of mailing on the same basis as applications (see 34 CFR 75.102). Recommendations or comments may be hand-delivered until 4:30 p.m. (Washington, D.C. time) on the date indicated in this notice.
(a) If you want to apply for a grant, you must—
(1) Mail the original and two copies of the application on or before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA #84.215L), Room 3633, Regional Office Building #3, 7th and D Streets, SW, Washington, DC 20202-4725 or
(2) Hand deliver the original and two copies of the application by 4:30 p.m. (Washington, D.C. time) on or before the deadline date to: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA #84.215L), Room 3633, Regional Office Building #3, 7th
(b) An applicant must show one of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary.
(c) If an application is mailed through the U.S. Postal Service, the Secretary does not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
(1) The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, an applicant should check with its local post office.
(d) The Application Control Center will mail a Grant Application Receipt Acknowledgment to you. If you do not receive the notification of application receipt within 15 days from the date of mailing the application, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 708-9494.
(e) The applicant must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 3 of the Application for Federal Assistance (ED 424) the CFDA number for this competition: CFDA 84.215L.
The appendices to this notice contain all required forms and instructions, including instructions for preparing the application narrative, a statement regarding estimated public reporting burden, a notice to applicants regarding compliance with section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), various assurances and certifications, and a checklist for applicants.
To apply for an award under this competition, your application must be organized in the following order and include the following four parts. The parts and additional materials are as follows:
In preparing the narrative, applicants should clearly keep in mind the selection criteria that will be used to evaluate applications, and ensure that each of these criteria are addressed. Section 8005(a) of the statute describes additional information that applicants must address in their applications. Please refer to the statute, which is provided in Appendix A of this application package.
Applications may contain appendices that are excluded from the 20-25 page limitation. However, appendices may be used only to explicate or corroborate points already made clear in the text. For example, implementation grant applicants may place in an appendix the baseline data used to address the selection criterion “Quality of the project evaluation.”
a. Assurances-Non-Construction Programs (Standard Form 424B).
b. Certifications Regarding Lobbying; Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility Matters; and Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (ED 80-0013) and instructions.
c. Certifications regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion-Lower Tier Covered Transactions (ED 80-0014, 9/90) and instructions.
ED Form 80-0014 is intended for the use of grantees and should not be transmitted to the Department.
d. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (Standard Form LLL) (if applicable) and instructions.
An applicant may submit information on photostatic copies of the application, budget forms, assurances, and certifications as printed in this notice in the
John De Cleene or Todd May, Smaller Learning Communities Grant Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-2195 (John De Cleene) or (202) 260-0960 (Todd May). E-mail: smallerlearningcommunities@ed.gov.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339. Individuals with disabilities may obtain this notice in an alternate format (
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of Education documents published in the
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
The official version of this document is the document published in the
20 U.S.C. 8005.
(a) In General.—Each local educational agency desiring a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary
(1) Strategies and methods the applicant will use to create the smaller learning community or communities;
(2) Curriculum and instructional practices, including any particular themes or emphases, to be used in the learning environment;
(3) The extent of involvement of teachers and other school personnel in investigating, designing, implementing and sustaining the smaller learning community or communities;
(4) The process to be used for involving students, parents and other stakeholders in the development and implementation of the smaller learning community or communities;
(5) Any cooperation or collaboration among community agencies, organizations, businesses, and others to develop or implement a plan to create the smaller learning community or communities;
(6) The training and professional development activities that will be offered to teachers and others involved in the activities assisted under this part;
(7) The goals and objectives of the activities assisted under this part, including a description of how such activities will better enable all students to reach challenging State content standards and State student performance standards;
(8) The methods by which the applicant will assess progress in meeting such goals and objectives;
(9) If the smaller learning community or communities exist as a school-within-a-school, the relationship, including governance and administration, of the smaller learning community to the rest of the school;
(10) A description of the administrative and managerial relationship between the local educational agency and the smaller learning community or communities, including how such agency will demonstrate a commitment to the continuity of the smaller learning community or communities, including the continuity of student and teacher assignment to a particular learning community;
(11) How the applicant will coordinate or use funds provided under this part with other funds provided under this Act or other Federal laws;
(12) Grade levels or ages of students who will participate in the smaller learning community or communities; and
(13) The method of placing students in the smaller learning community or communities, such that students are not placed according to ability, performance or any other measure, so that students are placed at random or by their own choice, not pursuant to testing or other judgments.
(b) Authorized Activities.—Funds under this section may be used—
(1) To study the feasibility of creating the smaller learning community or communities as well as effective and innovative organizational and instructional strategies that will be used in the smaller learning community or communities;
(2) To research, develop and implement strategies for creating the smaller learning community or communities, as well as effective and innovative changes in curriculum and instruction, geared to high State content standards and State student performance standards;
(3) To provide professional development for school staff in innovative teaching methods that challenge and engage students to be used in the smaller learning community or communities; and
(4) To develop and implement strategies to include parents, business representatives, local institutions of higher education, community-based organizations, and other community members in the smaller learning communities, as facilitators of activities that enable teachers to participate in professional development activities, as well as to provide links between students and their community.
Planning grants will describe the planning and development activities that will be undertaken to produce and submit a viable Implementation Plan, as described below and in section 10105(a) of the ESEA (Appendix A).
Implementation Plans will describe—
(a) The smaller learning communities the applicant will create.
(b) Additional strategies the applicant will combine with the smaller learning
(c) How the proposed collection of strategies (the smaller learning communities along with other proposed strategies)—
(1) Address identified school needs;
(2) Are based on reliable research and effective practice; and
(3) Will enable all students to meet challenging standards.
(d) The extent of involvement of teachers and other personnel in investigating, designing, implementing, and sustaining the smaller learning community or communities;
(e) The process to be used for involving students, parents, and other stakeholders in the development and implementation of the smaller learning community or communities;
(f) Any cooperation or collaboration among community agencies, organizations, businesses, and others to develop or implement a plan to create the smaller community or communities;
(g) The training and professional development activities that will be offered to teachers and others involved in the activities assisted under part A of title X of the ESEA;
(h) The goals and objectives of the activities assisted under part A of Title X of the ESEA, including a description of how such activities will help enable all students to reach challenging State content standards and State student performance standards;
(i) The methods by which the applicant will assess progress in meeting such goals and objectives;
(j) If the smaller learning community or communities exist as a school-within-a-school, the relationship, including the governance and administration, of the smaller learning community to the rest of the school;
(k) The administrative and managerial relationship between the LEA and the smaller learning community or communities, including how the LEA will demonstrate a commitment to the continuity of the smaller learning community or communities, including the continuity of student and teacher assignment to a particular learning community;
(l) How the applicant will coordinate or use funds provided under part A of title X of the ESEA with other funds provided under the ESEA or other Federal laws; and
(m) The grade levels or ages of students who will participate in the smaller learning community or communities; and
(n) The method of placing students in the smaller learning community or communities, such that students are not placed according to ability, performance, or any other measure of merit, so that students are placed at random or by their own choice, not pursuant to testing or other judgments.
Examples of activities that may be conducted under a planning grant include—
(1) Studying the feasibility of recasting a large school as a set of smaller learning communities and investigating instructional strategies that are appropriate for smaller learning communities;
(2) Building consensus among key stakeholders and supporting planning and development activities to provide guidance in creating the smaller learning community;
(3) Assessing staff training and development needs for participation in and management of the smaller learning community;
(4) Developing strategies to include parents, business representatives, local institutions of higher education, community-based organizations, and other community members in the smaller learning communities, as facilitators of activities that enable teachers to participate in professional development activities, as well as to provide links between students and their community;
(5) Initiating pilot projects to test key components of the program design and data collection methods;
(6) Analyzing statutory, regulatory, and administrative barriers to the creation of the smaller learning environment; and
(7) Preparing the implementation plan required for submission of a proposal for a future implementation grant.
Examples of activities that may be conducted under an implementation grant include—
(1) Implementing and expanding strategies for creating the smaller learning community or communities, as well as effective and innovative changes in curriculum and instruction, geared to high State content standards and performance standards;
(2) Providing professional development for school staff in innovative teaching methods that challenge and engage students in the smaller learning community or communities;
(3) Implementing and expanding strategies to include parents, business representatives, local institutions of higher education, community-based organizations, and other community members in the smaller learning communities, as facilitators of activities that enable teachers to participate in professional development activities, as well as to provide links between students and their community;
(4) Implementing and expanding strategies that benefit eligible large schools throughout the applicant's district. Examples of these may include implementing a district-wide ninth grade academy, teacher advisory program, or district-wide mentoring program;
(5) Obtaining the services of outside experts in the implementation of the smaller learning community. Assistance may include curriculum development, leadership strategies, community consensus building, data collection, or evaluation design;
(6) Providing stipends and release time for teachers, administrators, and community members involved in the implementation or expansion of the smaller learning community; and
(7) Implementing academic and social support systems for students attending the smaller learning community.
The narrative is the section of the application where statutory application requirements and the selection criteria used by reviewers in evaluating the application are addressed. The narrative must encompass each function or activity for which funds are being requested. Before preparing the application narrative, you should read carefully the statute, the description of the program, and the selection criteria we use to evaluate applications.
You should note the preferable page limits for the application narrative stated in this notice under
1. Begin with a one-page Abstract summarizing the proposed Smaller Learning Communities project, including a short description of the population to be served by the project and, if available, data on project participants' overall need, demographics and race/ethnicity. Also include a description of project objectives and activities.
2. Include a table of contents listing the parts of the narrative in the order of the selection criteria and the page numbers where the parts of the narrative are found. Be sure to number the pages.
3. Describe fully the proposed project in light of the selection criteria in the order in which the criteria are listed in the application package. Do not simply paraphrase the criteria.
4. Provide the following in response to the attached “Notice to all Applicants:” (1) A reference to the portion of the application in which information appears as to how you are addressing steps to promote equitable access and participation, or (2) a separate statement that contains that information.
5. If the application is from a group, attach the group's agreement. When applying for funds as a group, such as a consortium, individual eligible applicants must enter into an agreement signed by all members of the group. The group's agreement must detail the activities each member of the group plans to perform, and must bind each member to every statement and assurance made in the group's application. (The designated applicant must submit the group's agreement with its application.)
6. You may include supporting documentation as appendices to the narrative. This material should be concise and pertinent to the competition. Note that we consider only information contained in the application when ranking applications. Letters of support sent separately from the formal application package are not considered in the review by the technical review panels.
7. Attach copies of all required assurances and forms.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is To be inserted],(Expiration Date: [To be inserted]). The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average sixty-five (65) hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection.
1. Type of grant applied for. (Check just one.)
2. LEA Name and Address:
3. Name and Address of Each School Named in the Accompanying SLC Application:
(Please list any additional schools on a separate page and attach.)
The following forms and other items must be included in the application in the order listed below:
Thank you for your interest in this program. The purpose of this enclosure is to inform you about a new provision in the Department of Education's General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) that applies to applicants for new grant awards under Department programs. This provision is section 427 of GEPA, enacted as part of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103-382).
Section 427 of GEPA affects applicants for new discretionary grant awards under this program. ALL APPLICANTS FOR NEW AWARDS MUST INCLUDE INFORMATION IN THEIR APPLICATIONS TO ADDRESS THIS NEW PROVISION IN ORDER TO RECEIVE FUNDING UNDER THIS PROGRAM.
Section 427 requires each applicant for funds (other than an individual person) to include in its application a description of the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its federally assisted program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs.
This section allows applicants discretion in developing the required description. The statute highlights six types of barriers that can impede equitable access or participation that you may address: gender, race, national origin, color, disability, or age. Based on local circumstances, you can determine whether these or other barriers may prevent your students, teachers, etc. from equitable access or participation. Your description need not be lengthy; you may provide a clear and succinct description of how you plan to address those barriers that are applicable to your circumstances. In addition, the information may be provided in a single narrative, or, if appropriate, may be discussed in connection with related topics in the application.
Section 427 is not intended to duplicate the requirements of civil rights statutes, but rather to ensure that, in designing their projects, applicants for Federal funds address equity concerns that may affect the ability of certain potential beneficiaries to fully participate in the project and to achieve to high standards. Consistent with program requirements and its approved application, an applicant may use the Federal funds awarded to it to eliminate barriers it identifies.
The following examples may help illustrate how an applicant may comply with section 427:
(1) An applicant that proposes to carry out an adult literacy project serving, among others, adults with limited English proficiency, might describe in its application how it intends to distribute a brochure about the proposed project to such potential participants in their native language.
(2) An applicant that proposes to develop instructional materials for classroom use might describe how it will make the materials available on audio tape or in Braille for students who are blind.
(3) An applicant that proposes to carry out a model science program for secondary students and is concerned that girls may be less likely than boys to enroll in the course, might indicate how it intends to conduct “outreach” efforts to girls, to encourage their enrollment.
We recognize that many applicants may already be implementing effective steps to ensure equity of access and participation in their grant programs, and we appreciate your cooperation in responding to the requirements of this provision.
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1810-0631 (Exp. 10/31/2000). The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to vary from 1 to 3 hours per response, with an average of 1.5 hours, including the time to review instructions, search existing data resources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC 20202-4651.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Commerce.
Notice of applications received.
On January 5, 2000, in the
In all, 662 applications were received from forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The total amount requested by the applications is $269.6 million.
Notice is hereby given that the program received applications from the following organizations. Identification of any application only indicates its receipt. It does not indicate that it has been accepted for review, that it has been determined to be eligible for funding, or that an application will receive an award.