Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Rural Utilities Service
National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities
Export Administration Bureau
International Trade Administration
Patent and Trademark Office
Army Department
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office
Energy Information Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presidential Documents
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Public Health Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Reclamation Bureau
Justice Programs Office
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Surface Transportation Board
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau
Customs Service
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This final rule revises the regulations governing inspection and certification for processed fruits, vegetables, and processed products made from them by increasing by approximately three to nine percent fees charged for the inspection services. These revisions are necessary in order to recover, as nearly as practicable, the costs of performing inspection services under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946. The fees charged to persons required to have inspections on imported commodities in accordance with the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1937 would also be affected.
November 19, 2000.
Mr. James R. Rodeheaver, Branch Chief, Processed Products Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96456, Room 0709 South Building, Washington, DC 20090-6456, telephone (202) 720-4693, or e-mail
This rule has been determined not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866 and has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Also, pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities.
AMS regularly reviews its user fee financed programs to determine if the fees are adequate. The Processed Products Branch (PPB) of the Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, has and will continue to seek out cost savings opportunities and implement appropriate changes to reduce its costs. Such actions can provide alternatives to fee increases. The fee schedule was last revised on October 4, 1998 (63 FR 50745). However, even with such efforts, the existing fee schedule will not generate sufficient revenues to cover lot, year round, and less than year round inspection program costs and sustain an adequate reserve balance. PPB programs for lot, year round, and less than year round will have obligations in FY 2000 of approximately $12.9 million, necessitating a reserve of $4.3 million. The current reserve is $2.6 million. Current revenue projections for FY 2000 without a fee increase are $12.0 million while program costs increase to approximately $13.1 million in FY 2001. These cost increases will result primarily from increases in salaries and benefits. Accounting for a significant portion of the total operating budget, salaries rose from 3.54 to 4.02 percent, effective January 1999, increasing the cost of operating these programs by $295,000. A 4.8 percent pay increase effective January 1, 2000, increased program costs another $385,000. The revenue projections, that include final fees, are $13.5 million for FY 2001. The final fee increase of approximately 3 to 9 percent, should result in an estimated approximately $1.0 million in FY 2001 and should enable PPB to cover its costs and re-establish adequate program reserves.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. This action would increase user fee revenue generated under the lot inspection program and the year round and less than year round inspection programs by approximately $1,020,000 annually. This action is authorized under the AMA of 1946 [see 7 U.S.C. 1622(h)] which provides that the Secretary of Agriculture assess and collect “such fees as will be reasonable and as nearly as may be to cover the costs of services rendered * * *”.
There are more than 1,250 users of PPB's lot, and less than year round and year round inspection services (including applicants who must meet import requirements,
Currently, there are 4 processed commodities subject to 8e import regulations: canned ripe olives, dates, prunes, and processed raisins. A current listing of the regulated commodities can be found under 7 CFR Parts 944 and 999.
Inspection services covered by this final rule are voluntary, except when required for certain imported commodities under 7 CFR Parts 944 and 999. The total fees charged to users of these services vary with usage. The impact on all businesses, including small entities, is very similar. Further, even though fees will be increased, the amount of the increase is small (three to nine percent), and should not significantly affect these entities. Finally, except for those applicants who are required to obtain inspections in connection with certain imports these businesses are under no obligation to use these inspection services.
The rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect and will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
The AMA authorizes official inspection, grading, and certification for processed fruits, vegetables, and processed products made from them. The AMA provides that the Secretary collect reasonable fees from the users of the services to cover, as nearly as practicable, the costs of the services rendered. This rule will amend the schedule for fees for inspection services rendered to the processed fruit and vegetable industry to reflect the costs necessary to operate the program.
AMS regularly reviews its user fee programs to determine if the fees are adequate. While PPB continues to pursue opportunities to reduce its costs, the existing fee schedule will not generate sufficient revenues to cover lot, less than year round and year round inspection program costs while maintaining an adequate reserve balance.
PPB programs for lot, year round, and less than year round will have obligations in FY 2000 of approximately $12.9 million, necessitating a reserve of $4.3 million. The current reserve is $2.6 million. Current revenue projections for FY 2000 without a fee increase are $12.0 million while program costs increase to approximately $13.1 million in FY 2001. These cost increases will result primarily from increases in salaries and benefits. Accounting for a significant portion of the total operating budget, salaries rose from 3.54 to 4.02 percent, effective January 1999, increasing the cost of operating these programs by $295,000. A 4.8 percent pay increase effective January 1, 2000, increased program costs another $385,000. The revenue projections, that include final fees, are $13.5 million for FY 2001. The final fee increase of approximately 3 to 9 percent, should result in an estimated approximately $1.0 million in FY 2001 and should enable PPB to cover its costs and re-establish adequate program reserves.
Based on the aforementioned analysis of increasing program costs, AMS is increasing the fees relating to lot inspection service and the fees for less than year round and year round inspection services. For inspection services charged under § 52.42, overtime and holiday work would continue to be charged as provided in that section. For inspection services charged on a contract basis under § 52.51 overtime work would also continue to be charged as provided in that section. The following fee schedule compares current fees and charges with final fees and charges for processed fruit and vegetable inspection as found in 7 CFR §§ 52.42-52.51. Unless otherwise provided for by regulation or written agreement between the applicant and the Administrator, the charges in the schedule of fees as found in § 52.42 are:
Charges for travel and other expenses as found in § 52.50 are:
Charges for year-round in-plant inspection services on a contract basis as found in § 52.51(c) are:
(1) For inspector assigned on a year-round basis:
(2) For inspector assigned on less than a year-round basis: Each inspector:
Charges for less than year-round in-plant inspection services (four or more consecutive 40 hour weeks) on a contract basis as found in § 52.51 (d) are:
(1) Each inspector:
A notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the
The first, from a student, concerned with the specific cost-reducing alternatives considered by AMS to offset salary increases, inflation and to maintain fiscal stability in the program. The second comment was from a processor, which urged that we reduce the rate of the proposed increase by applying cost savings.
AMS is continually seeking ways to reduce costs to the industry and increase operational efficiency. Since the last fee increase for processed fruit and vegetable grading and certification services in October 1998, AMS downsized a field office to an inspection point, closed three inspection points, eliminated several grading and clerical positions, and postponed filling several vacated positions. These steps have resulted in a cumulative cost saving of approximately $561,500.
The processor expressed concern with the rate of the fee increase, characterizing it as “very steep.” The commenter indicated that the rate increases exceeded inflation since 1998 and that its own hourly rate for its manufacturing personnel and its selling prices have not risen as much as the fee rates over the past two years. The processor concluded that the cost burden of the fee increases to manufacturers would be substantial and noted that over the past ten years the hourly fee has increased from $28.00 per hour to $48.00. The commenter observed that the rate of increase would exceed wage increases in that time frame.
As discussed above, the AMA provides that AMS collect reasonable fees from users of the services to cover, as nearly as practicable, the costs of the services rendered. While cost increases may result primarily from increases in salaries and benefits, other overhead costs such as rent and materials are also covered. The fees proposed in this rulemaking appropriately reflect the cost of providing the services rendered. Actually, the rate of the proposed increase is below the average rate of increase for these services since 1989. Since December 1989, fees increased by an annualized rate of about 4.13 percent. The proposed increase will represent an annualized increase of only about 1.9 percent. Further, we will continue our efforts to reduce costs to the industry and increase efficiencies whenever possible.
With regard to the commenter's concerns regarding the application of overtime charges, the proposed fee increase does not change the way overtime is charged for both hourly and contract fees. AMS has numerous service options available with respect to duration, regularity of hours, and fees for inspection services. The Agency is available to work with applicants for services to select the type of service which most efficiently meets its needs.
In light of the continuing need to maintain the AMS grading program on a financially sound basis, AMS has decided to proceed with the fee increase as set forth in the proposal.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is found and determined that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this action until 30 days after
Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Frozen foods, Fruit juices, Fruits, Reporting and record keeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 1621—1627.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Interim rule and request for comments.
We are amending the imported fire ant regulations because infestations of imported fire ant have been discovered in additional areas in Tennessee. This action will quarantine two new counties and additional portions of four other counties. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas will be restricted. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of the imported fire ant to noninfested areas of the United States. We are also making nonsubstantive changes to the description of other quarantined areas in Tennessee to make them easier to understand.
This interim rule is effective November 6, 2000. We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all comments that we receive by January 5, 2001.
Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to: Docket No. 00-076-1, 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. 00-076-1.
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
Mr. Ronald Milberg, Operations Officer, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5255.
The imported fire ant regulations (contained in 7 CFR 301.81 through 301.81-10 and referred to below as the regulations) quarantine infested States or infested areas within States and restrict the interstate movement of regulated articles to prevent the artificial spread of the imported fire ant.
The imported fire ant,
The regulations in § 301.81-3 provide that the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will list as a quarantined area each State, or each portion of a State, that is infested with the imported fire ant. The Administrator will designate less than an entire State as a quarantined area only under the following conditions: (1) The State has adopted and is enforcing restrictions on the intrastate movement of the regulated articles listed in § 301.81-2 that are equivalent to the interstate movement restrictions imposed by the regulations; and (2) designating less than the entire State will prevent the spread of the imported fire ant. The Administrator may include uninfested acreage within a quarantined area due to its proximity to an infestation or its inseparability from an infested locality for quarantine purposes.
In § 301.81-3, paragraph (e) lists quarantined areas. We are amending § 301.81-3(e) by adding portions of Maury and Sequatchie Counties, TN, changing the status of Lewis County, TN, from partially to completely infested, and revising quarantine boundaries in Giles, Lincoln, and Monroe Counties, TN, to incorporate additional infested areas. We are taking this action because recent surveys conducted by APHIS and State and county agencies revealed that the imported fire ant has spread to these areas.
We are also amending § 301.81-3(e) by simplifying the descriptions of quarantined areas in Decatur, Franklin, Haywood, Henderson, Marshall, and Moore Counties, TN, to make them easier to understand and use. These changes are nonsubstantive and do not change the boundaries. See the rule portion of this document for specific descriptions of the new quarantined areas and the simplified boundary descriptions. Interested parties may also view a map showing the imported fire ant infested areas in the continental United States on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppq/maps/fireant.jpg.
This rulemaking is necessary on an emergency basis to prevent the spread of imported fire ant into noninfested areas
We will consider comments that are received within 60 days of publication of this rule in the
This 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.
This interim rule is necessary because infestations of imported fire ant have been discovered in additional areas in Tennessee. This action will quarantine two new counties and additional portions of four other counties. As a result of this action, the interstate movement of regulated articles from those areas is restricted. This action is necessary to prevent the artificial spread of the imported fire ant into 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.
Affected entities in the quarantined areas include nurseries and greenhouses, farm equipment dealers, construction companies, and all those who sell, process, or move regulated articles from and through quarantined areas. It is now necessary to treat and certify all regulated articles before moving them from the newly quarantined areas.
In an interim rule published in the
According to the 1997 Census of Agriculture, the market value of agricultural products produced in Maury and Sequatchie Counties was more than $32 million. Seventy percent of these sales are attributable to livestock sales and the remaining 30 percent to crop sales, which include nursery and greenhouse crops. Therefore, there is a large agricultural economy at risk due to the potential of the imported fire ant to damage crops and injure or even kill livestock.
Specifically, in 1997, the value of sales from nursery and greenhouse crops produced in these two counties was $614,000. Nurseries and greenhouses, as well as farm equipment dealers, construction companies, and those who sell, process, or move regulated articles from and through quarantined areas, will be affected by this rule. The availability of various treatments, which, in most cases, permit the movement of regulated articles with minimal additional cost, can minimize the adverse effects on entities that move regulated articles outside of the regulated areas.
According to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, regulations create economic disparities when they have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBA defines a small agricultural producer as one that generates less than $500,000 of annual sales. Additionally, to be considered small by the SBA's definition, an equipment dealer or agricultural service company must generate less than $5 million in annual sales.
Maury and Sequatchie Counties include at least 569 entities that could be affected by the changes in regulations, and the majority of these entities are small according to the SBA's definition. Producers in Maury and Sequatchie Counties received $8,855,000 from crop, including greenhouse and nursery, sales in 1997.
The estimated annual cost of imposing a quarantine on these counties is very small in comparison to the benefit gained through agricultural sales. For example, the value of a “standard” sized tractor-trailer load of nursery plants ranges from $10,000 to $250,000. The treatment cost for this “standard” shipment of plants is only around $200. An average treatment cost, then, is between 2 percent and 0.8 percent per standard plant shipment. In contrast to the potential losses associated with an imported fire ant infestation, these treatment costs are not significant.
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.
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
This interim rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
An environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared for this program. The assessment provides a basis for the conclusion that the methods employed to regulate the imported fire ant will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. Based on the finding of no significant impact, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact were prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available for public inspection at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect copies are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to facilitate entry into the reading room. In addition, copies may be obtained by writing to the individual listed under
This final rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Title IV, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 438, 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772; 7 U.S.C. 166; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
Section 301.75-15 also issued under Sec. 204, Title II, Pub. L. 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501A-293, and Sec. 203, Title II, Pub. L. 106-224, 114 Stat. 400, 7 U.S.C. 1421 note.
(e) * * *
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting, as a final rule, with a minor change, the provisions of an interim final rule suspending for the 2000-2001 and future seasons the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, inspection, and other related requirements prescribed under the Oregon-California potato marketing order. This rule also suspends all reporting and assessment collection requirements. The marketing order regulates the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, California, and in all Counties in Oregon, except Malheur County, and is administered locally by the Oregon-California Potato Committee (Committee). This rule will reduce industry-operating expenses.
December 6, 2000.
Teresa L. Hutchinson, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, suite 385, Portland, Oregon 97204-2807; telephone: (503)
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, Room 2525-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 114 and Marketing Order No. 947, both as amended (7 CFR part 947), regulating the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties in California, and in all counties in Oregon, except Malheur County, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule continues the current suspension. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule continues in effect the suspension of the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, inspection, and other related requirements prescribed under the Oregon-California potato marketing order. It also suspends all reporting and assessment collection requirements. The marketing order regulates the handling of Irish potatoes grown in Modoc and Siskiyou Counties, California, and in all Counties in Oregon, except Malheur County, and is administered locally by the Oregon-California Potato Committee. This rule will reduce industry expenses, as it decides whether the marketing order should be continued.
Section 947.52 of the order authorizes the issuance of regulations for grade, size, quality, maturity, and pack for any variety of potatoes grown in the production area during any period. Section 947.51 authorizes the modification, suspension, or termination of regulations issued under part 947. Termination or suspension authority also is specified in § 947.71.
Section 947.60 provides that whenever potatoes are regulated pursuant to § 947.52, such potatoes must be inspected by the Federal-State Inspection Service, and certified as meeting the applicable requirements of such regulations. The cost of inspection and certification is borne by handlers.
Prior to the 1999-2000 season, minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, and pack requirements for potatoes regulated under the order were specified in § 947.340
The Committee meets prior to and during each season to consider recommendations for modification, suspension, or termination of the regulatory requirements for Oregon-California potatoes that have been issued on a continuing basis. Committee meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. The Department reviews Committee recommendations and information submitted by the Committee and other available information, and determines whether modification, suspension, or termination of the regulatory requirements would tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
At its March 31, 2000, meeting, the Committee recommended suspending the handling and inspection regulations and related sections for the 2000-2001 and future seasons. It also recommended that all reporting and assessment collection requirements be suspended, too. The Committee requested that this rule be effective on July 1, 2000, which is the date shipments of the 2000 Oregon-California potato crop began.
The objective of the handling and inspection requirements is to ensure that only acceptable quality potatoes enter fresh market channels, thereby ensuring consumer satisfaction, increasing sales, and improving returns to producers. While the industry continues to believe that quality is an important factor in maintaining sales, the Committee believes the cost of inspection and certification (mandated when minimum requirements are in effect) may exceed the benefits derived. It would like to further assess this matter during the 2000-2001 and future seasons.
Potato prices have been at low levels in recent seasons, and many producers have faced difficulty covering their production costs. Therefore, the Committee continues to explore various alternatives for reducing costs.
The Committee recommended suspending the handling regulations for a one-year trial from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. The Committee was concerned that the elimination of current requirements could possibly result in lower quality potatoes being shipped to fresh markets. Also, there was some concern that the Oregon-California potato industry could lose sales to other potato producing areas that were covered by quality and inspection requirements. For these reasons, the Committee recommended the one-year suspension of the requirements for the 1999-2000 marketing season.
The Committee believes that this one-year trial was successful and recommended continuing the suspension of the handling and inspection requirements indefinitely. Last season's suspension was implemented by the Department with an
This rule enables handlers to ship potatoes without regard to the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and inspection requirements, and continues to decrease handler costs associated with inspection. This rule does not restrict handlers from seeking inspection on a voluntary basis. The Committee will continue to evaluate the effects of removing the minimum requirements on marketing and on producer returns at its annual spring meetings.
Consistent with the suspension of § 947.340, this rule also suspends §§ 947.120, 947.123, 947.130, 947.132, 947.133, and 947.134 of the rules and regulations in effect under the order. Sections 947.120 and 947.123 provide authority for hardship exemptions from inspection and certification, and establish reporting and recordkeeping requirements when such exemptions are in place. Sections 947.130, 947.132, 947.133, and 947.134 are safeguard and reporting provisions of the order that are applicable to special purpose shipments when inspection and certification requirements are in place. Section 947.125 regarding minimum quantity assessment exemptions, and § 947.180 regarding monthly assessment reports expired by their own terms on June 30, 2000.
The September 13, 1999, interim final rule also established reporting requirements for the 1999-2000 season so the Committee could obtain information on which to collect assessments. In previous seasons, it had obtained this information from inspection reports. However, these reports were eliminated with the suspension of mandatory inspection. The reporting requirements will not be needed during the 2000-2001 and future seasons because the Committee recommended that no assessments be collected from handlers during these seasons.
Section 947.247 of the marketing order previously prescribed an assessment rate of $0.004 per hundredweight of assessable potatoes for the Oregon-California Potato Committee. Authorization to assess potato handlers enables the Committee to incur expenses that are necessary to administer the marketing order. With the suspension of handling, inspection, and reporting requirements, a limited Committee budget will be needed for program administration during the 2000-2001 and future seasons. For 2000-2001, the Committee recommended a budget of $2,000 for management and its spring meetings. It has about $10,000 in operating reserves to cover approved Committee expenses.
In the interim final rule published July 10, 2000 (65 FR 42275), §§ 947.125 regarding minimum quantity assessment exemptions and 947.180 regarding monthly assessment reports were included in the list of sections to be suspended. As previously mentioned, these sections expired by their own terms on June 30, 2000, and, thus, did not need to be suspended by the interim final rule. This final rule modifies the list of suspended provisions accordingly.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this final regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 30 handlers of Oregon-California potatoes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 450 potato producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.201) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000.
The Committee estimates that about 83 percent of the handlers ship under $5,000,000 worth of Oregon-California potatoes and about 17 percent of the handlers ship over $5,000,000 worth of Oregon-California potatoes on an annual basis. In addition, based on acreage, production, and producer prices reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the total number of Oregon-California potato producers, average annual producer receipts are approximately $294,000, excluding receipts from other sources. In view of the foregoing, it can be concluded that the majority of handlers and producers of Oregon-California potatoes may be classified as small entities.
At its March 31, 2000, meeting, the Committee recommended suspending the handling and related regulations. It also recommended suspending all reporting and assessment collection regulations. The Committee requested that this rule be effective on July 1, 2000, which is the date shipments of the 2000 Oregon-California potato crop began. This rule allows the Oregon-California potato industry to market potatoes without minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and inspection requirements.
The objective of the handling requirements is to ensure that only acceptable quality potatoes enter fresh market channels, thereby ensuring consumer satisfaction, increasing sales, and improving returns to producers. While the industry continues to believe that quality is an important factor in maintaining sales, the Committee believes the cost of inspection and certification (mandated when minimum requirements are in effect) may exceed the benefits derived.
Potato prices have been at low levels in recent seasons, and many producers have faced difficulty covering their production costs. Therefore, the Committee continues to explore various alternatives for reducing costs. The Committee recommended suspending the handling regulations for a one-year trial from July 1, 1999, through June 30, 2000. The Committee was concerned that the elimination of the handling requirements could possibly result in lower quality potatoes being shipped to fresh markets. Also, there was some concern that the Oregon-California potato industry could lose sales to other potato producing areas that were covered by quality and inspection requirements. For these reasons, the Committee recommended the one-year suspension of the requirements for the 1999-2000 marketing season.
The Committee believes that this one-year trial was successful and recommended continuing the suspension that was finalized by the Department on September 13, 1999 (64 FR 49352). This will enable the Committee to further study the impacts of the suspension and consider appropriate actions for ensuing seasons.
This rule enables handlers to ship potatoes without regard to the minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, inspection, and related requirements, and continues to decrease handler costs associated with inspection. This rule does not restrict handlers from seeking inspection on a voluntary basis. The Committee will continue to evaluate the
The Committee anticipates that this rule will not negatively impact small businesses. This rule suspends minimum grade, size, quality, maturity, pack, and inspection requirements. Further, this rule allows handlers and producers the choice to obtain inspection for potatoes, as needed, thereby reducing costs for the industry. The total cost of inspection and certification for fresh shipments of Oregon-California potatoes during the 1998-99 marketing season was estimated at $600,000. The 1998-99 marketing season was the most recent year for mandatory inspection. This is approximately $20,000 per handler. The Committee expects, however, that most handlers will continue to have some of their potatoes inspected and certified by the Federal-State Inspection Service.
The suspension of the assessment collection requirements for the 2000-2001 and future seasons also will result in some cost savings. Assessment collections during the 1999-2000 season totaled $25,500. Absent the suspension of § 947.247, assessments collected during the 2000-2001 season would have been about $26,000, according to Committee estimates.
The Committee investigated the use of other types of inspection programs as another option to reduce the cost of inspection, but believed they were not viable at this time.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements being suspended by this rule were approved previously by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178. Suspension of all of the reporting requirements is expected to reduce the reporting burden on small or large Oregon-California potato handlers by almost 300 hours, and should further reduce industry expenses. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sectors.
In addition, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Oregon-California potato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the March 31, 2000, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
An interim final rule concerning this action was published in the
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that the regulations suspended by this action no longer tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Marketing agreements, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Interim final rule with request for comments.
This rule increases the maximum diameter of the 6x6 numeric size designation currently prescribed under the Florida tomato marketing order (order). The order regulates the handling of tomatoes grown in Florida and is administered locally by the Florida Tomato Committee (Committee). The maximum diameter will be increased by
Effective November 8, 2000; comments received by January 5, 2001 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: moab.docketclerk@usda.gov. All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the
Doris Jamieson, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 2276, Winter Haven, Florida 33883; telephone: (863) 299-4770, Fax: (863) 299-5169; or George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, room 2525-S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698.
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room 2525-S, Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-2491, Fax: (202) 720-5698, or E-mail: Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.
This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 125 and Marketing Order No. 966, both as amended (7 CFR part 966), regulating the handling of tomatoes grown in certain designated counties in Florida, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The marketing agreement and order are effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Under the order, tomatoes produced in the production area and shipped to fresh market channels outside the regulated area are required to meet grade, size, inspection, and container requirements. These requirements apply during the period October 10 through June 15 each year. Current requirements include a minimum grade of U.S. No. 2 and a minimum size of 2
Section 966.52 of the order provides authority for the modification, suspension, and termination of regulations. It includes the authority to establish and modify size and pack requirements for tomatoes grown in the defined production area and handled under the order.
Section 966.323 of the order's rules and regulations specifies the handling regulations for Florida tomatoes. Section 966.323(a)(2)(i) currently specifies that all tomatoes packed by a registered handler must meet a minimum size requirement of 2
This rule increases the maximum diameter currently prescribed for size 6x6 tomatoes by
Based on an analysis of markets and demands of buyers, the Committee believes that this increase in the maximum diameter for size 6x6 tomatoes will improve the marketing of Florida tomatoes, provide handlers with additional flexibility in packing tomatoes, and help improve grower returns. Recent industry trends have been toward shipping larger tomatoes. In response to a strong consumer demand, new commercial tomato varieties have been planted to produce bigger tomatoes and have resulted in more large sized tomatoes being shipped. Because of this demand, production of larger tomatoes has been a popular method of improving returns among producers as it also increases total yields. Increasing the 6x6 maximum diameter will provide handlers the option of shifting the smallest sized tomatoes in a 5x6 pack to a 6x6 pack. By making this shift, handlers will be able to increase the average size in both the 6x6 and the 5x6 pack.
The
Shifting the smallest sizes from the 5x6 pack to the 6x6 pack would increase the average size in both the 6x6 and the 5x6 packs. It would move larger tomatoes into the 6x6 pack while providing space for additional larger tomatoes in the 5x6 pack. This would lower the count of tomatoes for each pack as well. In its discussions, the Committee recognized that buyers prefer larger tomatoes and a lower count per box. With buyer preferences trending toward larger sized tomatoes, the Committee believes that having this option could help grower returns.
This change also makes more tomatoes available to fill the 6x6 pack. In past years, there have been shortages of this pack due to tomato size. Committee members stated that during the past season there were periods when the tomatoes were sizing so well they were having trouble packing many 6x6 packs. The Committee recognized that there is a strong demand for the 6x6 pack and that it brings a favorable price, occasionally equal to or above the price for a 5x6 pack. Therefore, the Committee believes that it is important to continue to supply this market. With the option of shifting slightly larger tomatoes into the 6x6 pack, handlers will have more flexibility to move tomatoes to meet market demand. This will be particularly beneficial when the majority of tomatoes are sizing well.
In addition, the Committee also believes that raising the maximum diameter for the 6x6 pack could improve the uniformity of tomato in the 5x6 pack. While increasing the maximum diameter of the 6x6 pack does increase the size range, the increase is only by
Because there is no upper limit on size for a 5x6 pack, there can be a considerable variation in size. With newer tomato varieties producing larger fruit, the size variance in containers of 5x6 tomatoes has grown. This size variation is particularly evident with the smaller sizes in the pack. By having the opportunity to shift the smaller sizes to the 6x6 pack, handlers will be able to improve the uniformity of their 5x6 packs. This is particularly important because the 5x6 pack usually commands the best price in the market, faces the most competition, and is the most popular size.
During the 1999-2000 season, approximately 58 percent of the Florida tomatoes sold were 5x6 packs, and about 28 percent were sold as 6x6's. Increasing the maximum diameter size of the 6x6 by
A study conducted by Dr. John J. VanSickle at the University of Florida indicates that increasing the maximum diameter could result in an increase in the prices received for Florida tomatoes. The study indicates that if 1 percent of the smallest 5x6 size tomatoes are shifted into the smaller size categories, then prices for 5x6 size tomatoes could increase by .25 percent. With regard to 6x6 size tomatoes, the study indicates that the prices could increase by .15 percent. The increase in price would occur because of the redistribution of larger sized tomatoes into the smaller size designations, which is a response to consumer demand for a more consistent pack and slightly larger tomatoes.
Committee members do not believe that this change will create any confusion on the part of buyers. Rather, they stated that this change will allow handlers more opportunity to address the demands of their buyers.
Consumers and buyers are demanding a slightly larger tomato. Smaller tomatoes with a less uniform pack have poor consumer acceptance, especially in chain stores. This change provides handlers with some flexibility to adjust the size composition and uniformity of their packs to address the needs of their customers.
This change does not affect the current exemption provided to producer field packed tomatoes as long as the containers are designated as 6x6 and larger. Specifically, field packed tomatoes designated as size 6x6 and larger are not subject to the maximum diameter specified in the order's rules and regulations for 6x6 sized tomatoes (65 FR 8247, February 18, 2000).
Section 8e of the Act requires that whenever grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements are in effect for certain commodities under a domestic marketing order, including tomatoes, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable requirements. However, the Act does not authorize the imposition of container requirements on imports, when such requirements are in effect under a domestic marketing order. Florida tomatoes must be packed in accordance with three specified size designations, and tomatoes falling into different size designations may not be commingled in a single container. These pack restrictions do not apply to imported tomatoes. Therefore, no change is necessary in the tomato import regulation as a result of this action.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 70 handlers of Florida tomatoes who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 130 tomato producers in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $500,000 (13 CFR 121.201).
Committee data indicates that approximately 20 percent of the Florida tomato handlers handle 80 percent of the total volume. Based on the industry and Committee data, the average annual price for fresh Florida tomatoes during the 1999-2000 season was $6.89 per 25-pound carton or equivalent, and total fresh shipments for the 1999-2000 season were 58,006,721 25-pound equivalent cartons of tomatoes. Based on this information, the majority of handlers would be classified as small entities as defined by the SBA. The majority of producers of Florida tomatoes may also be classified as small entities.
This rule increases the maximum diameter requirement for size 6x6 tomatoes currently prescribed in the order's handling regulations. It increases the maximum diameter for size 6x6 tomatoes by
If the handlers take advantage of the increased packing flexibility, they would incur direct costs associated with the purchase of new sizing belts. Sizing belts convey and size fruit during the packing process. Depending on the amount of use, sizing belts can last a season or may need to be replaced two to three times a season. Estimated prices associated with these purchases could range from $450.00 for a small handler to $19,000 for very large handlers. While there are short-term costs associated with the new maximum diameter of the 6x6 sizing designation, the benefits are expected to outweigh the costs. Moreover, changing sizing belts is a routine action since they have to be regularly replaced depending on use. These costs are expected to be minimal relative to the benefits expected, and in relation to normal operating costs and procedures.
A study conducted by Dr. John J. VanSickle at the University of Florida estimates that a shift of 1 percent of 5x6 tomatoes into the smaller size categories would increase the prices for 5x6-size tomatoes by .25 percent. For 6x6's, the price could increase by .15 percent. The increase in price would occur in response to consumer demand for packs with slightly larger tomatoes.
This change is designed to provide handlers with more flexibility as to how sizes are packed. Because of this, handlers can choose to continue to pack as they have without making any adjustments due to this rule change. Purchasing new equipment is not necessary to remain in compliance with
Individual seasons and different periods during the same season can present a fair amount of variability in production and size. This change provides handlers with some additional flexibility when packing for size to allow handlers to make some adjustments in order to maximize returns and to service customer demand. This rule will provide the opportunity for handlers to make adjustments based on market conditions. This should have a positive effect on returns.
The Committee recommended these changes to improve the marketing of Florida tomatoes. The opportunities and benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all tomato handlers and growers regardless of their size of operation. This action will have a beneficial impact on producers and handlers since it will allow tomato handlers more flexibility in making tomatoes available to meet consumer needs consistent with crop and market conditions.
The Committee discussed alternatives to this recommendation, including leaving the regulations as currently issued. All Committee members agreed that this change would be helpful in improving pack appearance and in providing handlers some additional flexibility. Therefore, the Committee voted to make this change rather than leave the size designation for 6×6 unchanged.
This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large tomato handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
In addition, the Department has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.
Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the tomato industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the September 8, 2000, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue.
Also, the Committee has a number of appointed subcommittees to review certain issues and make recommendations to the Committee. The Committee's Marketing Subcommittee met on August 21, 2000, and discussed this issue in detail. That meeting was also a public meeting and both large and small entities were able to participate and express their views. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the
This rule invites comments on a change to the size requirements currently prescribed under the Florida tomato marketing order. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the
Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Tomatoes.
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain EMBRAER Model EMB-120 series airplanes, that requires inspections of certain components, and corrective action, if necessary. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent deterioration and deformation of the mass-balance weights of the aileron, which could affect the surface balance of the aileron and result in loss of aileron control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective December 11, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 11, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,
Satish Lall, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia 30337-2748; telephone (770) 703-6082; fax (770) 703-6097.
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 certain Model EMB-120 series airplanes, was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to 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 approximately 28 U.S.-registered airplanes will be required to measure the gap between the mass-balance weights and aileron hinge attachment. It will take approximately 2 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required measurement, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required measurement on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,360, or $120 per airplane, per inspection cycle.
The FAA estimates that approximately 230 U.S.-registered airplanes will be required to inspect the mass-balance weights to detect any cavity, hole, or delamination. It will take approximately 8 work hours per airplane to accomplish the required inspection, at an average labor rate of $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the required inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $110,400, or $480 per airplane.
The cost impact figures discussed above are based on assumptions that no operator has yet accomplished any of the requirements of this AD action, and that no operator will accomplish those actions in the future if this AD were not adopted. The cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations 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 (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent deterioration and deformation of the mass-balance weights of the aileron, which could affect the surface balance of the aileron and result in loss of aileron control and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane, accomplish the following:
(a) For airplanes having serial numbers 120-0291, 120-0294, and 120-0296 through 120-0333 inclusive: Within 150 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, measure the clearance between the aileron mass-balance weights and attach fittings on the left and right sides of the airplane, in accordance with PART I of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-27-0077, Change No. 01, dated October 24, 1997.
(1) If the clearance is within the acceptable limits described in the service bulletin, thereafter, repeat the measurement at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight hours until the actions required by paragraph (b) of this AD have been accomplished.
(2) If the clearance is outside the acceptable limits described in the service bulletin, prior to further flight, replace the affected mass-balance weight with a new, improved mass-balance weight, in accordance with PART III of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. Such replacement terminates the requirement to accomplish paragraph (b) of this AD.
(b) For all airplanes: Within 2,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, perform a one-time detailed visual inspection of the aileron mass-balance weights to detect any cavity, hole, or delamination, in accordance with PART II of the Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-27-0077, Change No. 01, dated October 24, 1997. Such inspection constitutes terminating action for the
(1) If no cavity, hole, or delamination is detected: Prior to further flight, perform a one-time detailed visual inspection to detect white powder on the surface of the mass-balance weights, in accordance with PART II of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin. If any white powder is found, remove the white powder in accordance with the service bulletin.
(2) If any cavity, hole, or delamination is found, prior to further flight, replace the affected mass-balance weight with a new, improved mass-balance weight, in accordance with PART III of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the Atlanta ACO.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The actions shall be done in accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin 120-27-0077, Change No. 01, dated October 24, 1997. 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 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in Brazilian airworthiness directive 98-01-02, dated January 15, 1998.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on December 11, 2000.
Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
Final rule.
This amendment adopts a new airworthiness directive (AD), applicable to certain British Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes, that requires inspection of certain components, and corrective action, if necessary. The actions specified by this AD are intended to prevent loosening of the locknut holding the main landing gear (MLG) piston to the ramrod, which could result in detachment of the MLG piston from the ramrod and loss of hydraulic control of the MLG. This action is intended to address the identified unsafe condition.
Effective December 11, 2000.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December 11, 2000.
The service information referenced in this AD may be obtained from British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171. This information may be examined at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
Norman B. Martenson, Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (425) 227-2110; fax (425) 227-1149.
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 certain British Aerospace (Jetstream) Model 4101 airplanes was published in the
Interested persons have been afforded an opportunity to participate in the making of this amendment. No comments were submitted in response to 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 59 airplanes of U.S. registry will be affected by this AD, that it will take approximately 1 work hour per airplane to accomplish the inspection, and that the average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Based on these figures, the cost impact of the inspection on U.S. operators is estimated to be $3,540, 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 cost impact figures discussed in AD rulemaking actions represent only the time necessary to perform the specific actions actually required by the AD. These figures typically do not include incidental costs, such as the time required to gain access and close up, planning time, or time necessitated by other administrative actions.
The regulations 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
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 (c) of this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to address it.
To prevent loosening of the locknut holding the MLG piston to the ramrod, which could result in detachment of the MLG piston from the ramrod and loss of hydraulic control of the MLG, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 18 months after the effective date of this AD: Inspect the airplane records to determine the overhaul status and number of landings on the left and right MLG retract actuators, and inspect the actuators for the presence of ink mark “32-03,” in accordance with Jetstream Service Bulletin J41-32-068, Revision 1, dated May 12, 2000.
(1) If both actuators have been overhauled and ink mark “32-03” is present on each actuator, no further action is required by this AD.
(2) For any actuator that has been overhauled but does not have ink mark “32-03” present on the actuator: Within 2 years after the effective date of this AD, accomplish all applicable corrective actions for that actuator (including inspection of locknut peening, lockwasher replacement, and ink marking), in accordance with Part 3 or Part 4, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
(3) For any actuator that has not been overhauled: Prior to further flight, or prior to the accumulation of 8,000 total landings on that actuator, whichever occurs later, replace the actuator with an overhauled actuator having ink mark “32-03” present, in accordance with Part 1 or Part 2, as applicable, of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service bulletin.
Jetstream Service Bulletin J41-32-068, Revision 1, dated May 12, 2000, refers to APPH Service Bulletin AIR86496-32-03, Revision 2, dated March 2000, as an additional source of service information for the inspection of locknut peening and the lockwasher replacement.
(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no APPH MLG retract actuator having P/N AIR86496, any suffix, may be installed on any airplane unless the actuator is marked with ink mark “32-03.”
(c) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used if approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA. Operators shall submit their requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who may add comments and then send it to the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116.
Information concerning the existence of approved alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be obtained from the International Branch, ANM-116.
(d) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
(e) The actions shall be done in accordance with Jetstream Service Bulletin J41-32-068, Revision 1, dated May 12, 2000. 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 British Aerospace Regional Aircraft American Support, 13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon, Virginia 20171. Copies may be inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.
The subject of this AD is addressed in British airworthiness directive 007-09-99.
(f) This amendment becomes effective on December 11, 2000.
Railroad Retirement Board.
Final rule.
The Railroad Retirement Board (Board) hereby amends its regulations under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA) to permit a “nurse practitioner” to execute a statement of sickness in support of payments of sickness benefits under the RUIA. The Board does not currently accept statements executed by a nurse practitioner, which in some cases may delay payment of benefits.
This final rule is effective November 6, 2000.
Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
Michael C. Litt, General Attorney, (312) 751-4929, TDD (312) 751-4701.
Section 335.2(a)(2) of the Board's regulations provides that in order to be entitled to sickness benefits under the RUIA, a claimant must provide a “statement of sickness”. Section 335.3(a) of this part lists the individuals from whom the Board will accept a statement of sickness. That list does not currently include nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners offer health care to people throughout the United States. Their
The Board published this rule as a proposed rule on May 5, 2000 (65 FR 26161), and invited comments by July 5, 2000. No comments were received.
The Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action for purposes of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, no regulatory analysis is required. The information collections contemplated by this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3220-0039.
Railroad employees, Railroad unemployment insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
45 U.S.C. 362(i) and 362(l).
(a) remove “or” at the end of paragraph (a)(9),
(b) remove the period and add “; or” at the end of paragraph (a)(10), and
(c) add a new paragraph (a)(11) to read as follows:
(a) * * *
(11) A nurse practitioner.
By Authority of the Board,
Railroad Retirement Board.
Final rule.
The Railroad Retirement Board adopts regulations pertaining to the finality of decisions under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act). The present rules dealing with finality of decisions under that statute are incomplete and are contained in a Board Order which is not readily available to the public. Therefore, the Board has determined that the present rules should be revised and published as a regulation.
This rule is effective November 6, 2000.
Marguerite P. Dadabo, Senior Attorney, Railroad Retirement Board, (312) 751-4945, TTD (312) 751-4701.
The Board's rules and procedures regarding the finality of decisions with respect to benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act are presently contained in a Board Order, which is not readily available to the public. Also the Board Order does not contain any time limits on reopening. The regulation addresses the finality of benefit decisions. This final rule is similar to part 261 of the Board's regulations on reopening of decisions under the Railroad Retirement Act (20 CFR 261).
Section 349.1 describes who may open a final decision issued by the agency. Section 349.2 describes when a final decision may be reopened. A final decision may be reopened within 12 months of the date of notice of such decision for any reason. A final decision may also be reopened within 4 years of the date of notice if new and material evidence is furnished or if the decision was not reasonably consistent with the evidence of record at the time the decision was made. A decision may be reopened at any time if the decision was obtained by fraud or similar fault, or if the decision was that the employee was not a qualified employee and is later found to be one because of a correction in his or her record of compensation, or if the decision was wholly or partially unfavorable to a claimant, but only to correct clerical error or an error that appears on the face of the evidence that was considered when the decision was made. See § 349.2(c).
Section 349.3 provides that a change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which a decision was based is not a basis for reopening.
Section 349.4 provides that a decision may be reopened after the 1 year and 4 year time limits set forth in § 349.2 if the Board had begun an investigation within those time limits. However, if the Board does not diligently pursue the investigation, the agency will not reopen the decision if the decision was favorable to the claimant.
Sections 349.5-349.7 are procedural and provide that if a decision is reopened, the claimant will be given notice and will have a right to reconsideration and/or a hearing. Any hearing shall be conducted in accordance with part 320 of the Board's regulations (20 CFR 320).
Finally, § 349.8 provides that the three-member Board has the discretion to reopen or not to reopen any decision under these regulations.
The Board published this rule as a proposed rule on April 20, 2000 (65 FR 21164-21165) and invited comments by June 19, 2000. No comments were received. Accordingly, the proposed rule is adopted as a final rule without change.
The Board, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866; therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required. There are no information collections associated with this rule.
Railroad employees, Railroad unemployment insurance.
45 U.S.C. 355 and 362(l).
(a) This part sets forth the Board's rules governing finality of decisions with respect to benefits under the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act. After the expiration of the time limits for review as set forth in part 320 of this chapter, decisions may be reopened and revised only under the conditions described in this subpart, by the bureau, office or entity that made the earlier decision or by a bureau, office, or other entity at a higher level which has the claim properly before it. Whether a final decision is reopened or not reopened is solely within the discretion of the Board.
(b) A
(c)
(d)
A final decision may be reopened:
(a) Within 12 months of the date of the notice of such decision, for any reason;
(b) Within four years of the date of the notice of such decision:
(1) If there is new and material evidence; or
(2) If the decision was not reasonably consistent with the evidence of record at the time of adjudication.
(c) At any time if:
(1) The decision was obtained by fraud or similar fault;
(2) The decision was that the claimant was not a qualified employee, and he or she is now qualified because compensation was credited to the employee's record of compensation in accordance with part 211 of this chapter:
(i) To correct errors apparent on the face of the compensation record;
(ii) To enter items transferred by the Social Security Administration which were credited under the Social Security Act when they should have been credited to the employee's railroad retirement compensation record; or
(iii) To correct errors made in the allocation of earnings to individuals or periods which would have made him or her a qualified employee at the time of the decision if the earnings had been credited to his or her earnings record at that time;
(3) The decision is wholly or partially unfavorable to a claimant, but only to correct a clerical error or an error that appears on the face of the evidence that was considered when the decision was made.
A change of legal interpretation or administrative ruling upon which a decision is based does not render a decision erroneous and does not provide a basis for reopening.
(a) A decision may be revised after the applicable time period in §§ 349.2(a) or (b) expires if the Board begins an investigation into whether to revise the decision before the applicable time period expires and the agency diligently pursues the investigation to the conclusion. The investigation may be based on a request by a claimant or on action by the Board.
(b)
(c) If the investigation is not diligently pursued to its conclusion, the decision will be revised if a revision is applicable and if it is favorable to the claimant. It will not be revised if it would be unfavorable to the claimant.
(a) When a decision is revised, notice of the revision will be mailed to the parties to the decision at their last known address. The notice will state the basis for the revised decision and the effect of the revision. The notice will also inform the parties of the right to further review.
(b) If a hearings officer or the three-member Board proposes to revise a decision, and the revision would be based only on evidence included in the record on which the prior decision was based, all parties will be notified in writing of the proposed action. If a revised decision is issued by a hearings officer, any party may request that it be reviewed by the three-member Board, or the three-member Board may review the decision on its own initiative.
A revised decision is binding unless:
(a) The revised decision is being reconsidered or appealed in accord with part 320 of this chapter;
(b) The three-member Board reviews the revised decision; or
(c) The revised decision is further revised consistent with this part.
A party to a revised decision may request, as appropriate, further review of the decision in accordance with the rules set forth in part 320 of this chapter. Further review or a hearing will be held according to the rules set forth in part 320 of this chapter.
In any case in which the three-member Board may deem proper, the Board may direct that any decision, which is otherwise subject to reopening under this part, shall not be reopened or direct that any decision, which is otherwise not subject to reopening under this part, shall be reopened.
By Authority of the Board.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correcting amendment.
This document contains corrections to Treasury Decision 8862, which was published in the
Effective February 23, 2000.
Mark D. Harris, (202) 622-3860 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are under section 367 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published, the final regulations contain errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
(c) * * *
(5) Abbreviated notice provision for shareholders that make the election described in § 1.367(b)-3(c)(3).
(c) * * *
(5)
(f) * * *
(4)
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * * The exchange gain or loss recognized under this paragraph (j)(2)(i) will increase or decrease the exchanging shareholder's adjusted basis in the stock of the foreign corporation, including for purposes of computing gain or loss realized with respect to the stock on the transaction. * * *
(b) * * *
(2)
(a) * * * This section applies notwithstanding that the foreign acquiring corporation and the foreign acquired corporation may be the same corporation (such as in a section 368(a)(1)(E) reorganization). * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(
(d) * * * (1)
(a) * * * (1)
(f)
(g) * * *
* * *
(ii) * * *
(C) * * * Under § 1.367(b)-2(e)(2), the $20 deemed dividend is considered as having been paid by FC to FD, and by FD to USS, immediately prior to the distribution. Under paragraph (f) of this section, the deemed dividend is not included by FD as foreign personal holding company income under section 954(c). * * *
* * *
(ii) * * *
(C) * * * Under paragraph (f) of this section, the deemed dividend is not included by FD as foreign personal holding company income under section 954(c).
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) published a final rule in the
November 29, 2000.
The Office published a final rule in the
Section 1.55(a) should refer to “35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), 172, and 365(a) and (b)” rather than “35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d), 172, and 365(a)” (references to 35 U.S.C. 119(f) and 365(b) were inadvertently omitted). Section 1.55(c) should refer to “35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and (f), and 365(a)” rather than “35 U.S.C. 119(a) through (d) and 365(a)” (a reference to 35 U.S.C. 119(f) was inadvertently omitted).
Section 1.99(f) should not include its last sentence (“[N]o further submission on behalf of the member of the public will be considered, unless such submission raises new issues which could not have been earlier presented.”).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
EPA published the final Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (the Guidance) on March 23, 1995. Section 118(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires the Great Lakes States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to adopt within two years of publication of the final Guidance (
Today, EPA is taking final action on the Guidance submission of the State of Wisconsin. EPA's final action consists of approving those elements of the State's submission that are consistent with the Guidance, disapproving those elements that are not consistent with the Guidance, and specifying in a final rule the elements of the Guidance that apply
40 CFR 132.6(f), (h)-(j) is effective on December 6, 2000. 40 CFR 132.6(g) is effective on February 5, 2001. To the extent this action, or portion thereof, is subject to judicial review pursuant to section 509(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1369(b), it is considered issued for purposes of judicial review as 1 p.m., Eastern Standard time on November 20, 2000, as provided in 40 CFR 23.2.
The public docket for EPA's final actions with respect to the Guidance submission of the State of Wisconsin is available for inspection and copying at U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 by appointment only. Appointments may be made by calling Mery Jackson-Willis (telephone 312-886-3717).
Mark Morris (4301), U.S. EPA, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue., NW, Washington, DC 20460 (202-260-0312); or Mery Jackson-Willis, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604 (312-353-3717).
Entities potentially affected by today's action are those discharging pollutants to waters of the United States in the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin. Potentially affected categories and entities include:
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding regulated entities likely to be affected by these final actions. This table lists the types of regulated entities that EPA believes could be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be affected. To determine whether your facility may be affected by this final action, you should examine the definition of “Great Lakes System” in 40 CFR 132.2 and examine 40 CFR 132.2 which describes the part 132 regulations. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding
On March 23, 1995, EPA published the Guidance. See 60 FR 15366; 40 CFR part 132. The Guidance establishes minimum water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for the waters of the Great Lakes System in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Specifically, the Guidance specifies numeric criteria for selected pollutants to protect aquatic life, wildlife and human health within the Great Lakes System and provides methodologies to derive numeric criteria for additional pollutants discharged to these waters. The Guidance also contains minimum implementation procedures and an antidegradation policy.
Soon after being published, the Guidance was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On June 6, 1997, the Court issued a decision upholding virtually all of the provisions contained in the 1995 Guidance.
40 CFR 132.4 requires the Great Lakes States to adopt water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for waters within the Great Lakes System consistent with the Guidance or be subject to EPA promulgation. 40 CFR 132.5(d) provides that, where a State makes no submission to EPA, the Guidance shall apply to discharges to waters in that State upon EPA's publication of a final rule indicating the effective date of the part 132 requirements in that jurisdiction.
On July 1, 1997, the National Wildlife Federation filed suit alleging that EPA had a non-discretionary duty to promulgate the Guidance for any State that failed to adopt standards, policies and procedures consistent with the Guidance.
40 CFR 132.5(f) provides that, once EPA completes its review of a State's submission, it must either publish notice of approval of the State's submission in the
On November 15, 1999, the National Wildlife Federation and the Lake Michigan Federation filed suit alleging that EPA had a non-discretionary duty to take action on the Great Lakes States' Guidance submissions.
EPA has conducted its review of the Wisconsin's submission in accordance with the requirements of section 118(c)(2) of the CWA and 40 CFR part 132. Section 118 requires that States adopt policies, standards and procedures that are “consistent with” the Guidance. EPA has interpreted the statutory term “consistent with” to mean “as protective as” the corresponding requirements of the Guidance. Thus, the Guidance gives States the flexibility to adopt requirements that are not the same as the Guidance, provided that the State's provisions afford at least as stringent a level of environmental protection as that provided by the corresponding provision of the Guidance. In making its evaluation, EPA has considered the language of each State's standards, policies and procedures, as well as any additional information provided by the State clarifying how it interprets or will implement its provisions.
Where EPA has promulgated a final rule that identifies a provision of the Guidance that shall apply in Wisconsin, EPA explains below its reasons for concluding that Wisconsin failed to adopt requirements that are consistent with the Guidance. Additional explanation of EPA's conclusions are contained in EPA's correspondence with Wisconsin (identified in relevant sections below) where EPA initially identified inconsistencies in the State's submission, as well in documents prepared for Wisconsin entitled, “Wisconsin Provisions Being Approved as Being Consistent With the Guidance,” “Analysis of Whether Wisconsin Has Adopted Requirements Consistent With the Guidance” and “Analysis of Steps Taken By Wisconsin in Response to EPA's 90-Day Letter.” Notice of the availability of EPA's correspondence with Wisconsin was published in the
In this proceeding, EPA has reviewed the State's submission to determine its consistency with 40 CFR part 132. EPA has not reopened part 132 in any respect, and today's action does not affect, alter or amend in any way the substantive provisions of part 132. To the extent any members of the public commented during this proceeding that any provision of part 132 is unjustified as a matter of law, science or policy, those comments are outside the scope of this proceeding.
With regard to those elements of the State submission being approved by EPA, EPA is approving those provisions as amendments to Wisconsin's NPDES permitting program under section 402 of the CWA and as revisions to Wisconsin's water quality standards under section 303 of the CWA. Today's document identifies those approved elements. Additional explanations of EPA's review of and conclusions regarding Wisconsin's submission, including the specific State provisions that EPA is approving, are contained in the administrative record for today's actions in documents prepared for Wisconsin entitled, “Wisconsin Provisions Being Approved as Being Consistent With the Guidance,” “Analysis of Whether Wisconsin Has Adopted Requirements Consistent With the Guidance” and “Analysis of Steps Taken By Wisconsin in Response to EPA's 90-Day Letter.”
On June 13, 2000, EPA issued a letter notifying the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) that, while the State of Wisconsin had generally adopted requirements consistent with the Guidance, EPA concluded that portions of the standards, policies and procedures adopted by the State were not consistent with corresponding provisions of the Guidance. On June 22, 2000, EPA published in the
EPA's June 13, 2000, letter concluded that some of the provisions that EPA is now approving authorized the State to act consistent with the Guidance, but provided inadequate assurance that the State would exercise its discretion consistent with the Guidance. Subsequent to that letter, WDNR provided additional materials, including an Addendum to its Memorandum of
EPA has determined that Wisconsin's acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel in Wis. Adm. Code NR 105, Tables 2 and 6 are not consistent with those in Tables 1 and 2 of part 132; and chronic aquatic life criterion for endrin in Wis. Adm. Code NR 105, Table 5 is not consistent with that in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 132. With respect to copper and nickel, Wisconsin acknowledged in an October 11, 2000, letter to EPA that it made mathematical errors which resulted in criteria that were higher than (less protective than) criteria that Wisconsin believes would have been consistent with the Guidance had the errors not been made. Wisconsin also acknowledged that it did not consider certain toxicological data incorporated into the Guidance criterion in deriving its chronic aquatic life criterion for endrin, which in turn resulted in a criterion that is less stringent than that required by the Guidance. Wisconsin intends to initiate rulemaking to correct these errors, but will be unable to complete that rulemaking before October 31, 2000, which is the date by which EPA is required under its Consent Decree with the National Wildlife Federation and the Lake Michigan Federation to take final action on Wisconsin's submission.
Based upon the above, EPA finds that Wisconsin has failed to adopt acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel consistent with those in Tables 1 and 2 of part 132, and has failed to adopt a chronic aquatic life criterion for endrin consistent with that in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 132, as required by 40 CFR 132.3. EPA, therefore, disapproves Wisconsin's acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel in Wis. Adm. Code NR 105, Tables 2 and 6, and chronic aquatic life criterion for endrin in Wis. Adm. Code NR 105, Table 5, to the extent they apply to waters of the Great Lakes System, and has determined that the acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel in Tables 1 and 2 of part 132 and the chronic aquatic life criterion for endrin in Table 2 to 40 CFR part 132 shall apply to the waters of the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin.
As noted above, Wisconsin intends to initiate rulemaking to adopt criteria that are consistent with those in the Guidance for these three parameters. EPA will work closely with WDNR to insure that these criteria will be consistent with the Guidance. WDNR will then submit its criteria to EPA for review pursuant to section 303(c) of the CWA, and, if EPA approves those revisions, EPA will revise its regulations so that the Guidance criteria will no longer apply to the waters within the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin.
EPA is also disapproving Wisconsin's failure to adopt and submit to EPA a chronic aquatic life water quality criterion for selenium. 40 CFR 132.3(b) mandates that each Great Lakes State adopt numeric water quality criteria that are consistent with the chronic water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life contained in Table 2 of part 132 (or with site-specific modifications of those criteria adopted in accordance with the Guidance). Table 2 contains a chronic water quality criterion for selenium of 5 micrograms per liter (μg/L). Currently, Wisconsin's water quality standards do not contain a chronic aquatic life criterion for selenium. The absence of any water quality criterion in Wisconsin's standards to ensure the protection of aquatic life from chronic adverse effects due to selenium is inconsistent with the Guidance.
EPA did not identify the omission of the selenium criterion from the State's submission in its June 13, 2000, letter to the State, but subsequently became aware of this deficiency very near the close of this proceeding. Because the absence of the selenium criterion is clearly inconsistent with the Guidance, and in light of EPA's obligation under the consent decree in
EPA also has determined that procedure 3 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 132 shall apply with regard to development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin. EPA has made this determination because Wisconsin simply has not adopted specific requirements for developing TMDLs in the Great Lakes System that correspond to those in procedure 3 of appendix F. Wisconsin has enacted a statutory requirement at Wis. Stat. 283.83(3), and has adopted a regulatory requirement at Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.11, that generally require WDNR to develop TMDLs. Wisconsin also has adopted at Wis. Adm. Code NR 212 detailed regulatory requirements for how WDNR must develop TMDLs for a number of pollutants that are not subject to the Guidance (see Table 5 of 40 CFR part 132). However, Wisconsin has not adopted similar, detailed provisions governing development of TMDLs for pollutants that are subject to the Guidance (
Given the complete absence of any specific requirements governing development of TMDLs in the Great Lakes System in Wisconsin for pollutants subject to the Guidance, it is necessary for EPA to specify that the provisions of procedure 3 of appendix F to 40 CFR part 132 apply in the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin. EPA notes that this promulgation has no effect on the chemical-specific reasonable potential procedures at Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.05 and 106.06(1) , (3)-(5), & (7)-(10) which EPA approves as being consistent with the reasonable potential procedures in paragraphs A through C and F of procedure 5 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 132. These State procedures, therefore, apply in the
EPA also has determined that two provisions in Wisconsin's rules, Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(06) and Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.10(1), are inconsistent with procedure 5 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 132. Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires all NPDES permits to include effluent limitations more stringent than technology-based limits when necessary to meet State water quality standards in the receiving waterbody. To implement this requirement, EPA has established a two-step water quality-based permitting approach. A discharge of pollutants must first be evaluated to determine whether it will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard (
One of the principal issues considered in the development of the Guidance was the appropriate approach for establishing wasteload allocations for point sources (upon which WQBELs are based) where the “background” levels of the pollutant in a waterbody exceed applicable water quality criteria for that pollutant. The proposed Guidance included a requirement to set the wasteload allocation at zero, in the absence of a multiple source TMDL, for any pollutant discharged into a waterbody already exceeding water quality criteria for that pollutant. See procedures 3A.C.4 and 3B.C.3 (58 FR 21046, April 16, 1993). This “high background” provision was not included in the final Guidance because the Agency concluded that a multitude of factors would need to be considered in establishing wasteload allocations and WQBELs in this situation. See Supplemental Information Document for the Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (EPA, 3/23/95) (“SID”) at 285. Possible permitting approaches discussed in the SID ranged from prohibiting the discharge of the pollutant altogether to allowing no greater than discharge at the criteria itself (
EPA also addressed “high background” pollutants by establishing specialized provisions for discharges of pollutants contained in a facility's intake water (“intake pollutants”) in paragraphs D and E of procedure 5. Where a facility removes water with high background pollutant levels and then subsequently discharges the same level of pollutants back into the same waterbody, the discharge does not pose environmental concerns comparable to where a facility introduces pollutants into the waterbody for the first time.
Procedure 5.D allows a finding that a water quality-based effluent limit is not needed for a particular pollutant that originates in the intake water and simply passes through the facility and is discharged without any adverse effect (that would not have occurred had the intake pollutant stayed in-stream). Among other things, eligibility for this finding under the Guidance requires a showing that:
i. The facility withdraws 100 percent of the intake water containing the pollutant from the same body of water into which the discharge is made;
ii. The facility does not contribute any additional mass of the identified intake pollutant to its wastewater;
iii. The facility does not alter the identified intake pollutant chemically or physically in a manner that would cause adverse water quality impacts to occur that would not occur if the pollutants were left in-stream;
iv. The facility does not alter the identified intake pollutant concentration, as defined by the permitting authority, at the edge of the mixing zone, or at the point of discharge if a mixing zone is not allowed, as compared to the pollutant concentration in the intake water, unless the increased concentration does not cause or contribute to an excursion above an applicable water quality standard; and
v. The timing and location of the discharge would not cause adverse water quality impacts to occur that would not occur if the identified intake pollutant were left in-stream.
If an intake pollutant does not meet the above five criteria and effluent limitations are needed, paragraph E of procedure 5 allows a facility to discharge the same mass and concentration of pollutants that are present in its intake water (
Wisconsin's regulations contain a provision that addresses discharges into waters where background levels exceed applicable water quality criteria. Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(6). If 10 percent of a pollutant to be discharged by a facility is from the same body of water as the discharge, Wisconsin's procedure requires that permit limitations for the entire discharge be set at background levels, except that more stringent limitations may be established when the existing treatment system has a demonstrated cost-effective ability to achieve regular and consistent compliance with a limitation more stringent than the representative background concentration. Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(6)(c). Where at least 90 percent of the wastewater is from groundwater or a drinking water supply, the permitting authority is to establish limits equal to the lowest applicable
Wisconsin's approach differs significantly from, and is not as protective as, procedure 5 of the Guidance. Most importantly, procedure 5 only allows effluent limitations to be set above water quality criteria at “background” levels (
Wisconsin's approach is also inconsistent with the fundamental principles underlying the Guidance permitting procedures. The Guidance allows effluent limitations at “background” levels for intake pollutants from the same body water because, in that circumstance, “the discharge containing the identified intake pollutant of concern effectively has no impact on the receiving water that would not otherwise occur if the pollutant were left in stream.” See SID at 370. In contrast, Wisconsin's approach allows facilities to discharge pollutants that were not previously in the waterbody (pollutants either generated by the facility itself or intake pollutants from a different body of water), and to do so at levels greater than the applicable water quality criteria. Since the receiving waterbody is already exceeding applicable water quality criteria, such discharges have the strong potential to exacerbate the water's non-compliance with standards, and permits authorizing such discharges would not meet the underlying requirement to establish effluent limitations that ensure water quality achieved by point sources derives from and complies with water quality standards. 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(A).
This conclusion is not changed by the fact that Wisconsin's procedures provide for limitations to be set at levels below background based on practicability considerations, as provided in Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(6)(b) and (c)2. The CWA does not contain an exception to the requirement to meet water quality standards based on considerations of technical feasibility. To the contrary, the Act requires discharges to meet technology-based requirements and “
Finally, the Wisconsin approach is not as protective as the Guidance because it fails to include the important restrictions contained in the Guidance to ensure that all possible adverse impacts that could result from the discharge of intake pollutants are considered in determining whether limits are needed. The Guidance prohibits “no net addition” limitations where the facility alters the intake pollutant chemically or physically in a manner that would cause adverse water quality impacts to occur that would not occur if the pollutant were left in-stream, or the timing and location of the discharge would increase the adverse effects of the pollutants. Procedures 5.D.3.b.iii and v; 5.E.3.a. The absence of these restrictions in the Wisconsin submission is inconsistent with the Guidance.
For the reasons described above, EPA finds that Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(6) is inconsistent with procedure 5 of appendix F of 40 CFR part 132.
EPA also finds Wisconsin's cooling-water exemption at Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.10(1) to be inconsistent with the intake pollutant procedures of the Guidance. That provision prohibits the NPDES permitting authority from imposing WQBELs on discharges of non-contact cooling waters, which do not contain additives. Even when additives are used, Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.10(1) categorically prohibits the permitting authority from imposing WQBELs for “compounds at a rate and quantity necessary to provide a safe drinking water supply, or the addition of substances in similar type and amount to those substances typically added to a public drinking water supply.” Wisconsin's rules do not contain any of the limitations set forth in the Guidance at paragraph 5.3.b of appendix F discussed above, which ensure that all potential environmental effects are considered in regulating the discharge of intake pollutants.
Nothing in the Guidance allows for a categorical exclusion for non-contact cooling water discharges (with or without additives) from the need for evaluating whether WQBELs are needed to ensure compliance with water quality standards. A major premise of the provisions in the Guidance pertaining to determining reasonable potential in paragraphs A-C of procedure 5, as well as the intake pollutants addressed by paragraphs D and E, is that decisions on the need for, and calculation of, WQBELs must occur on a case-by-case basis because there is no way to categorically determine that a particular group of discharges will have the same impact on any particular body of water. Without such an evaluation, it is not possible to make a reliable determination that limitations are being imposed that are needed to meet water quality standards, as required by section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA. EPA recognizes that it is possible to develop a framework for considering classes of discharges based upon their common characteristics (e.g., certain categories of non-contact cooling water) that accounts for the factors identified in the Guidance to determine whether their discharge will cause or has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality standards. This is evidenced by EPA's approval of once-through non-contact cooling water provisions in
Based upon the above, EPA disapproves the provisions at Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(6) and Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(10)(1) to the extent they apply to waters of the Great Lakes System as inconsistent with procedure 5 in appendix F of 40 CFR part 132 and has determined that paragraphs D and E of procedure 5 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 132 shall apply to the waters of the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin. As described in the record for today's action, EPA has approved Wisconsin's basic procedure at Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.05 for determining reasonable potential for specific chemicals as consistent with the Guidance, and that procedure will continue to govern reasonable potential determinations by the State within the Great Lakes System. In light of EPA's disapproval of Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(6) and Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.06(10)(1), those provisions are not an effective component of the State's NPDES program within the Great Lakes System and cannot serve as the basis for making reasonable potential determinations and establishing effluent limitations in issuing NPDES permits. See 40 CFR 123.63(b)(4) (NPDES program revisions are effective upon approval by EPA). Therefore, discharges of pollutants will be governed by the State's reasonable potential procedures in Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.05, subject to the flexibility available under the intake pollutant procedures contained in today's rule.
EPA also has determined that Wisconsin's provisions at Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.08(5) for determining reasonable potential for a discharge to cause or contribute to an exceedance of Wisconsin's narrative criteria at Wis. Adm. Code NR 102.04(1) prohibiting the discharge of toxic substances in toxic amounts are inconsistent with paragraph D of procedure 6 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 132. The Guidance procedure for evaluating reasonable potential for whole effluent toxicity (WET) is based on comparing a projected 95th percentile WET value at a 95 percent confidence level with the acute and chronic WET criteria after accounting for any available dilution. In most cases where there is quantifiable effluent data, EPA's procedure will project an effluent value greater than the maximum observed value (using factors to account for effluent variability and size of the data set) to characterize the reasonable worst case effluent. This conservative approach is designed to ensure that WQBELs are imposed when there is a reasonable potential for toxicity, taking into account the effluent variability and the size of the data set, even if no toxicity has actually been observed.
In evaluating State reasonable potential procedures for WET, EPA looked for an equivalent level of protection to that provided by the Guidance procedure. In the case of a procedure to determine when a WQBEL is needed, one important consideration is whether the alternative procedure would indicate the need for a WQBEL in similar situations to those that would trigger a WQBEL under paragraph D of procedure 6.
Wisconsin's procedures at Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.08(5) rely on the comparison of the geometric mean toxicity multiplied by the fraction of the available toxicity values that fail WET requirements to derive a WET reasonable potential factor (RPF). If the calculated RPF is greater than 0.3, a limit is required. Because effluent monitoring results are averaged under the Wisconsin approach, the importance of individual sample showing high levels of toxicity is diminished in determining the need for a limit. Indeed, Wisconsin's procedure would allow the State to not impose a limit even where actual toxicity has been observed in WET tests on the effluent, a result clearly inconsistent with the Guidance. Wisconsin's regulation also allows the permit writer not to even undertake a reasonable potential analysis if there are fewer than five data points to calculate the RPF, while the Guidance requires a reasonable potential analysis where even where there is only one data point. Each of these characteristics of the Wisconsin procedure means that it is possible to reach a determination that a limit is not necessary even when an actual observed value would violate potential permit limits. This is clearly inconsistent with paragraph D of procedure 6.
Based upon the above, EPA finds that Wisconsin has failed to adopt procedures governing WET reasonable potential consistent with those in paragraph D of procedure 6 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 132. EPA, therefore, disapproves Wisconsin's provisions at Wis. Adm. Code NR 160.08(5) to the extent they apply to waters of the Great Lakes System, and has determined that the provisions in paragraph D of procedure 6 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 132 shall apply for discharges into the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin.
As noted above, EPA, in this document, is not taking action to approve or disapprove portions of Wisconsin's Guidance submission pertaining to NPDES permitting and water quality standards issues that are not addressed by the Guidance. Therefore, EPA is not taking action under section 118 with regard to the following issue. However, EPA wishes to describe its understanding with regard to one aspect of Wisconsin's submission that is not addressed by the Guidance. Specifically, Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.07(6)(c) provides that effluent levels that are below the level of quantification (LOQ) are generally deemed to be in compliance with WQBELs that are below the LOQ. EPA expressed concern in its June 13, 2000, letter to Wisconsin that, to the extent this provision suggested that effluent levels that exceeded the WQBEL but that were below the LOQ would be deemed to be in compliance with the WQBEL, this provision would be inconsistent with the requirement in paragraph A of procedure 8 in appendix F to 40 CFR part 132 that such WQBELs must be specified in the NPDES permit as the enforceable effluent limit.
WDNR has clarified that, consistent with the Guidance, it is required to specify the WQBEL in the permit as the enforceable limit in these situations and that Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.07(6)(c) only relates to the exercise by WDNR of its enforcement discretion, not the authority of the federal government or third parties in a citizen suit to enforce the WQBEL as calculated. Moreover, WDNR has agreed in an addendum to its MOA with EPA that it will not include the language of Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.07(6)(c) in NPDES permits. Given WDNR's clarification regarding the meaning of Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.07(6)(c), EPA no longer believes that Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.07(6)(c) is relevant to the question of whether WDNR has adopted requirements consistent with the Guidance, and so EPA is not taking action at this time to either approve or disapprove that provision. EPA notes that revisions to State NPDES programs do not become
EPA received public comments from two commenters in response to its
EPA is disapproving the Wisconsin provision that prohibits WQBELs for non-contact cooling water as being inconsistent with the Guidance for the reasons stated above. EPA believes the commenter's conclusion that power plants will have to treat billions of gallons of water or shut down is speculative and overstated. EPA expects that in many cases, especially where no additives are used, once-through non-contact cooling water will qualify for intake pollutant relief under the Guidance provisions being promulgated for application to discharges to the Great Lakes Basin in Wisconsin. In any case, the application of the intake pollutant procedures of the Guidance to a particular discharger is fundamentally a site-specific evaluation. The particular characteristics of a facility's intake water and effluent, the manner in which the intake pollutants are handled by the facility and the resulting effect of that handling on the potential adverse effects of such pollutants in the receiving water, as well as the nature of the receiving water itself, all must be considered to determine what regulatory controls, if any, are needed under the Guidance. Thus, without a full record, it is not possible for us to address fully the concerns raised by this commenter, or predict how the rule being promulgated today will apply to any particular facility.
In addition, there are two other mechanisms set forth in the Guidance for addressing the commenter's concern. First, as EPA explained in several places in the SID, the best means for States and Tribes to address comprehensively the root causes of non-attainment of water quality standards is the TMDL development process. See, e.g., SID at 347. (The SID has been included in the record for EPA's determination with respect to Wisconsin's Guidance submission.) The TMDL procedures for the Great Lakes System are set forth in procedure 3 of appendix F to 40 CFR part 132. Second, any existing discharger into the Great Lakes System can apply for a variance from water quality standards where the discharger believes that requiring compliance with necessary water quality based effluent limitations “would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.” See 40 CFR 131.10(g)(6). EPA adopted the intake pollutant procedures in the Guidance as an additional, permit-based mechanism for dealing with simple removal and transfer of pollutants from one part of a waterbody to another, but availability of this mechanism does not preclude use of other means of adjusting water quality standards or a particular discharger's load reduction responsibilities.
Wisconsin's rules at Wis. Adm. Code NR 106.08(1), consistent with paragraph C of procedure 6, requires that WDNR “shall establish [WET] testing requirements and limitations whenever necessary to meet applicable water quality standards as specified in [Wis. Adm. Code] chs. NR 102 to 105 as measured by exposure of aquatic organisms to an effluent and specified effluent dilutions.” For the reasons explained above, Wisconsin's procedures for determining reasonable potential (
The commenter's premise is that imposition of WQBELs is actually harmful to the environment because the commenter believes that imposition of WQBELs results in an expenditure of resources that could otherwise be used addressing toxicity problems. The commenter, therefore, concludes that Wisconsin's inadequate WET reasonable potential should be approved precisely because it does not result in imposition of WQBELs.
EPA does not agree with the commenter's premise that imposition of WQBELs is somehow harmful to the environment, and the commenter has provided nothing other than vague, conclusory assertions to support the premise. Instead, EPA believes that the procedure that determines whether or not a permit includes a WQBEL for a particular pollutant or parameter (the reasonable potential procedure) is a critical element for determining the level of protection that will be achieved when implementing a water quality standard. Where a reasonable potential procedure is not as protective as the Guidance, a State's WET program cannot be considered to achieve the same level of protection as the Guidance.
EPA also notes that in addition to the requirements of procedure 6 of the Guidance itself, section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires “limitation[s] * * * necessary to meet any applicable water quality standard.” Moreover, EPA's regulations implementing section 301(b)(1)(C) at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(iv) and (v) require that NPDES permits contain “effluent limits for whole effluent toxicity” or chemical-specific limits in lieu of WET limits, whenever there is reasonable potential that a discharge will cause or contribute to an in-stream excursion above a numeric criterion for WET or a narrative criterion of no toxics in toxic amounts. Therefore, the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations require permitting authorities to impose WQBELs for WET when there has been a reasonable potential finding, and EPA does not believe it would be consistent with the CWA and EPA regulations to approve an alternative approach that omits this fundamental requirement. EPA notes that, in appropriate cases, a permitting authority can include a compliance schedule for the WQBEL that would allow for additional monitoring and identification and reduction of toxicants, followed by a reassessment of the need for a limit or the identification of a specific toxicant rather than WET that could be subject to a WQBEL.
EPA further notes, in response to the comment regarding whether it is appropriate to assume that WET data follow a log-normal distribution, that although the States have flexibility to adopt approaches that make different assumptions about the distribution of WET data than is assumed in procedure 6, no one has presented EPA with an analysis identifying a different distribution or statistical method that fits WET data better, either in general or in a particular case. More fundamentally, however, for the reasons explained above, the procedure submitted by Wisconsin does not address in any manner the underlying premise of procedure 6: that effluent quality is variable and, therefore, a method for assessing WET data must account for the likelihood that the maximum value in a particular data set is less than the true maximum that is likely to be experienced by the environment as a result of the discharge. EPA, therefore, concludes that Wisconsin's approach is inconsistent with the Guidance.
As a result of today's action, the Guidance provisions specified in today's rule apply in the Great Lakes System in Wisconsin until such time as the State adopts requirements consistent with the specific Guidance provisions at issue, and EPA approves those State requirements and revises the rule so that the provisions no longer apply in Wisconsin.
Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has determined that there is good cause for making today's rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because EPA finds it unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Today's rule does not promulgate any new regulatory provisions. Rather, in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR 132.5(f), today's rule identifies the provisions of 40 CFR part 132 promulgated previously by EPA that shall apply to discharges in Wisconsin within the Great Lakes
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and is therefore not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because the agency has made a “good cause” finding that this action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute, as described in Section II, above, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct, as required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Indian-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.
33 U.S.C. 1251
(f) Effective December 6, 2000, the acute and chronic aquatic life criteria for copper and nickel in Tables 1 and 2 of this part and the chronic aquatic life criterion for endrin in Table 2 of this part shall apply to the waters of the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin.
(g) Effective February 5, 2001, the chronic aquatic life criterion for selenium in Table 2 of this part shall apply to the waters of the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin.
(h) Effective December 6, 2000, the requirements of procedure 3 in appendix F of this part shall apply for purposes of developing total maximum daily loads in the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin.
(i) Effective December 6, 2000, the requirements of paragraphs D and E of procedure 5 in appendix F of this part shall apply to discharges within the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin.
(j) Effective December 6, 2000, the requirements of paragraph D of procedure 6 in appendix F of this part shall apply to discharges within the Great Lakes System in the State of Wisconsin.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Final rule.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is amending the regulations governing traineeships to add conditions under which NIH may terminate traineeship awards and revise the authorities for the awards.
This final rule is effective on December 6, 2000.
Jerry Moore, NIH Regulations Officer,
Section 405(b)(1)(C) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, as amended, authorizes the Secretary, acting through the directors of the national research institutes of NIH, to conduct and support research training for which fellowship support is not provided under section 487 of the PHS Act, and which is not residency training of physicians or other health professionals. The Director, NIH, has similar authority under section 402(b)(13) of the PHS Act. Additionally, section 485D(a) of the PHS Act authorizes the Director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to support research training; section 472 of the PHS Act authorizes the award of traineeships in medical library science and related fields; and section 413(b)(3) of the PHS Act authorizes the Director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), in carrying out the National Cancer Program, to support appropriate programs of education and training (including continuing education and laboratory and clinical research training). Unlike the NIH authority set forth in section 405(b)(1)(C) of the PHS Act, the NCI authority does not exclude residency training. Under these authorities, NIH awards research traineeships to qualified individuals. The regulations codified at 42 CFR part 63 govern these traineeships. NIH revised the regulations in their entirety, February 27, 1995 (60 FR 10718).
NIH proposed amendments to Part 63 in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
In these final regulations, NIH is revising § 63.9 by amending paragraph (b) to add scientific misconduct as a ground for termination and by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d), which add conviction of a felony and certain other criminal offenses and programmatic changes or lack of funds, respectively, as grounds for termination.
Additionally, NIH is amending the authority citation by adding a reference to section 413(b)(3) of the PHS Act pertaining to the National Cancer Program that was inadvertently excluded from the proposed rule and removing the reference to section 485B(b) of the PHS Act and the parallel U.S. Code citation to reflect the renaming of the National Center for Human Genome Research as the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), effective January 27, 1997 (62 FR 3900). As a result of the establishment of this new research institute, the current reference to section 485B is redundant and unnecessary. The current references to the National Center for Human Genome Research and section 485B of the PHS Act in § 63.1 and § 63.2 are also redundant and unnecessary as a result of the renaming. Consequently, NIH is removing the references to the National Center for Human Genome Research and section 485B of the PHS Act in paragraph (a) of § 63.1 and in the definitions set forth in § 63.2 of the terms “award,” “awardee,” “director,” and “traineeship.” Also NIH is adding to § 63.2 the definition of “misconduct in science,” as set forth in the PHS regulations governing the responsibility of awardees and applicants for dealing with misconduct in science, 42 CFR part 50, subpart A.
Finally, NIH is revising the references set forth in unnumbered paragraphs 8, 9, and 10 of § 63.10 to comply with
NIH provides the following statements as public information.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) reviewed this rule as required under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. The OMB deemed it to be not significant, as defined under the Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) requires that regulatory actions be analyzed to determine whether they will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Director, NIH, certifies that the changes in the traineeship regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities and, therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis, as defined under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, is not required.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, requires that Federal agencies consult with State and local government officials in the development of regulatory policies with federalism implications. We reviewed the rule as required under the Order and determined that it does not have any federalism implications. The Director, NIH, certifies that the changes in the traineeships regulations will not have an effect on the States or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This rule does not contain any information collection requirements that are subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbered program affected by this rule is: 93.140—Intramural Research Training Award.
Grant programs—health, Health professions, Libraries, Manpower training programs, Medical research, Students.
42 U.S.C. 216, 282(b)(13), 284(b)(1)(C), 285a-2(b)(3), 286b-3, 287c-21(a).
(a) The regulations in this part apply to research traineeships awarded by the Director, NIH, each director of a national research institute of NIH, the Director of the National Library of Medicine, and the Director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, or their designees, pursuant to sections 402(b)(13), 405(b)(1)(C), 413(b)(3), 472, and 485(D)(a) of the Act, respectively.
(b) The regulations of this part do not apply to research training under the National Research Service Award Program governed by 42 CFR part 66 or to the Mental Health Traineeship Program governed by 42 CFR part 64a.
(c) Except as otherwise permitted under section 413(b)(3) of the Act, the regulations of this part do not apply to residency training of physicians or other health professionals.
The Director may terminate a traineeship at any time:
(a) Upon written request of the awardee; or
(b) If it is determined that the awardee has committed misconduct in science, is ineligible, or has materially failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the award or to carry out the purpose for which the award was made; or
(c) If the awardee is convicted of a felony, or an offense involving any illegal drug or substance, or any offense involving a lack of financial integrity or business honesty; or
(d) Because of programmatic changes or lack of funds.
59 FR 14508 (March 28, 1994)—NIH Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research. (
59 FR 34496 (July 5, 1994)—NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules. (
“Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals” (Revised September 1986), Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, NIH. (
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule published in the
Dr. Michael E. McCabe, (202) 586-0854, e-mail: michael.e.mccabe@ee.doe.gov, or Edward Levy, Esq., (202) 586-9507, e-mail: edward.levy@hq.doe.gov.
In proposed rule document 00-25336, appearing on page 59590, in the issue of Thursday, October 5, 2000, the following corrections should be made:
(1) The Docket Line should appear as set forth above.
(2) On page 59590 in the first column of the
Please submit written comments, oral statements, and requests to speak at the public hearing to: Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Docket No. EE-RM/STD/STD-98-440, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121.
(3) On page 59591 in the second column, in the third paragraph, the second sentence is corrected to the following:
For example, while the initial cost of a typical central air conditioner would increase by $213 to $274 or about 10-12%, the higher efficiency equipment would save enough over its life to pay for the increase in the price of the equipment plus an extra $45.
(4) On page 59599, the second column, in the third paragraph, the first sentence is corrected to the following:
The emerging technology analysis based on reverse engineering information seems to confirm that, of the technologies considered, only variable capacity compressors and variable speed fan motors have the potential to be cost effective options for providing additional efficiency compared to today's established technologies.
(5) On page 59610, the third column, in the last paragraph, the first sentence is corrected to the following:
The Department encourages comments regarding whether the proposed standards concerning small-duct high-velocity, vertically-packaged wall-mounted equipment, and through-the-wall equipment provide a significant advantage to those products versus competing products, whether they are sufficient to preserve the unique features of those products, and whether improvements in the definitions are needed to prevent loopholes.
Bureau of Export Administration, Commerce.
Request for comments on foreign policy-based export controls.
The Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) is reviewing the foreign policy-based export controls in the Export Administration Regulations to determine whether they should be modified, rescinded or extended. To help make these determinations, BXA is seeking comments on how existing foreign policy-based export controls have affected exporters and the general public.
Comments must be received by November 30, 2000.
Written comments (three copies) should be sent to Kirsten Mortimer, Regulatory Policy Division, Bureau of Export Administration, Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 273, Washington, DC 20044.
Joan Roberts, Director, Foreign Policy Controls Division, Bureau of Export Administration, Telephone: (202) 482-5400. Copies of the current Annual Foreign Policy Report to the Congress are available at our website:
The current foreign policy controls maintained by the Bureau of Export Administration (BXA) are set forth in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR), parts 742 (CCL Based Controls), 744 (End-User and End-Use Based Controls) and 746 (Embargoes and Special Country Controls). These controls apply to: high performance computers (§ 742.12); significant items (SI): hot section technology for the development, production, or overhaul of commercial aircraft engines, components, and systems (§ 742.14); encryption items (§ 742.15 and § 744.9); crime control and detection commodities (§ 742.7); specially designed implements of torture (§ 742.11); regional stability commodities and equipment (§ 742.6); equipment and related technical data used in the design, development, production, or use of missiles (§ 742.5 and § 744.3); chemical precursors and biological agents, associated equipment, technical data, and software related to the production of chemical and biological agents (§ 742.2 and § 744.4); activities of U.S. persons in transactions related to missile technology or
Under the provisions of section 6 of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (EAA), export controls maintained for foreign policy purposes require annual extension. Section 6 of the EAA requires a report to Congress when foreign policy-based export controls are extended. Although the Export Administration Act (EAA) expired on August 20, 1994, the President invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and continued in effect the EAR, and, to the extent permitted by law, the provisions of the EAA, in Executive Order 12924 of August 19, 1994, as extended by the President's notices of August 15, 1995 (60 FR 42767), August 14, 1996 (61 FR 42527), August 13, 1997 (62 FR 43629), August 13, 1998 (63 FR 44121), August 10, 1999 (64 FR 44101, August 13, 1999) and August 3, 2000 (65 FR 48347, August 8, 2000). The Department of Commerce, insofar as appropriate, is following the provisions of section 6 in reviewing foreign policy-based export controls, requesting public comments on such controls, and submitting a report to Congress.
In January 2000, the Secretary of Commerce, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, extended for one year all foreign policy controls then in effect.
To assure maximum public participation in the review process, comments are solicited on the extension or revision of the existing foreign policy controls for another year. Among the criteria considered in determining whether to continue or revise U.S. foreign policy controls are the following:
1. The likelihood that such controls will achieve the intended foreign policy purpose, in light of other factors, including the availability from other countries of the goods or technology proposed for such controls;
2. Whether the foreign policy purpose of such controls can be achieved through negotiations or other alternative means;
3. The compatibility of the controls with the foreign policy objectives of the United States and with overall United States policy toward the country subject to the controls;
4. The reaction of other countries to the extension of such controls by the United States is not likely to render the controls ineffective in achieving the intended foreign policy purpose or be counterproductive to United States foreign policy interests;
5. The comparative benefits to U.S. foreign policy objectives versus the effect of the controls on the export performance of the United States, the competitive position of the United States in the international economy, the international reputation of the United States as a supplier of goods and technology; and
6. The ability of the United States to enforce the controls effectively.
BXA is particularly interested in the experience of individual exporters in complying with the proliferation controls, with emphasis on economic impact and specific instances of business lost to foreign competitors. BXA is also interested in industry information relating to the following:
1. Information on the effect of foreign policy controls on sales of U.S. products to third countries (i.e., those countries not targeted by sanctions), including the views of foreign purchasers or prospective customers regarding U.S. foreign policy controls.
2. Information on controls maintained by U.S. trade partners (i.e., to what extent do they have similar controls on goods and technology on a worldwide basis or to specific destinations)?
3. Information on licensing policies or practices by our foreign trade partners which are similar to U.S. foreign policy controls, including license review criteria, use of conditions, requirements for pre and post shipment verifications (preferably supported by examples of approvals, denials and foreign regulations.
4. Suggestions for revisions to foreign policy controls that would (if there are any differences) bring them more into line with multilateral practice.
5. Comments or suggestions as to actions that would make multilateral controls more effective.
6. Information that illustrates the effect of foreign policy controls on the trade or acquisitions by intended targets of the controls.
7. Data or other information as to the effect of foreign policy controls on overall trade, either for individual firms or for individual industrial sectors.
8. Suggestions as to how to measure the effect of foreign policy controls on trade.
9. Information on the use of foreign policy controls on targeted countries, entities, or individuals.
BXA is also interested in comments relating generally to the extension or revision of existing foreign policy controls.
Parties submitting comments are asked to be as specific as possible. All comments received before the close of the comment period will be considered by BXA in reviewing the controls and developing the report to Congress.
All information relating to the notice will be a matter of public record and will be available for public inspection and copying. In the interest of accuracy and completeness, BXA requires written comments. Oral comments must be followed by written memoranda, which will also be a matter of public record and will be available for public review and copying.
Copies of the public record concerning these regulations may be requested from: Bureau of Export Administration, Office of Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 6883, 14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; (202) 482-0637. This component does not maintain a separate public inspection facility. Requesters should first view BXA's website (which can be reached through
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is proposing to amend its regulations to add a new part addressing the behavior of attorneys on matters before the Commission. The behavior of attorneys who represent clients in
Written comments in response to this notice of proposed rulemaking must be received by the Commission January 5, 2001.
Comments should be mailed, preferably in five (5) copies, to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207-0001, or delivered to the Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 502, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland; Telephone (301) 504-0800. Comments may also be filed by telefacsimile to (301) 504-0127 or by email to cpsc-os@cpsc.gov. Comments should be captioned “NPR for Outside Attorneys.”
Melissa V. Hampshire, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, DC 20207; telephone (301) 504-0980 ext. 2208; facsimile (301) 504-0403; email mhampsh@cpsc.gov.
The Commission does not have rules governing the behavior of attorneys outside the context of a formal adjudication. As a result, the Commission is unable to take agency action against attorneys who are alleged to have acted in a manner prohibited by the State or District of Columbia bar disciplinary rules applicable to the attorney, unless an administrative complaint has been filed in the matter.
The Commission conducts the majority of its business outside of adjudicatory proceedings. For example, compliance staff often negotiate with attorneys during an investigation or inquiry about a product, on a voluntary corrective action plan for that product, and, if necessary, on a civil penalty with respect to that product. Other Commission staff deal with attorneys on these and other matters, including regulatory proceedings pursuant to the statutes the Commission administers. If an attorney acts in a prohibited manner in these or similar contexts, the Commission cannot now sanction such conduct. The proposed new part is intended to address this gap in the regulations.
The Commission is proposing a rule
The proposed rule defines “prohibited conduct” as action by an attorney in a manner prohibited by the state or District of Columbia disciplinary rules applicable to the attorney or otherwise in bad faith. Attorneys are subject to sanction if the prohibited conduct occurs when no administrative case is filed, or prior to the filing of an administrative complaint, or afterwards when an administrative action is settled but the staff may be negotiating a recall or civil penalty. Similarly, the proposed rule is intended to cover regulatory matters or any other activities between attorneys on the one hand and a Commissioner or Commission staff acting in their official capacities on the other hand.
Actual contact with a Commissioner or the Commission staff is not required for an attorney to be sanctioned for prohibited conduct. For example, under the proposed rule, an attorney who knowingly destroys documents that are relevant to a staff investigation on a particular product would be subject to sanction by the Commission.
The new rule includes procedures for addressing allegations of prohibited conduct by attorneys. Under the proposal, all allegations would be dealt with during a (potentially) three-stage procedure.
During the first stage, the staff refers an allegation to the General Counsel who would have discretion to determine how it should be dealt with. The General Counsel could review the allegation and then (i) decide to close the matter, (ii) conduct an informal investigation and decide to close the matter or (iii) conduct an informal investigation and issue a show cause order to the attorney.
The General Counsel may decide, based on a review of the allegation, that an informal investigation is unnecessary. For this reason, the General Counsel has discretion to close the matter without any further action. In addition, if the matter is closed without investigation, the General Counsel has discretion to notify or not notify the attorney of the allegation. For example, if the allegation is frivolous and the attorney is unaware of it, the General Counsel may decide to close it without even informing the attorney that the allegation was made. The General Counsel's decision to close the matter in this instance is final and nonreviewable.
The proposed regulation also permits the General Counsel to conduct an informal investigation during the first stage (without compiling a record) to determine if a more formal proceeding against the attorney is warranted. An informal investigation may include contact between the General Counsel and the CPSC staff, the attorney, counsel for the attorney, or anyone else who has information concerning the allegation. If the General Counsel closes the matter after an such an investigation, he or she must notify the attorney. The General Counsel's decision to close the matter is final and nonreviewable.
If the General Counsel determines, after conducting an informal investigation, that a further proceeding is necessary, a show cause order will be issued to the attorney. Although the General Counsel may close the matter without conducting an informal investigation, as noted above, the proposed regulation requires the General Counsel, as a matter of fairness, to conduct such an investigation before issuing a show cause order.
If the General Counsel does issue a show cause order to the attorney, the second stage of the proceeding begins. The attorney receives notice of the right to make written submissions and/or oral presentations about the allegation and notice of the right to counsel. The responsibility for investigating the allegation is with the General Counsel. No discovery will be permitted. An oral presentation shall be held if requested by the attorney. All oral presentations will be transcribed.
The General Counsel will determine the number and identity of witnesses, the length of testimony, and the admissibility and number of exhibits.
At the conclusion of the second stage, the General Counsel will make a determination, based on all the information, whether to forward a recommendation for sanction to the
If the General Counsel recommends a sanction, he or she will forward the record to the Commission. Under the proposed regulation, the record consists of all information submitted by the parties during the second stage including at the oral presentation, as well as transcripts of the oral presentation, any exhibits and the sanction recommendation. The Commission reviews the record and either imposes a sanction or closes the matter. The Commission may impose one of the listed sanctions or any other sanction deemed appropriate. For example, the Commission may decide that an attorney's conduct does not warrant public censure, but some other lesser sanction.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (“RFA”), when an agency issues a proposed rule it generally must prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis describing the impact the proposed rule is expected to have on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA does not require a regulatory flexibility analysis if the head of the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small business entities. 5 U.S.C. 605(b). Because the proposed regulation governs only attorney conduct, the Commission certifies that it will not have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, and in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and CPSC procedures for environmental review, the Commission has assessed the possible environmental effects associated with the proposed rule for outside attorneys. Because this proposed rule would have no adverse effect on the environment, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Attorneys.
Accordingly, 16 CFR Part 1026 is added to read as follows:
15 U.S.C. 2051-2084, 1261-1278, 1191-1204, 1471-1476, 1211-1214.
The behavior of attorneys who represent clients in Commission adjudicative proceedings is governed by 16 CFR part 1025;
For purposes of this part only:
(a)
(b)
(c)
On a matter before the Commission, no attorney may act in a manner prohibited by the state or District of Columbia bar disciplinary rules applicable to the attorney or otherwise in bad faith. Such action constitutes “prohibited conduct.”
The following three-stage procedure will be used to determine whether an attorney has engaged in prohibited conduct:
(a)(1) The first stage begins when CPSC staff refers an allegation of prohibited conduct to the General Counsel, with notice to the Commission's Executive Director. The General Counsel may summarily close the matter of alleged prohibited conduct without conducting an informal investigation. If so, the General Counsel will inform the Executive Director, but has the discretion to inform or not inform the attorney.
(2) If the General Counsel does not summarily close the matter, the General Counsel will conduct an informal investigation, after informing the attorney of the allegation and of his or her right to counsel.
(i) The informal investigation may include contact between the General Counsel and the CPSC staff, the attorney, counsel for the attorney, or anyone else who has information concerning the allegation.
(ii) Information gathered during this informal investigation stage will not be made part of the record of the proceeding, unless it is reintroduced during the second stage.
(3) Following the informal investigation, the General Counsel will review all available information and decide whether to issue an order requiring the attorney to show cause why he or she should not be sanctioned or close the matter. If the General Counsel closes the matter, the General Counsel will inform the attorney and the Executive Director in writing of that decision.
(b)(1) The second stage begins when the General Counsel issues a show cause order to the attorney. The order will provide a copy of the allegation and inform the attorney of his or her right to respond in writing and/or orally to the allegation. The General Counsel will send copies of the show cause order to the Executive Director and to the CPSC staff who referred the allegation. The General Counsel will establish a tentative date for oral presentations, in consultation with the attorney and CPSC staff, and a subsequent deadline for written submissions.
(2) During the second stage:
(i) No discovery is permitted.
(ii) The attorney may be represented by counsel.
(iii) An oral presentation shall be held, if requested by the attorney. Any oral presentations will be transcribed.
(iv) The General Counsel has the authority to make a determination with respect to any issue related to the oral presentation not addressed by this part including the number and identity of witnesses, the length of testimony and the 11 admissibility and number of exhibits at any presentation.
(v) Witnesses at the oral presentation may include the attorney, the CPSC staff, or any other person with information about the allegation. If a witness refuses to appear voluntarily, the General Counsel may ask the Commission to issue a subpoena under 15 U.S.C. 2076(b)(3). The attorney may ask the General Counsel to ask the Commission to issue subpoenas to witnesses.
(3) The General Counsel will review the information in the written
(4) The General Counsel's decision to close the matter during the first or second stage is final and nonreviewable.
(c)(1) The third stage begins when the General Counsel forwards the record to the Commission. The record will consist of the complaint, all information submitted in writing during the second stage or at the oral presentation, exhibits, the transcript of any oral presentation, and the General Counsel's written sanction recommendation. The Commission will review the record and decide to impose a sanction or close the matter. The Secretary of the Commission will inform the attorney and the Executive Director in writing of the decision.
(2) At the beginning of the third stage, the General Counsel will designate a lawyer employed by the Commission and not involved in the matter to advise the Commission.
(3) The Executive Director and the General Counsel may designate someone employed by the Commission to act for them at any stage under this procedure.
(a) The following are possible sanctions against an attorney for prohibited conduct:
(1) Censure. Issue a public censure to the attorney that describes the misconduct.
(2) Suspension. Suspend the attorney, for a designated period of time, from participation in any matter before the Commission.
(3) Permanent Exclusion. Permanently bar the attorney from participation in any matter before the Commission.
(4) Other. Any sanction deemed appropriate by the Commission.
(b) If any sanction is imposed, the General Counsel will notify all state and District of Columbia bars before which the attorney is admitted to practice.
Information disclosure under this section is governed by the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and 16 CFR Part 1015.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is considering the establishment of a viticultural area to be known as “Long Island,” located in Nassau and Suffolk counties, New York. This viticultural area encompasses the two existing appellations, “The Hamptons” and “North Fork of Long Island,” as well as the addition of the remaining areas of Nassau and Suffolk counties. This proposal is the result of a petition filed by Richard Olsen-Harbich on behalf of Raphael Winery and the Petrocelli Family, as well as Karen Meredith of Broadfields. Mr. Olsen-Harbich believes that the region he refers to as “Long Island” possesses viticultural conditions which are distinguishable from the rest of New York State and the bordering areas of New Jersey and Connecticut.
Written comments must be received by January 5, 2001.
Send written comments to: Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O. Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091-0221, (Attention: Notice No. 905). See “Public Participation” section of this notice if you want to comment by facsimile or e-mail.
Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226 (202-927-9347).
ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-53 (43 FR 37672, 54624) on August 23, 1978. This decision revised the regulations in 27 CFR part 4, Labeling and Advertising of Wine, to allow the establishment of definitive viticultural areas. The regulations allow the name of an approved viticultural area to be used as an appellation of origin in the labeling and advertising of wine.
On October 2, 1979, ATF published Treasury Decision ATF-60 (44 FR 56692), which added a new part 9 to 27 CFR, American Viticultural Areas, for providing the listing of approved American viticultural areas, the names of which may be used as appellations of origin.
Section 4.25a(e)(1), title 27, CFR, defines an American viticultural area as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features. Viticultural features such as soil, climate, elevation, topography, etc., distinguish it from surrounding areas.
Any interested person may petition ATF to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. The petition should include:
• Evidence that the name of the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known as referring to the area specified in the petition;
• Historical or current evidence that the boundaries of the viticultural area are as specified in the petition;
• Evidence relating to the geographical features (climate, soil, elevation, physical features, etc.) which distinguish the viticultural features of the proposed area from surrounding areas;
• A description of the specific boundaries of the viticultural area, based on features which can be found on United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable scale; and
• A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the boundaries prominently marked.
ATF has received a petition from Richard Olsen-Harbich on behalf of Raphael Winery, the Petrocelli Family, and Karen Meredith of Broadfields, proposing to establish a viticultural area in Nassau and Suffolk counties, New York, to be known as “Long Island.” This proposed viticultural area encompasses the two existing appellations, “The Hamptons, Long Island” and “North Fork of Long
The proposed area encompasses approximately 1,170 square miles or 749,146 acres. Over 2,500 acres of vineyards are currently planted in the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area and the area presently boasts thirty-eight vineyard and/or winery businesses.
The petitioner offered the following as evidence that the name “Long Island” refers to the proposed area. The name “Long Island” has been in continuous use from 1616 to the present to represent the island on which the proposed viticultural area is located. However, the
According to the petitioner, the
The petitioner has submitted, as boundary evidence, the following maps on which the name “Long Island” prominently appears:
1. U.S.G.S. Map (New York, N.Y.; N.J.; Conn. 1960 (revised 1979));
2. U.S.G.S. Map (Hartford, Conn.; N.Y.; N.J.; Mass. 1962 (revised 1975)); and
3. U.S.G.S. Map (Providence, R.I.; Mass.; Conn.; N.Y. 1947 (revised 1969)).
The proposed “Long Island” viticultural area is located on the eastern part of Long Island, New York. The proposed area is surrounded by the Queens County line on the west, Long Island Sound to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the south and Block Island Sound and Fishers Island Sound to the east.
Long Island, New York, has four counties: Kings (commonly known as Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk. The petitioner contends that the appropriate western boundary for the proposed area is the Queens County line because Kings and Queens counties are not suitable for viticultural purposes. The petitioner states that commercial farms no longer exist in Kings or Queens counties and that these counties are densely populated urban areas. In addition, the name “Long Island” is used in common parlance to refer to the Nassau and Suffolk counties exclusively.
• Soil: The soils of the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area are glacial in origin. The petitioner asserts that in general, the soils of the proposed area contain a greater percentage of sand and gravel and a lower percentage of silt, loam and clay than in the soil associations and series found in bordering areas. According to the petitioner, soils in the proposed area also lack any real percentage of natural limestone when compared to surrounding regions. The petitioner asserts that the soils of the proposed area are more acidic and make an agricultural liming program indispensable to any vineyard operation. Because of this factor, the soils of the proposed area are also slightly lower in natural fertility and water-holding capacity than neighboring areas. According to the petitioner, this difference in soil types leads to a very unique and distinct “terroir” for the proposed area—sandy loams will warm up faster, drain better, and allow deeper root penetration than soils in bordering areas, which contain greater amounts of silt, clay and rock.
The soils of the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area are fairly uniform in that they are predominately glacial till and glacial outwash in nature, are very low in organic matter, and contain few, if any, large mineral deposits or exposed rock formations. Many of the soil series including the Wallington, Sudbury, Scio, Montauk, Plymouth and Riverhead Soil Series are common throughout the entire proposed area.
The petitioner states that one of the most distinctive features of the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area is the vast quantity of sandy loam soil deposited during the Pleistocene Epoch of the Quarternary Period. This soil was deposited during the last four major glacial stages of this Epoch. From oldest to youngest they are: Nebraskan, Kansan, Illoian, and Wisconsin. Because of this, the area between the surface soil and bedrock areas is several hundred feet.
By contrast, the nearest surface bedrock begins near the Queens County line. Some areas of Queens show exposed bedrock formations while the bedrock layer in the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area can be as much as 500 feet below the surface. For this reason, the soils found in Queens County are much shallower than the typical soils found in the proposed area and are not suitable for growing grapes. In addition, Queens County, which is considered part of New York City, is completely urbanized and contains essentially no agricultural land. The petitioner states that most of the soil series now identified in Queens are known as anthropgenic soils. These soils are described as having properties that are dominantly derived from human activities. Out of the 30 soil types found in the region of Queens County, only three are also found in the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area.
• Topography and Terrain: The petitioner states that the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area is unique from its bordering regions in that it lacks any real undulations, rock outcrops or muckland areas. By contrast, the Highland Basin, located immediately to the west-northwest of the proposed area and encompassing the areas of northern New Jersey, the Hudson Highlands region of southern New York (including Manhattan, Westchester, the Bronx, and parts of Brooklyn and Staten Island), and upland parts of Connecticut, is a rugged, hilly-to-mountainous terrain. Similarly, the Newark and Atlantic Basins, located directly to the northeast and southwest of the proposed area, contain characteristic sedimentary sandstones and mudrocks that usually bear a red or brownish appearance from an abundance of iron oxide minerals (hematite and limonite). None of these geologic formations exist in the proposed area.
• Climate: The petitioner states that the moderating influence of the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area's surrounding water is evident in the temperature data. In terms of average temperatures, the proposed area shows the highest average annual winter temperature compared to the surrounding areas. The proposed area's average low temperature over thirty years is 43.5 degrees Fahrenheit (43.5 °F), 2.5 °F warmer than the area of Westchester County and downstate New York, and 2.2 °F warmer annually than
The petitioner states that the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area also has the least extreme winter low temperatures than its surrounding areas with the lowest average being −5.67 °F. New Jersey was 1.63 °F colder at −7.3 °F. Westchester/Downstate New York and Connecticut were seen to have winter low temperatures considerably colder than the proposed area. Connecticut can experience temperatures as low as −13.5 °F which is 7.83 °F colder than the proposed area. Westchester/Downstate New York proved to be the coldest with low temperatures reaching −15.3 °F in some years which is 9.63 °F colder than the proposed area.
According to the petitioner, based on the standard University of California at Davis (UCD) temperature summation definition of climatic regions or zones, the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area would appear to fall into high Region II (less than 3,000 degree days). Connecticut on the average is a borderline Region II with some years having Region I (less than 2,500 degree days) conditions. New Jersey is solidly classified as a Region III (less than 3,500 degree days), with some locations approaching Region IV (less than 4000 degree days) status in warmer years. The proposed area historically has an average of 166 more degree-days than Westchester/Downstate NY and as much as 324 more degree-days than Connecticut.
The petitioner states that on average, the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area experiences 204 frost-free days during the growing season. This is 31 days longer than New Jersey, 37 days longer than Westchester/Downstate NY and as much as 50 days longer than the Connecticut average. The proposed area can therefore have as much as four to seven weeks more growing season than any of the surrounding land masses.
The petitioner states that on an average annual basis, the proposed “Long Island” viticultural area has the lowest levels of precipitation of all the surrounding areas with 42 inches annually. The annual difference is 3.4 inches less than Westchester/Downstate NY, 3.8 inches less than New Jersey and 4.1 inches less than Connecticut. The reason for this difference is attributed to the moderating influence of Long Island Sound waters.
It has been determined that this proposed regulation is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposal is not subject to the analysis required by this Executive Order.
The proposed regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The establishment of a viticultural area is neither an endorsement or approval by ATF of the quality of wine produced in the area, but rather an identification of an area that is distinct from surrounding areas. ATF believes that the establishment of viticultural areas merely allows wineries to more accurately describe the origin of their wines to consumers, and helps consumers identify the wines they purchase. Thus, any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of the proprietor's own efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. No new requirements are proposed. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part 1320, do not apply to this notice of proposed rulemaking because no requirement to collect information is proposed.
ATF requests comments from all interested parties. In addition, ATF specifically requests comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand. Comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so. However, assurance of consideration can only be given to comments received on or before the closing date.
Copies of the petition, the proposed regulations, the appropriate maps, and any written comments received will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the ATF Reading Room, Office of the Liaison and Public Information, Room 6480, 650 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20226. For information on filing a Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of the comments, please refer to the internet address: http://www.atf.treas.gov/about/foia/foia.htm.
ATF will not recognize any comment as confidential. All comments and materials will be disclosed to the public. If you consider your material to be confidential or inappropriate for disclosure to the public, you should not include it in the comments. We will also disclose the name of any person who submits a comment.
During the comment period, any person may request an opportunity to present oral testimony at a public hearing. However, the Director reserves the right to determine, in light of all circumstances, whether a public hearing will be held.
You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 927-8525. Facsimile comments must:
• Be legible.
• Reference this notice number.
• Be on paper 8
• Contain a legible written signature.
• Be not more than three pages.
We will not acknowledge receipt of facsimile transmissions. We will treat facsimile transmissions as originals.
You may submit comments by e-mail by sending the comments to nprm@atfhq.atf.treas.gov. You must follow these instructions. E-mail comments must:
• Contain your name, mailing address, and e-mail address.
• Reference this notice number.
• Be legible when printed on not more than three pages, 8
We will not acknowledge receipt of e-mail. We will treat comments submitted by e-mail as originals.
You may also submit comments using the comment form provided with the online copy of the proposed rule on the ATF internet web site at http://www.atf.treas.gov.
The principal author of this document is Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division,
Administrative practice and procedure, Consumer protection, Viticultural areas, Wine.
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, American Viticultural Areas, is proposed to be amended as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a) Name. The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Long Island.”
(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the Long Island viticultural area are three United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) topographic maps (Scale: 1:250,000). They are titled:
(1) “New York, N.Y.; N.J.; Conn.,” 1960 (revised 1979);
(2) “Hartford, Conn.; N.Y.; N.J.; Mass.,” 1962 (revised 1975); and
(3) “Providence, R.I.; Mass.; Conn.; N.Y.,” 1947 (revised 1969).
(c) Boundaries. The Long Island viticultural area includes approximately 1,170 square miles or 749,146 acres and is made up of the counties of Nassau and Suffolk, New York, including all off shore islands in those counties.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA.
Notice of amendment of the notice of the availability of the solicitation for applications for the fiscal year 2001 National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program.
This notice amends the announcement of the availability of the fiscal year (FY) 2001 solicitation for applications, which is titled the “NRI Program Description,” for the National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program published at 65 FR 54989, September 12, 2000.
In accordance with the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2001, which provides less funding for the NRI in FY 2001 than was anticipated at the time the availability of the FY 2001 solicitation for applications was announced, this amendment revises the estimated amounts of funds available in the following research categories (PREVIOUSLY ANTICIPATED FY 2001 funding (PREV) and CURRENTLY ANTICIPATED FY 2001 (CUR) funding, rounded to the $0.1M, follows in parentheses):
• Natural Resources and the Environment (PREV:$19.1M, CUR:$16.4M)
• Nutrition, Food Quality, and Health (PREV:$14.9M, CUR:$16.8M)
• Plant Systems (PREV:$38.2M, CUR:$32.4M)
• Animal Systems (PREV:$27.0M, CUR:$23.0M)
• Markets, Trade, and Policy (PREV:$4.3M, CUR:$3.7M)
• New Products and Processes (PREV:$7.6M, CUR:$6.5M)
As a result the following Program Areas will not be funded, and proposals for these Program Areas should not be submitted:
• Ecosystem Science (Program Code 23.0)
• Plant Genome (Program Code 52.1)
• Animal Genome: Basic Reagents and Tools (Program Code 43.1)
Although the Plant Genome program (52.1) will not be offered this fiscal year, the Plant Genetic Mechanisms program (52.2) will expand its research areas of support to now include functional genomics, quantitative trait loci analysis, comparative mapping, and all renewal applications that could have been submitted to the Plant Genome program.
Additionally, proposals that address the President's Food Safety Initiative (www.foodsafety.gov/~fsg/fsiback.html) are encouraged for all the relevant NRI Program Areas.
A fair distribution of resources between research on animal systems and plants is being sought through increased opportunity for animal-related research in the food safety area, and opportunity in other programs relevant to animal systems such as agricultural systems, markets and trade, food characterization/process/product research, water resources, and pest biology.
This amendment does not alter the original deadlines for receipt of proposals set forth previously in the Notice of the Availability of the Solicitation for Applications published on September 12, 2000 (65 FR 54989).
USDA/CSREES/NRI, Stop 2241, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-2241. Phone: (202) 401-5022. E-mail: nricgp@reeusda.gov.
The following fixed dates have been established for proposal submission deadlines within the NRI. To be considered for funding in any fiscal year, proposals must be transmitted by the date listed below (as indicated by postmark or date on courier bill of lading). When the deadline date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, transmission must be made by the following business day.
Programs offered in any fiscal year depend on availability of funds and deadlines may be delayed due to unforeseen circumstances. Consult the pertinent NRI notice in the
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice of application filing deadline.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) announces its Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program application window for funding during fiscal year (FY) 2001. For FY 2001, $25 million in grants and $300 million in loans will be made available for distance learning and telemedicine projects serving rural America. The funding will be provided in three categories: (1) $15 million will be available for grants; (2) $200 million will be available for loans; and (3) $110 million will be available for combination grants and loans ($10 million in grants paired with $100 million in loans).
All applications for grants must be postmarked no later than Friday, March 2, 2001, to be eligible for FY 2001 grant funding. Applications for FY 2001 loans or combination loans and grants may be submitted at anytime up to September 30, 2001, and will be processed on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Applications are to be submitted to the Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, STOP 1550, Room 2845, Washington, DC 20250-1550. Applications should be marked “Attention: Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program.”
Orren E. Cameron, Director, Advanced Services Division, Telecommunications Program, Rural Utilities Service, STOP 1550, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-1590, Telephone (202) 690-4493, Facsimile (202) 720-1051.
For FY 2001, $15 million in grants, a combination of $10 million in grants paired with $100 million in loans, and $200 million in loans will be made available for distance learning and telemedicine projects.
RUS encourages early submission of grant applications to determine whether all required items specified in 1703.125 are clearly in form, identifiable, and complete. RUS will examine, provide comment, and return applications that include items that would disqualify them from further consideration for modification if they are submitted by Friday, February 2, 2001. All applications for grants must be postmarked no later than Friday, March 2, 2001, to be eligible for FY 2001 grant funding. Each application will be reviewed for completeness in accordance with 7 CFR part 1703, subparts D, E, F, and G. Ineligible applications will be returned within 15 working days of receipt.
Notice is hereby given that under 7 CFR 1703.124, 1703.133, and 1703.143, RUS has determined the maximum amount of an application for a grant that will be considered for funding in FY 2001 as $500,000. The maximum amount for a loan, generally, that will be considered for funding in FY 2001 is $10 million. However, RUS may fund a project greater than $10 million subject to the project's feasibility and the availability of loan funds.
Applications for financial assistance must be submitted in accordance with 7 CFR part 1703, subparts D, E, F, and G, which establish the policies and procedures for submitting an application for financial assistance. These subparts and an application guide to assist in the preparation of applications are available on the Internet at the following address: “http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/dlt/dltpublications.htm”. Application guides may also be requested from RUS by contacting one of the following Area Offices: Eastern Area, USDA—RUS, Phone: (202) 690-4673; Northwest Area, USDA—RUS, Phone: (202) 720-1025; Southwest Area, USD-RUS, Phone: (202) 720-0800.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review.
November 6, 2000.
Jarrod Goldfeder at (202) 482-0189, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement I, Group I, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230.
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires the Department to make a preliminary determination within 245 days after the last day of the anniversary month of an order/finding for which a review is requested and a final determination within 120 days after the date on which the preliminary determination is published. However, if it is not practicable to complete the review within the time period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the Department to extend these deadlines to a maximum of 365 days and 180 days, respectively.
On December 28, 1999, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe from the Republic of Korea, covering the period November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999 (64 FR 72644). On July 11, 2000, the Department extended the time limit for completion of the preliminary results by 66 days, or until no later than October 6, 2000.
We determine that due to limited administrative resources and the need for further analysis of the complex issues present in this review (
This extension is in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of Rescission of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for the Period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000.
On October 2, 2000, in response to a request made by Bethlehem Steel Corporation and U.S. Steel Group, a unit of USX Corporation (collectively, the “Petitioners”), the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the notice of initiation of an antidumping duty administrative review on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“plate”) from Germany, for the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000. Because the Petitioners have withdrawn their request for review, the Department is rescinding this review in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
November 6, 2000.
Robert A. Bolling or James Doyle, Enforcement Group III, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 202-482-3434 and 202-482-0159, 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 Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the regulations codified at 19 CFR Part 351 (2000).
On August 31, 2000, the Petitioners requested that the Department conduct an administrative review for the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000, of Reiner Brach GmbH & Co. (“Reiner Brach”) a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise from Germany. October 2, 2000, the Department published a notice of initiation of the antidumping administrative review on plate from Germany, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Pursuant to Departmental regulations, the Department will rescind an administrative review “if a party that requested the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.”
This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. This determination is issued in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4) and section 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Initiation of New Shipper Antidumping Administrative Reviews.
The Department of Commerce (the Department) has received a request from China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. (China Kingdom), Shouzhou Huaxiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Shouzhou), Coastal (Jiang Su) Foods Co., Ltd. (Coastal), and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. (Shanghai Taoen) to conduct new shipper administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (PRC). In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351.214(d) of the Department's current regulations, we are initiating these new shipper administrative reviews.
November 6, 2000.
Abdelali Elouaradia or Samantha Denenberg, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1374 or (202)482-1386, respectively.
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act) by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Department's regulations are to the current regulations, codified at 19 CFR Part 351(2000).
On September 29, 2000, the Department received timely requests, in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(c), for new shipper administrative reviews of this antidumping duty order which has a September anniversary month and a March semi-anniversary month.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), in its September 29, 2000 request for review, China Kingdom certified that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the period of investigation (POI) and that it is not affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), China Kingdom further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), in its September 29, 2000 request for review, Shouzhou certified that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during POI and that it is not affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Shouzhou further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), in its September 29, 2000 request for review, Coastal certified that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI and that it is not affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Coastal further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i) and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), in its September 29, 2000 request for review, Shanghai Taoen certified that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POI and that it is not affiliated with any company which exported subject merchandise to the United States during the POI. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Shanghai Taoen further certified that its export activities are not controlled by the central government of the PRC. All of the above requests also included all documentation required under 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv).
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) and 19 CFR 351.214(d), we are initiating new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(i)(A) of the Department's regulations, the period of review (POR) for a new shipper review initiated in the month immediately following the anniversary month will be the twelve-month period immediately preceding the semiannual anniversary month. Therefore, the POR for these new shippers is:
Concurrent with the publication of this initiation notice, we will instruct the U.S. Customs Service to allow, at the option of the importer, the posting of a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for each entry of the merchandise exported by the companies listed above, until the completion of the review. This action is in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(e).
The interested parties must submit applications for disclosure of business proprietary information under administrative protective order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306.
This initiation and notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.214.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.
Notice.
In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) announces the following proposed reinstatement of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. 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 burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to all comments received on or before January 5, 2001.
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (Force Management Policy/Military Community and Family Policy/Office of Educational Opportunity), ATTN: Ms. Ollie M. Smith, Ballston Towers #3, Room 917, 4015 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22203-5190.
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the above address or call at (703) 696-1702, ext 111.
This collection is required to satisfy Public Law 102-484, The Defense Department's Fiscal Year 1993 Authorization Act, October 23, 1992, which directed the Secretary of Defense to maintain a public and community service registry in which separating Service members would be encouraged to enter. DD Forms 2580, 2581 and 2581-1 are used to support this effort.
Notice.
The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.
Department of Defense.
Notice.
On October 26, 2000, the DoD Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review Panel published a notice of an upcoming meeting (65 FR 64204). This notice is being published to change the meeting dates due to the Federal holiday on November 10th.
November 8 & 9, 2000.
Sheraton Crystal City, 1800 Jefferson Davis Hwy, Arlington, VA 22202.
November 8th, 8 am to 5:30 pm; November 9th, 8 am to 5:30 pm.
Contact Gia Edmonds at (703) 933-8325.
Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense (Policy)
Notice of closed meetings.
The United States Commission on National Security/21st Century will meet in closed session on November 13 and December 7, 2000. The Commission was originally chartered by the Secretary of Defense on 1 July 1998 (charter revised on 18 August 1999) to conduct a comprehensive review of the early twenty-first century global security environment; develop appropriate national security objectives and a strategy to attain these objectives; and recommend concomitant changes to the national security apparatus as necessary.
The Commission will meet in closed session on November 13 and December 7, 2000, to review draft sections of its Phase Three report. By Charter, the Phase Three report is to be delivered to the Secretary of Defense no later than February 16, 2001.
In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C., Appendix II], it is anticipated that matters affecting national security, as covered by 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1)(1988), will be presented throughout the meetings, and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public.
Monday November 13, 2000, and Thursday December 7, 2000, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
November 13, 2000, at the Institute for Defense Analysis, 1801 North Beaureagard St., Alexandria, VA 22311, and on December 7, 2000, at a place to be determined.
Contact Dr. Keith A. Dunn, National Security Study Group, Suite 532, Crystal Mall 3, 1931 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202-3805. Telephone 703-602-4175.
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6, announcement is made of the availability of the following U.S. patent for non-exclusive, partially exclusive or exclusive licensing. The listed patent has been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC.
These patents cover a wide variety of technical arts including: An anti-armor projectile with an autonomous, attachable, precursor warhead and a ceramic ferroelectric composite material with enhanced electronic properties.
Under the authority of Section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-502) and Section 207 of Title 35, United States Code, the Department of the Army as represented by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory wish to license the U.S. patent listed below in a non-exclusive, exclusive or partially exclusive manner to any party interested in manufacturing, using, and/or selling devices or processes covered by this patent.
Michael Rausa, Technology Transfer Office, AMSRL-CS-TT, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5055, tel: (410) 278-5028; fax: (410) 278-5820.
None.
U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland, DoD.
Notice.
In accordance with 37 CFR 404.6, announcement is made of the availability of the following U.S. patent for non-exclusive, partially exclusive or exclusive licensing. The listed patent has been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army, Washington, DC.
This patent covers a wide variety of technical arts including: A wide dynamic range RF mixer using wide bandgap semiconductors such as SiC.
Under the authority of section 11(a)(2) of the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-502) and section 207 of Title 35, United States Code, the Department of the Army as represented by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory wish to license the U.S. patent listed below in a non-exclusive, exclusive or partially exclusive manner to any party interested in manufacturing, using and/or selling devices or processes covered by this patent.
Norma Cammaratta, Technology Transfer Office, AMSRL-CS-TT, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, MD 20783-1197; tel: (301) 394-2952; fax: (301) 394-5818.
None.
Federal Interagency Coordinating Council, Education.
Notice of a public meeting.
This notice describes the schedule and agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council (FICC), and invites people to participate. Notice of this meeting is required under section 644(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and is intended to notify the general public of their opportunity to attend the meeting. The meeting will be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The FICC will attend to ongoing work including reports from committees and task forces. A Policy Forum on Every Child Deserves a Medical Home sponsored by the FICC Integrated Service Committee, will be held on Thursday, December 14, from 9 a.m.-12 noon in the Barnard Auditorium, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20202. The meeting is open to the public.
FICC Meeting: Thursday, December 14, 2000 from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
U.S. Department of Education, Barnard Auditorium, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202 (near the Federal Center Southwest and L'Enfant metro stops).
Bobbi Stettner-Eaton or Obral Vance, U.S. Department of Education, 330 C Street, SW., Room 3080, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202, Telephone: (202) 205-5507. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call (202) 205-9754.
The Federal Interagency Coordinating Council (FICC) is established under section 644(c) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1484a). The Council is established to: (1) Minimize duplication across Federal, State and local agencies of programs and activities relating to early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families and preschool services for children with disabilities; (2) ensure effective coordination of Federal early intervention and preschool programs, including Federal technical assistance and support activities; and (3) identify gaps in Federal agency programs and services and barriers to Federal interagency cooperation. To meet these purposes, the FICC seeks to: (1) Identify areas of conflict, overlap, and omissions in interagency policies related to the provision of services to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities; (2) develop and implement joint policy interpretations on issues related to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers that cut across Federal agencies, including modifications of regulations to eliminate barriers to interagency programs and activities; and (3) coordinate the provision of technical assistance and dissemination of best practice information. The FICC is chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
The meeting of the FICC is open to the public and is physically accessible. Anyone requiring accommodations such as an interpreter, materials in Braille, large print, or cassette please call Obral Vance at (202) 205-5507 (voice) or (202) 205-9754 (TDD) ten days in advance of the meeting.
Summary minutes of the FICC meetings will be maintained and available for public inspection at the U.S. Department of Education, 330 C Street, SW., Room 3080, Switzer Building, Washington, DC 20202, from the hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., weekdays, except Federal Holidays.
Notice of meeting.
This notice provides the proposed agenda of a forthcoming meeting of the National Board of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education. This notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of this meeting is required under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
November 19, 2000, 12 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Sheraton San Diego Hotel & Marina, 1380 Harbor Island Drive, San Diego, CA. Telephone: (619) 692-2200.
Don Fischer, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-8544. Telephone: (202) 502-7500 or by e-mail: donald_fischer@ed.gov Individuals who use a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding paragraph.
The National Board of the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education is established under Title VII, Part B, section 742 of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (20 U.S.C. 1138a). The National Board of the Fund is authorized to recommend to the Director of the Fund and the Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education priorities for funding and procedures for grant awards.
On Sunday, November 19, 2000, from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. the Board will meet in open session. The proposed agenda for the open portion of the meeting will include an overview of the Fund's program status and special initiatives.
On Sunday, November 19, 2000, from 12 p.m. to 1 p.m. the meeting will be closed to the public for the purpose of discussing Comprehensive Program grant applications, including both funded and unfunded applications. This portion of the meeting will be closed under the authority of section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C.A. Appendix 2). Because the review and discussion of applications and the qualifications of proposed staff to work on these grants are likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential, and to disclose information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy if conducted in open session, this portion of the meeting should be closed to the public as provided for by exemptions 4 and 6 of 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(c).
The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. An individual with a disability who will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device or materials in an alternate format) should notify the contact person listed in this notice at least two weeks before the scheduled meeting date. Although the Department will attempt to meet a request received after that date, the requested auxiliary aid or service may not be available because of insufficient time to arrange it.
Records are kept of all Board proceedings, and are available for public
Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has submitted the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management information collection listed at the end of this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and revision under section 3506(c) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
The entry contains the following information: (1) the collection numbers and title; (2) a summary of the collection of information, including the sponsor (i.e., the Department of Energy component), current OMB document number (if applicable), type of request (i.e, new, revision, extension, or reinstatement), and response obligation (i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required to obtain or retain benefits), (3) a description of the need and proposed use of the information; (4) a description of the likely respondents; and (5) an estimate of the total annual reporting burden (i.e., the estimated number of likely respondents times the proposed frequency of response per year times the average hours per response).
Comments must be filed on or before December 6, 2000. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the time allowed by this notice, you should advise the OMB DOE Desk Officer listed below of your intention to do so as soon as possible. The OMB DOE Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 395-3084. (Also, please notify the EIA contact listed below.)
Address comments to the Department of Energy Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 726 Jackson Place N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503. (Comments should also be addressed to the Statistics and Methods Group at the address below.)
Requests for additional information should be directed to Grace Sutherland, Statistics and Methods Group, (EI-70), Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20585-0670. Ms. Sutherland may be contacted by telephone at (202) 426-1104, FAX at (202) 426-1081, or e-mail at Grace.Sutherland@eia.doe.gov.
The energy information collection submitted to OMB for review was:
1. Form NWPA-830R C “Delivery Commitment Schedule.”
2. Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (NWPA); OMB Number 1901-0260; Reinstatement of a currently approved collections; Voluntary.
3. NWPA's “Delivery Commitment Schedule” is designed for contract holders to designate the facility where DOE will accept their fuel, the number of assemblies to be accepted, and the mode of transportation to ship the assemblies. The information collected will be used to determine the Federal waste management system configuration.
4. Business or other for-profit
5. 2,664 hours (5.19 hours per response x 4.38 responses per year x 117 respondents).
Section 3506(h)(1) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-13).
Take notice that, on October 23, 2000, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, to be effective March 27, 2000.
ANR states that this filing is made in compliance with the Commission's Order dated October 11, 2000 in the captioned proceeding.
ANR states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385,211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http;//www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on October 24, 2000, Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing to come part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with a proposed effective date of November 1, 2000:
On April 17, 1995, Columbia filed an Offer of Settlement (Settlement) with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Columbia states that the instant filing address Columbia's collection of $1 million in GSR Costs, plus FERC interest, from its Rate Schedule ITS customers. Specifically, commencing February 1, 1996, Columbia began collecting the GSR Coasts from Rate Schedule ITS Customers via a $0.01/Dth surcharge (Article X Surcharge). The Article X Surcharge was to remain in effect until Columbia had collected the $1 million in GSR Costs, plus FERC interest from ITS Rate Schedule customers.
As of October 31, 2000, Columbia will have over-recovered its allowed recover of $1 million by approximately $20,000. Accordingly, Columbia proposes to remove the Article X Surcharge effective November 1, 2000. The tariff sheets filed herewith will accomplish that.
Columbia states that copies of its filing have been mailed to all firm customers, interruptible customers and affected state commissions.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on October 26, 2000, Dauphin Island Gathering Partners (DIGP) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of October 23, 2000.
DIGP states that this filing is submitted to reflect a change in the World Wide Web address of DIGP's Internet Web Site. DIGP has revised Sheet No. 247 to reflect DIGP's current World Wide Web address of www.digp.defs.com
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protest will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on October 26, 2000 Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C. (Destin) submitted its Annual Revenue Crediting Provision Report pursuant to Section 14.2 of the General Terms and Conditions of Destin's FERC Gas Tariff—Original Volume No. 1. This section requires Destin to either refund or surcharge amounts received from the resolution of imbalances with its shippers and interconnected pipelines, and, any incidential gas sales or purchases necessary to operate the system over a twelve-month period. For the twelve-month period ended August 31, 2000, Destin received monies in excess of the amounts paid.
Accordingly, Destin is issuing checks, concomitant with its filing, to refund the net receipts based on each shipper's proportionate share of the quantities transported for the same twelve-month period.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 of 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before November 7, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 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 in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
Take notice that on October 25, 2000, El Paso Natural Gas Company (El Paso) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, First Revised Sheet No. 1, with an effective date of November 25, 2000. El Paso states that this tariff sheet is being filed to cancel its sales tariff.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on October 26, 2000, Mid Louisiana Gas Company (Mid Louisiana) filed under protest the following revised tariff sheets to provide for imbalance trading and netting in compliance with the Commission's Order No. 587-L. As mandated by such order, the revised tariff sheets are to be effective as of November 1, 2000.
Mid Louisiana states that it has served copies of the filing upon each of its jurisdictional customers and applicable State agencies.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on October 26, 2000, Midcoast Interstate Transmission, Inc. (MIT) filed under protest the following revised tariff sheets to provide for imbalance trading and netting in compliance with the Commission's Order No. 587-L, as reaffirmed by the Commission's October 11, 2000 Order herein. As mandated by Order No. 587-L, the revised tariff sheets are to be effective as of November 1, 2000.
MIT states that it is serving copies of the filing upon all its jurisdictional customers and applicable State agencies.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on October 24, 2000, pursuant to Section 16 3(g)(i) of Mississippi River Transmission Corporation's (MRT) General Terms and Conditions to its FERC Gas Tariff, MRT tendered for filing a statement related to the recovery of Gas Supply Realignment Costs (GSRC) for the period of November 1, 1998 through July 31, 2000.
Specifically, MRT states that according to Section 16.3(g)(1) MRT is required to file within 90 days of July 31, 2000 a reconciliation report, reflecting GSRC recovery and true-up for the period of November 1998 through July 2000. MRT states that MRT did not collect any GSRC during that time period, and that there is no recovery to report and reconcile. MRT further states it will file a report and reconcile the collection of the current GSRC recovery, effective September 1, 2000 through November 30, 2000 within 90 days of the termination of such recovery.
MRT states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each of MRTs customers, all parties to the proceeding and to the state commissions of Arkansas, Illinois and Missouri.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or before November 7, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this following are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that on October 27, 2000, pursuant to Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Lester C. Reed filed a complaint regarding certain actions and inactions by the Georgia Power Corporation in the operation of the Sinclair Dam (Project No. 1951) that are alleged to be in violation of its operating license. These actions and inactions allegedly damaged Mr. Reed and numerous citizens of the United States by reducing their enjoyment of the Project and reducing home values. Mr. Reed is requesting that the Commission enforce the provisions of the license agreement, institute procedures to prevent re-occurrence of the non-compliance, order payment of damages to the citizens and communities who were damaged by Georgia Power's alleged negligence in failing to follow the provisions of the license agreement and apply sanctions, monetary and non-monetary, to Georgia Power for failure to follow the operating license.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests must be filed on or before November 16, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before November 16, 2000. Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/dorbell.htm.
Take notice that on October 25, 2000, Southern Natural Gas Company (Southern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume 1, the following revised tariff sheets, with an effective date of December 1, 2000:
Southern states that the revised tariff sheet is being filed in conjunction with the Commission's Order No, 587-L. Standards for Business Practices of Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587-L, 65 FR 41873 (July 7, 2000), FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations 31,100 (June 30, 2000).
Southern stated that its current tariff and system procedures are in compliance with Order No. 587-L, but that it is filing this enhancement to be consistent with the newly proposed GISB standards. Specifically, the attached tariff sheet provides for a seventeen day trading period after the end of the month for the netting and trading of imbalances. It also contains specific procedures allowing Shippers to maintain a standing request for Southern to post a Shipper's imbalances on a monthly basis.
Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance
Take notice that on October 26, 2000, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) filed its annual report of cash-out purchases for the period August 1, 1999 through July 31, 2000. Transco states that the report is being filed to comply with the cash-out provisions in Section 15 of the General Terms and Conditions of Transco's FERC Gas Tariff.
Transco states that the report shows that for the annual cash-out period ending July 31, 2000, Transco had a net overrecovery of $11,422,274. Transco has carried forward a net underrecovery of $13,346,248 from the previous twelve-month period. This results in a net underrecovery cash-out balance of $1,923,974, excluding carrying charges, as of July 31, 2000.
Transco states that in accordance with Section 15 of its tariff it will carry forward such net underrecovery to offset any net overrecovery that may occur in future cash-out periods.
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before November 7, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that the following filings have been made with the Commission:
Take notice that on October 24, 2000, Doswell Limited Partnership (Doswell) filed with the Commission an application for redetermination of exempt wholesale generator (EWG) status pursuant to Part 365 of the Commission's regulations. Doswell has previously been determined to be an EWG. This filing is occasioned by two nonmaterial changes in fact. First, Doswell's upstream ownership structure has changed. Second, Doswell has plans to finance, construct and own a new electric generation facility located adjacent to the existing Doswell Complex in Hanover County, Virginia.
Take notice that on October 24, 2000, Cleco Evangeline LLC tendered for filing a request for waiver of the Commission's open access transmission tariff and OASIS requirements to the extent required in connection with Cleco Evangeline LLC's ownership of interconnection facilities (generation step-up transformers and 138 kV bus facilities) located at the plant site where Cleco Evangeline LLC's generators are located.
Take notice that on October 17, 2000, Denver City Energy Associates, L.P. (DCE) filed a Report of Changes in Status and Updated Market Power Analysis, notifying the Commission of certain changes in its affiliation with various generating companies, as a result of indirect acquisitions and dispositions by its affiliates. DCE also noted that it has changed its principal place of business and that none of its affiliates currently holds an interest in electric generating capacity for which construction commenced on or before July 9, 1996.
Take notice that on October 20, 2000, GEN~SYS Energy (GEN~SYS) submitted an updated market power analysis.
Take notice that on October 18, 2000, West Georgia Generating Company (West Georgia), an Exempt Wholesale Generator that owns and operates a 640 MW electric generation plant in Thomastown, Georgia, tendered for filing a confidential copy and redacted copies of a Negotiated Contract for the Purchase of Firm Capacity and Energy between Cataula Generating Company L.P., a predecessor in interest to West Georgia Generating Company L.P., and Georgia Power Company (the Agreement). The purpose of the filing was to provide corrected designations under Order No. 614, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶31,096 (2000), as required by the
West Georgia requests that the Agreement be permitted to become effective June 1, 2000.
Take notice that on October 18, 2000, West Georgia Generating Company (West Georgia), an Exempt Wholesale Generator that owns and operates a 640 MW electric generation plant in Thomastown, Georgia, tendered for filing a confidential copy and redacted copies of a Power Purchase Agreement between West Georgia Generating Company L.P. and Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (the Agreement). The purpose of the filing was to provide corrected designations under Order No. 614, FERC Stats. and Regs. ¶31,096 (2000), as required by the letter order issued in these dockets on September 21, 2000.
West Georgia requests that the Agreement be permitted to become effective June 1, 2000.
Take notice that on October 23, 2000, The Dayton Power and Light Company (Dayton) submitted service agreement establishing The Detroit Edison Company as customers under the terms of Dayton's Open Access Transmission Tariff.
Dayton requests an effective date of one day subsequent to this filing for the service agreements. Accordingly, Dayton requests waiver of the Commission's notice requirements.
Copies of this filing were served upon The Detroit Edison Company and the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
Take notice that on October 23, 2000, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Wisconsin Electric) tendered for filing an electric service agreement under its Coordination Sales Tariff (FERC Electric Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 2).
Wisconsin Electric respectfully requests an effective date of October 23, 2000 to allow for economic transactions.
Copies of the filing have been served on Madison Gas and Electric Company, the Michigan Public Service Commission, and the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
Take notice that on October 23, 2000, Potomac Power Resources, Inc. tendered for filing pursuant to Rule 205 of the Federal Power Act an application for authorization to sell capacity, energy and ancillary services at market-based rate and requests for waivers of certain regulations and blanket approvals.
Take notice that on October 12, 2000, A. R. Mullinax filed an application for authorization under Section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act to hold the following positions:
Take notice that on October 25, 2000, Mobile Energy Services Company, L.L.C. (MESC), filed an Application with the Commission. The Application seeks a determination that a cogeneration facility owned and operated by MESC qualifies as a qualifying cogeneration facility. MESC is an Alabama limited liability company that owns and operates a gas-fired combined cycle cogeneration facility rated at approximately 110-MW (gross) capacity. Copies of this application have been served upon the Alabama Public Service Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
E. Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or protests should be filed on or before the comment date. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of these filings are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/ online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at
Take notice that on October 25, 2000, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing a refund report showing that on October 24, 2000, Transco submitted ISS revenue sharing refunds (total principal and interest amount of $219,309.14) to all affected shippers in Docket Nos. RP97-71 and RP97-312.
Section 8 of Transco's Rate Schedule ISS1 provides that, during the effectiveness of the Docket No. RP97-71 rate period, which began on May 1, 1997, Transco shall refund annually 75% of all revenues collected associated with the inventory charge portion of the Rate Schedule ISS rate in excess of $756,696 to (1) maximum rate firm transportation and maximum rate interruptible transportation Buyers who pay storage costs for Hester or Eminence, or both (2) Rate Schedule ESS Buyers and (3) Rate Schedule WSS-Open Access Buyers (collectively, Eligible Shippers).
Transco states that it has calculated that the refund amount for the annual period from May 1, 1999 through April 30, 2000 equals $219,309.14. Pursuant
Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed on or before November 7, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).
Beginning November 1, 2000, comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric license application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k. This application has been accepted, and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
m. A copy of the application is available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE, Room 2-A, Washington, DC 20426, or by calling (202) 208-1371. The application may be viewed on http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
n. The Commission directs, pursuant to Section 4.34(b) of the Regulations (see Order No. 533 issued May 8, 1991, 56 FR 23108, May 20, 1991) that all comments, recommendations, terms and conditions and prescriptions concerning the application be filed with the Commission within 60 days from the issuance date of this notice. All reply comments must be filed with the Commission within 105 days from the date of this notice. Anyone may obtain an extension of time for these deadlines from the Commission only upon a showing of good cause or extraordinary circumstances in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2008.
o. All filings must (1) bear in all capital letter the title “COMMENTS”, “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting the filing: and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. Each filing must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b), and 385.2010.
The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
November 8, 2000, 10:00 a.m.
Room 2C, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
Open.
Agenda.
Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.
David P. Boergers, Secretary, telephone (202) 208-0400; for a recording listing items stricken from or added to the meeting, call (202) 208-1627.
This is a list of matters to be considered by the commission. It does not include a listing of all papers relevant to the items on the agenda; however, all public documents may be examined in the reference and information center.
DOCKET# ER00-3638, 000, NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC. AND NEW ENGLAND POWER POOL
DOCKET# ER00-3668, 000, COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
DOCKET# ER00-3675, 000, NORTH AMERICAN ELECTRIC RELIABILITY COUNCIL
DOCKET# ER00-3672, 000, THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY AND DTE ENERGY TRADING, INC.
DOCKET# ER00-3671, 000, ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.
OTHER#S ER00-2621, 000, ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.
DOCKET# ER00-3251, 000, EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, L.L.C.
OTHER#S ER97-3954, 012, UNICOM POWER MARKETING, INC.
ER97-3954, 013, UNICOM POWER MARKETING, INC.
ER98-380, 012, HORIZON ENERGY COMPANY
ER98-380, 013, HORIZON ENERGY COMPANY
ER98-1734, 002, COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
ER98-1734, 003, COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY
ER99-754, 004, AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, L.L.C.
ER99-754, 005, AMERGEN ENERGY COMPANY, L.L.C.
ER99-1872, 002, PECO ENERGY COMPANY
ER99-1872, 003, PECO ENERGY COMPANY
ER00-1030, 001, AMERGEN VERMONT, L.L.C.
ER00-1030, 002, AMERGEN VERMONT, L.L.C.
ER00-2429, 001, UNICOM ENERGY INC.
ER00-2429, 002, UNICOM ENERGY INC.
ER00-3251, 001, EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, L.L.C.
DOCKET# ER96-3146, 000, WEST PENN POWER COMPANY
OTHER#S ER96-3146, 001, WEST PENN POWER COMPANY
ER96-3146, 002, WEST PENN POWER COMPANY
ER96-3146, 003, WEST PENN POWER COMPANY
DOCKET# ER00-3635, 000, PECO ENERGY COMPANY
DOCKET# ER00-3688, 000, AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION
OMITTED
DOCKET# ER00-845, 000, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
OTHER#S ER00-845, 001, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
DOCKET# EC00-131, 000, EDISON SAULT ELECTRIC COMPANY
DOCKET# ER00-1947, 001, ENTERGY SERVICES, INC.
DOCKET# ER00-2445, 002, PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C.
OTHER#S EL00-74, 002, PJM INTERCONNECTION, L.L.C.
DOCKET# EL00-110, 000, DOMINION NUCLEAR CONNECTICUT, INC.
DOCKET# ER00-3577, 000, NEW ENGLAND POWER POOL
DOCKET# ER00-3591, 000, NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.
OTHER#S ER00-1969, 001, NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.
ER00-3591, 001, NEW YORK INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR, INC.
DOCKET# CP98-133, 005, VECTOR PIPELINE L.P.
OTHER#S CP98-133, 006, VECTOR PIPELINE L.P.
CP98-134, 004, VECTOR PIPELINE L.P.
CP98-134, 005, VECTOR PIPELINE L.P.
CP98-135, 004, VECTOR PIPELINE L.P.
RP00-586, 000, VECTOR PIPELINE L.P.
DOCKET# RP00-571, 000, RELIANT ENERGY GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY
OMITTED
OMITTED
DOCKET# PR00-18, 000, GREAT LAKES ENERGY PARTNERS, L.L.C.
DOCKET# RP96-347, 018, NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY
DOCKET# RP00-264, 000, NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY
DOCKET# RP00-448, 001, WYOMING INTERSTATE COMPANY, LTD.
DOCKET# RP00-447, 001, COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY
OMITTED
OMITTED
DOCKET# RP00-162, 006, PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY
OTHER#S RP00-162, 005, PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE COMPANY
DOCKET# RS92-11, 028, TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
OTHER#S RP94-299, 005, TEXAS EASTERN TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
DOCKET# RM96-1, 014, STANDARDS FOR BUSINESS PRACTICES OF INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS PIPELINES
OTHER#S RP01-32, 000, TRANSCOLORADO GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY
RP01-33, 000, QUESTAR PIPELINE COMPANY
RP01-34, 000, OVERTHRUST PIPELINE COMPANY
RP01-37, 000, EQUITRANS, L.P.
RP01-38, 000, COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS COMPANY
RP01-39, 000, WYOMING INTERSTATE COMPANY, LTD.
RP01-40, 000, COVE POINT LNG LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
RP01-41, 000, YOUNG GAS STORAGE COMPANY, LTD.
RP01-43, 000, EASTERN SHORE NATURAL GAS COMPANY
RP01-44, 000, IROQUOIS GAS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM, L.P.
RP01-45, 000, TOTAL PEAKING SERVICES, L.L.C.
RP01-46, 000, CARNEGIE INTERSTATE PIPELINE COMPANY
RP01-47, 000, VIKING GAS TRANSMISSION COMPANY
RP01-48, 000, EGAN HUB PARTNERS, L.P.
RP01-49, 000, ALGONQUIN LNG, INC.
RP01-50, 000, PORTLAND NATURAL GAS TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
RP01-51, 000, CROSSROADS PIPELINE COMPANY
RP01-52, 000, SOUTHWEST GAS STORAGE COMPANY
RP01-53, 000, GREAT LAKES GAS TRANSPORT, LLC
RP01-55, 000, WESTGAS INTERSTATE, INC.
RP01-57, 000, MIGC, INC.
RP01-58, 000, GRANITE STATE GAS TRANSMISSION, INC.
DOCKET# PR00-17, 000, TRANSOK, LLC
DOCKET# RM99-8, 001, PRESERVATION OF RECORDS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES AND LICENSEES, NATURAL GAS COMPANIES, AND OIL PIPELINE COMPANIES
DOCKET# P-459, 108, UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, D/B/A AMERENUE
DOCKET# P-2842, 029, CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
OTHER#S P-553, 066, CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON P-619 077 CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
P-637, 015, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF CHELAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
P-943, 068, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF CHELAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
P-1417, 052, THE CENTRAL NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER AND IRRIGATION DISTRICT
P-1862, 041, CITY OF TACOMA, WASHINGTON
P-2000, 019, NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY
P-2016, 033, CITY OF TACOMA, WASHINGTON
P-2042, 009, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF PEND OREILLE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
P-2101, 057, SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
P-2144, 020, CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
P-2145, 035, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF CHELAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
P-2149, 072, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
P-2216, 037, NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY
P-2409, 098, CALAVERAS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
P-2442, 032, CITY OF WATERTOWN, NEW YORK
P-2685, 006, NEW YORK POWER AUTHORITY
P-2705, 012, CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
P-2952, 061, CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
P-2959, 076, CITY OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
P-2997, 019, SOUTH SUTTER WATER DISTRICT
P-3083, 085, OKLAHOMA MUNICIPAL POWER AUTHORITY
P-3190, 009, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
P-3193, 009, CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA
P-6842, 097, CITIES OF ABERDEEN AND TACOMA, WASHINGTON
P-10551, 069, CITY OF OSWEGO, NEW YORK
DOCKET# P-2197, 035, ALCOA POWER GENERATING, INC.
DOCKET# P-459, 109, UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, D/B/A AMERENUE CONSENT AGENDA—ENERGY PROJECTS—CERTIFICATES
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is soliciting pre-proposals from States, Tribal governments, universities, non-profits, and other eligible entities interested in applying for Federal assistance for Water Quality Cooperative Agreements under the Clean Water Act Section 104(b)(3). EPA Headquarters will award an estimated $3.9 million to eligible applicants through assistance agreements ranging in size from $10,000 up to $500,000 for innovative projects/demonstrations/studies that have maximum transferability or can be used as models relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution. The Agency intends to make available at least $200,000 per year of the annual appropriation Water Quality Cooperative Agreements, from FY 2001 through FY 2005, for projects which address cooling water intake issues to include technical and environmental studies.
EPA will consider all pre-proposals received on or before 5 pm Eastern Time November 27, 2000. Pre-proposals received after the due date, may be reviewed at EPA's discretion.
It is preferred that pre-proposals be electronically mailed (E-mailed) to
For Overnight Delivery the following address must be used: Barry Benroth, 4204M, WQCA2001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room 7324 J, ICC Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Barry Benroth by telephone at 202-564-0672 or by E-mail at benroth.barry@epa.gov.
The Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water at EPA Headquarters is requesting pre-proposals from States, Tribes, local governments, non-profit organizations and other eligible entities under the Clean Water Act Section 104(b)(3) for unique and innovative projects that address the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) program with special emphasis on wet weather activities,
An organization whose pre-proposal is selected for Federal assistance must complete an EPA Application for Assistance, including the Federal SF-
The Office of Wastewater Management at EPA Headquarters has identified several project areas for priority consideration to the extent they are for research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys and studies related to the causes, effects, extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution:
Funding is authorized under the provisions of the Clean Water Act Sec. 104(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1254(b)(3).
The regulations governing the award and administration of Water Quality Cooperative Agreements are 40 CFR Part 30 (for institutions of higher learning, hospitals, and other non-profit organizations) and 40 CFR Part 31 (for States, Tribes, local governments, intertribal consortia, and interstate agencies). In addition, EPA expects to promulgate final rules in the near future that will include program specific regulations for Water Quality Cooperative Agreements to States, Tribes, local governments, interstate agencies and intertribal consortia. When the rules are finalized, they will be codified at 40 CFR Part 35 Subparts A and B.
Total funding available for award by Headquarters will depend on EPA's appropriation for Fiscal Year 2001; however, it is estimated that $3.9 million will be available for funding approved projects. The average size of an award is anticipated to be approximately $100,000.
Should funding available for award remain reasonably stable or increase in future years, the Agency intends to reserve $1 million ($200,000 per year of the annual amount available) over the next five years to support projects and studies on cooling water intake structures.
Pre-proposals should be limited to three pages. Full application packages should not be submitted at this time. The following format should be used for all pre-proposals:
EPA will consider pre-proposals based on the following criteria:
• The relationship of the proposed project to the priorities identified in this notice.
• How well the project proposes to address a nationally important need, issue, or interest.
• Communication plan to transfer results of the project to other potentially interested parties.
• How well the project furthers the goal of the Clean Water Act to prevent, reduce, and eliminate water pollution.
• Leverage of other resources (
• Cost effectiveness of the proposal.
• Compliance with directions for submittal contained in this notice.
EPA may consider applications even if all criteria are not fully met, provided the proposed projects meet the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and funds are available for such projects.
Eligible applicants for assistance agreements under section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act are State water pollution control agencies, Tribal governments, interstate agencies, and other public or non-profit private agencies, institutions, and organizations.
Electronic transmittal of pre-proposals is preferred to facilitate the review process. Hard copies are acceptable. Please send three copies of the pre-proposal if it is not electronically transmitted.
This is the estimated schedule of activities for review of proposals and notification of selections:
November 27, 2000—Pre-proposals due to EPA.
December 18, 2000—Initial approvals identified and sponsors of projects selected for funding will be requested to submit a formal application package.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, we now give notice that the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), along with the various subcommittees, will meet on the dates and times described below. All times noted are Eastern Standard Time. All meetings are open to the public. Due to limited space, seating at the NEJAC meeting will be on a first-come basis. Documents that are the subject of NEJAC reviews are normally available from the originating EPA office and are
The Charter for the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) states that NEJAC shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on areas relating to environmental justice including, among other things, “advice for improving how EPA and others participate, cooperate, and communicate within the Agency and between other Federal agencies, State, or local governments, Federally recognized Tribes, EJ leaders, interest groups, and the public.” The Agency, through the Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ), requests that the NEJAC convene a focused and issue-oriented public meeting in Arlington, VA to receive comments, discuss, and analyze a major public policy issue. The Agency, furthermore, requests that the NEJAC produce a comprehensive report on the differing views, interests, concerns, and perspectives expressed by the stakeholder participants on the issue, and provide advice and recommendations for the Agency's review and consideration.
What progress has the Federal government made towards integrating environmental justice into its policies, programs, and activities consistent with existing laws and Executive Order 12898?
Developing integrated strategies plays a vital role for achieving environmental justice for all Federal agencies and is consistent with the missions of those agencies. Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” represents an important first step towards realizing the goal of achieving environmental justice throughout the Federal government.
The Executive Order requires that each Federal agency shall, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. Specifically, the Executive Order directs Federal agencies to:
(1) Develop a strategic plan to integrate environmental justice into their activities;
(2) Conduct activities in a manner that ensures that they do not have the effect of excluding people and groups from public participation opportunities or the benefits of such activities;
(3) Include diverse segments of the population in studies involving human health and environmental hazards;
(4) Collect, maintain and analyze information on consumption patterns of populations who rely principally on fish and wildlife for subsistence;
(5) Enhance public participation opportunities and the accessibility of meetings and documents; and,
(6) Develop interagency model projects on environmental justice that evidence cooperation among Federal agencies.
Much can be gained from an examination of the successes, failures and challenges encountered by Federal agencies in integrating environmental justice during the past 6
NEJAC's examination of environmental justice implementation throughout the Federal government should be forward-looking. The analysis should identify lessons learned from implementation of the Executive Order and make recommendations for future efforts to address environmental justice. Since issues of environmental justice are often complex, multi-faceted and cross-cutting, they require new approaches on the part of the Federal government. Coordinated interagency strategies are critical, including the development of community-based interagency demonstration projects.
NEJAC will examine interagency environmental justice implementation in two basic areas: (1) Progress and lessons gained from individual agency
Registration for the NEJAC meeting will begin on Monday, December 11, 2000 at 8 a.m. The full NEJAC will convene Monday, December 11, 2000, and Tuesday, December 12, 2000 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Business will include a series of panels with expert testimony on the focused policy issue, a review of ongoing NEJAC activities and a discussion of new business items. A public comment period dedicated to the focused policy issue is scheduled for Monday evening, December 11, 2000, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. On Tuesday evening, December 12, 2000, a second public comment period for overall environmental justice issues is scheduled from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The following Subcommittees will meet on Wednesday, December 13, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.: Air and Water; Enforcement; Health and Research; Indigenous Peoples; International; and Waste and Facility Siting. The full NEJAC will reconvene Thursday, December 14, 2000, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. to wrap up all business requiring Executive Council action. All times shown are Eastern Time.
Any member of the public wishing additional information on the subcommittee meetings should contact the specific Designated Federal Official at the telephone number listed below.
Members of the public who wish to participate in one of the public comment periods should pre-register by December 1, 2000. Individuals or groups making oral presentations during the public comment period will be limited to a total time of five minutes. Only one representative from a community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak. Any number of written comments can be submitted for the record. The suggested format for individuals making public comment should be as follows:
If you wish to submit written comments of any length (at least 50 copies), they should also be received by December 1, 2000. Comments received after that date will be provided to the Council as logistics allow. All information should be sent to the address or fax number cited below.
Pre-registration for all attendees is recommended. To receive a registration form, call the number listed below or visit the web site. Correspondence concerning registration should be sent to Ms. Victoria Robinson of Tetra Tech Environmental Management, Inc. at: 1881 Campus Commons, Suite 200, Reston, VA 20191, phone: 703/390-0641 or fax: 703/391-5876. Hearing-impaired individuals or non-English speaking attendees wishing to arrange for a sign language or foreign language interpreter, may make appropriate arrangements using these numbers also. In addition, NEJAC offers a toll-free Registration Hotline at 1-888/335-4299. For on-line registration, you may visit the Internet site:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of Availability of Final Project Agreements and Response to comments for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District.
EPA is announcing the signing of the Project XL Final Project Agreement (FPA) for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District.
The FPA for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago was signed on August 30, 2000 and the FPA for the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District was signed on September 28, 2000.
To obtain copies or to make inquiries about the Final Project Agreements, Fact Sheets, or public comments received contact the following individuals: Matthew Gluckman, 312-8986-6089, U.S. EPA Region V, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604 (
Final Project Agreements are voluntary agreements developed by project sponsors, stakeholders, the State in which the project is located and EPA. Project XL, announced in the
EPA announced the availability and requested comments on the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago Draft FPA on July 24, 2000 (65 FR 45601) and on the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District Draft FPA on August 29, 2000 (65 FR 52427) in the
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 two proposed administrative agreements for recovery of past and projected future response costs at four Superfund sites. The agreements resolve claims of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) against the settling parties under sections 106 and 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607(a), and section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. 6973. The settling parties are the United States Navy (“Navy”) and the United States Coast Guard (“Coast Guard”). The four Superfund sites are the Cannons Engineering Corporation Site in Bridgewater, Massachusetts; the Cannons Engineering/Plymouth Harbor Site in Plymouth, Massachusetts; the Gilson Road Site in Nashua, New Hampshire; and the Tinkham's Garage Site in Londonderry, New Hampshire. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire are also parties to these agreements.
The Navy is a larger volume Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”). Under the agreement with the Navy, the Navy will pay a total of approximately $2,850,000, of which $1,578,912 will be paid to the Hazardous Substance Superfund, $39,000 will be paid to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and $1,232,088 will be paid to the State of New Hampshire. The Navy will also pay interest on these amounts, accruing as of December 14, 1998. With respect to one of the four Sites, EPA retains its right to pursue its claims against the Navy at the Nashua Site if costs at that Site exceed a specified amount.
The Coast Guard is a
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to these two agreements. EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to these agreements if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the agreements are inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the EPA Records Center, 1 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023 (Telephone No. 617-918-1440). Commenters may request an opportunity for a public meeting in the affected areas in accordance with section 7003(d) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6973(d).
Comments and requests for a public meeting in the affected areas must be submitted on or before December 6, 2000.
The proposed agreements are available for public inspection at the EPA Records Center, 1 Congress Street, Boston, MA 02114-2023 (Telephone No. 617-918-1440). A copy of the proposed agreements may be obtained from Audrey Zucker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES), Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1788. Comments should reference the Cannons Engineering Corporation Superfund Sites and EPA Docket No. 1-2000-0033 (Settling Party: U.S. Navy) or EPA Docket No. 1-2000-0032 (Settling Party: U.S. Coast Guard), and should be addressed to Audrey Zucker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES), Boston, MA 02114-2023.
Audrey Zucker, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES), Boston, MA 02114-2023, (617) 918-1788.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of decision and opportunity for hearing.
This public notice is issued pursuant to section 1413 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (“Act”) and section 142.10 of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (40 CFR part 142).
An application has been received from the Navajo Nation, through the Director, Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, requesting that the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection
Section 1451 of the Act and 40 CFR 142.72 authorize EPA to delegate to Indian tribes primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems, pursuant to section 1413 of the Act, if the Indian tribe meets the following criteria:
(A) The Indian Tribe is recognized by the Secretary of the Interior and has a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers;
(B) The functions to be exercised by the Indian Tribe are within the area of the Tribal Government's jurisdiction; and
(C) The Indian Tribe is reasonably expected to be capable, in the Administrator's judgment, of carrying out the functions to be exercised in a manner consistent with the terms and purposes of (the Act) and of all applicable regulations.
Section 1451(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 300j-11(b)(1), see also 40 CFR 142.72.
Pursuant to section 1451 of the Act and 40 CFR 142.72, EPA has determined that the Navajo Nation, through the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, is eligible to apply for primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems within the Navajo Nation. EPA has also determined that the Navajo Nation, through the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency has met all conditions of the Act and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act for the assumption of primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems within the Navajo Nation. Specifically the Navajo Nation:
(1) Has adopted drinking water regulations which are no less stringent than the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
(2) Has adopted and will implement adequate procedures for the enforcement of such regulations, including adequate monitoring, sanitary surveys, inspections, plan review, inventory of water systems, and adequate certified laboratory availability;
(3) Will keep such records and make such reports as required;
(4) If it permits variances or exemptions from the requirements of its regulations, will issue such variances and exemptions in accordance with the provisions of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; and
(5) Has adopted and can implement an adequate plan for the provision of safe drinking water under emergency conditions.
All interested parties are invited to submit written comments or to request a public hearing on EPA's determination. Written comments and/or requests for a public hearing must be submitted by December 6, 2000 to the Regional Administrator at the address shown below.
Any request for a public hearing shall include the following information: (1) The name, address, and telephone number of the individual, organization, or other entity requesting a hearing; (2) a brief statement of the requesting person's interest in the Regional Administrator's determination and of information that the requesting person intends to submit at such hearing; and (3) the signature of the individual making the request, or, if the request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the signature of the responsible official of the organization or other entity.
Frivolous or insubstantial requests for a hearing may be denied by the Regional Administrator. If a substantial request for public hearing is made by December 6, 2000, a public hearing will be held. The Regional Administrator will give further notice in the
After receiving the record of the hearing, the Regional Administrator will issue an order affirming or rescinding the determination. If the determination is affirmed, it shall become effective as of the date of the order.
If no timely and appropriate request for a hearing is received and the Regional Administrator does not elect to hold a hearing on her own motion, this determination shall become effective on December 6, 2000.
Based on the language of section 1413 of the Act, EPA has long implemented the determination to approve a state, and now a tribal, application for primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems as an “adjudication” rather than a “rulemaking” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551
Even if a state or tribal primary enforcement responsibility application or revision were a “rule” subject to the RFA, EPA would certify that the approval or revision of the state's or the tribe's program would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA's action to approve a primary enforcement responsibility application or revision merely recognizes a program that has already been enacted as a matter of state or tribal law. It would, therefore, impose no additional obligations upon those subject to the state's or tribe's program. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator would certify that the approval of primary enforcement responsibility of the Navajo Nation, if a “rule,” would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, at the following offices: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency, Fairground Building No. W-008-042, Window Rock, Arizona 86515; and EPA, Region IX, Water Division, Drinking Water Office (WTR-6), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105.
To submit comments or request further information, contact Danny Collier, Region IX, at the San Francisco address given above; telephone (415) 744-1856.
The Federal Communications Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (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 the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments should be submitted on or before January 5, 2001. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A804, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collections contact Les Smith at (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
The Federal Communications Commissions, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burden invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) that does not display a valid control number. Comments are requested concerning (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; (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 the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Written comments should be submitted on or before December 6, 2000. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all comments to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-A804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet to
For additional information or copies of the information collections contact Les Smith at (202) 418-0217 or via the Internet at
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 November 30, 2000.
1.
1.
In connection with this application, Meader Insurance Agency, Inc., Waverly, Kansas; has applied to acquire 13.1 percent of the voting shares of 1st Financial Bancshares, Inc., Shawnee Mission, Kansas.
10 a.m. (EST), November 13, 2000.
4th Floor, Conference Room 4506, 1250 H Street NW, Washington, DC.
Open.
Thomas J. Trabucco, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.
General Services Administration.
Notice of a new system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is providing notice of the establishment of a new record system, Acquisition Career Management Information System (ACMIS) (GSA/OAP-2). The new system will collect information to track, verify, update, and manage the careers of Federal employees in acquisition occupations and to manage the funds and the size and strength of the Federal acquisition workforce.
Comments on the new system must be provided December 6, 2000. The new system will become effective without further notice on December 6, 2000, unless comments dictate otherwise.
Address comments to: Marilyn Geldzahler, Federal Acquisition Institute (MVI), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405; or to GSA Privacy Act Officer, General Services Administration, CAI, 1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405.
Marilyn Geldzahler at the above address, or telephone (202) 208-1314.
Acquisition Career Management Information System (ACMIS).
The system is maintained for GSA under contract. Contact the System Manager for additional information.
Federal employees in acquisition and contracting jobs, including personnel in the 1100 occupational series, contracting officers, and other employees performing acquisition, contracting, and procurement functions for Federal agencies.
The system contains information needed for managing the careers and training of employees in the Federal acquisition occupational field. Records may include but are not limited to: (1) Biographical data such as name, birth date, and educational level; (2) work related data such as service computation date and retirement information, duty station, occupational series and grade, and Social Security Number; and (3) training records.
Section 37 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 433).
To establish and maintain an electronic system to facilitate the career management of Federal employees in acquisition occupations; to ensure that employees meet mandated training requirements; and to effectively manage training funds and the size and qualifications of the Federal acquisition workforce. The system provides to management and to employees in the system up-to-date information on employee certification levels, qualification standards, academic degrees, mandatory and other pertinent training, and warrant status.
System information may be accessed and used by employees themselves and their supervisors, designated analysts and managers, and training centers, to track, verify, and update system information. Designated program managers will use the information to manage training funds and the size and strength of the Federal acquisition workforce.
Information from this system also may be disclosed as a routine use:
a. In any legal proceeding, where pertinent, to which GSA is a party before a court or administrative body.
b. To a Federal, State, local, or foreign agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or carrying out a statute, rule, regulation, or order when GSA becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
c. To an appeal, grievance, hearing, or complaints examiner; an equal employment opportunity investigator, arbitrator, or mediator; and an exclusive representative or other person authorized to investigate or settle a grievance, complaint, or appeal filed by an individual who is the subject of the record.
d. To the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the General Accounting Office (GAO) in accordance with their responsibilities for evaluating Federal programs.
e. To a Member of Congress or his or her staff on behalf of and at the request of the individual who is the subject of the record.
f. To a requesting Federal agency in connection with the hiring, retaining, or promotion of an employee where the information is relevant and necessary for the decision.
g. To authorized officials of the agency that provided the information for inclusion in ACMIS.
h. To an expert, consultant, or contractor of GSA in the performance of a Federal duty to which the information is relevant.
All records are stored electronically in web-based computer format.
Records are retrievable by name and/or Social Security Number. Group records are retrieved by organizational code.
System records are safeguarded in accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act. Access is limited to authorized individuals with passwords, and the database is maintained behind a firewall certified by the National Computer Security Association.
System records are retained and disposed of according to GAS records maintenance and disposition schedules and the requirements of the National Archives and Records Administration.
Director, Federal Acquisition Institute (MVI), General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405.
Individuals wishing to inquire if the system contains information about them should contact the system manager at the above address.
Individuals wishing to access their own records may do so by password. Requests for access also may be directed to the system manager.
Individuals in the system may amend their own records online, or, as appropriate, request their manager or supervisor to amend the record.
The sources for information in the system are the individuals for whom the records are maintained, the supervisors of those individuals, existing agency systems, and the Office of the Personnel Management's (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF).
In compliance with the requirement of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork reduction Act of 1995, the Center 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.
Reader Evaluations of Public Health Assessments and Consultation Products—Reinstatement with Changes—This is a request for a three-year reinstatement with changes of OMB 0923-0016, Reader Evaluations of Public Health Assessments and Consultation Products. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is mandated pursuant to the 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its 1986 Amendments, The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), to perform health assessments for each facility on the National Priorities List and for releases of facilities where individuals have been exposed to a hazardous substance. In addition, ATSDR provides consultations on health issues relating to exposure to hazardous or toxic substances to officials at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and state and local government. The principal audiences for these products are health professionals at the federal, state, and local levels, staff in public libraries and repositories, interested private sector organizations and groups, and members of the public.
In order to make ATSDR products such as health assessments, consultations, exposure investigations, and fact sheets timely and relevant, ATSDR staff developed a survey
The reader evaluation surveys provide important feedback that enables ATSDR staff to maintain the utility, integrity and standards of its products. Gathering client feedback ensures that appropriate information is included in these documents and assists in maintaining medical and scientific usefulness. The information will be used to maintain customer satisfaction with these products. There is no cost to respondents.
The estimate annual burden is 172 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.
Proposes a 3-year clearance for data collection of the standardized record layout for the Jail STD Prevalence Monitoring System. This system consists of test data compiled for persons entering corrections facilities. The standard data elements were created in response to the need to systematically assess morbidity in persons entering corrections facilities who are at high risk for STDs and who often do not seek medical care in mainstream medical settings.
Use of these standard data elements will improve surveillance of STDs by allowing for systematic assessment of a high risk population, taking advantage of already computerized data. States that compile data from corrections facilities are encouraged to participate in the system. The estimated annualized burden is 1248 hours.
In compliance with the requirements of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Administration for Children and Families is soliciting public comment on the specific aspects of the information collection described above. Copies of the proposed collection of information can be obtained and comments may be forwarded by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At least one portion of the meeting will be closed to the public.
FDA regrets that it was unable to publish this notice 15 days prior to the November 16, 2000, Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee meeting. Because the agency believes there is some urgency to bring these issues to public discussion and qualified members of the Neurological Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee were available at this time, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs concluded that it was in the public interest to hold this meeting even if there was not sufficient time for the customary 15-day public notice.
Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods, U.S. Public Health Service. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on November 28, 2000 in the Director's Board Room, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health Campus, Building 38, 8600 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20894. The entire meeting is open to the public and time is planned for persons who would like to make public comments. Although not required, pre-registration is preferred to assist in planning for adequate space. To pre-register for this meeting, please contact Dr. Mary S. Wolfe, NTP Executive Secretary, P. O. Box 12233, A3-07, NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, telephone: 919-541-3971 and FAX: 919-541-0295. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, are asked to notify the contact person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Under authority of 42 U.S.C. 217a, Section 222 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended, the Department of Health and Human Services has established an Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods. The Committee functions to provide advice on the activities and priorities of the NTP Center and the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and to provide advice on ways to foster partnership activities and productive interactions among all stakeholders. The Advisory Committee is composed of knowledgeable representatives drawn from academia, industry, public interest organizations, other state and Federal agencies, and the international community [
The agenda for the November 28th session will consist of presentations on recent and proposed activities of the NTP Center and ICCVAM. The Committee will discuss issues relating to processes and priorities and recommendations relevant to the validation of new and revised toxicological testing methods. Information on methods that will be discussed is available on the Internet at:
A detailed agenda with meeting schedule and the Committee roster will be available prior to the meeting on the NTP web site (http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov) or by contacting the NTP Executive Secretary, at the address given above. Summary minutes will also be available subsequent to the meeting by contacting the address above.
The Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods meeting is open to the public, and time is reserved for any interested individual/group (limit one speaker per group) to give oral comments on the activities, directions, or priorities of the Center and/or on any of the agenda items discussed at the meeting. In order to facilitate planning for the meeting, persons wishing to make an oral presentation are asked to notify the Executive Secretary prior to the meeting at the address given above; however, registration for public comments will also be available on-site at the meeting. A person registering to make comments will be asked to provide his/her name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax, e-mail and supporting organization (if any).
Written comments can accompany or be provided in lieu of making oral comments. All comments must include name, affiliation, mailing address, phone, fax, e-mail and sponsoring organization (if any) and should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given above.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity designates the Order of Succession for the office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. This Order of Succession supersedes the Order of Succession for the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, published at 65 FR 16952 (March 30, 2000).
August 3, 2000.
Deborah R. Harrison, Administrative Officer, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Budget and Administrative Support Division, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 5124, 451 7th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410, (202) 708-2701. (This is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (toll-free).
The Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d. This publication supersedes the Order of Succession notice on March 30, 2000 at 65 FR 16952.
Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Office of Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, the following officials within the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
(1) General Deputy Assistant Secretary;
(2) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations and Management;
(3) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Program;
(4) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development;
(5) Director, Office of Enforcement;
(6) Director, Policy and Program Evaluation Staff;
(7) Director, Office of Programs;
(8) Director, Field Oversight Staff; and
(9) Director, Office of Management and Planning
These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the Office in the order specified herein, and no official shall serve unless all the other officials, whose position titles precede his/hers in this order, are unable to act by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office.
This Order of Succession supersedes the Order of Succession for the Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, published at 65 FR 16952 (March 30, 2000).
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3535(d).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, HUD.
Notice of Order of Succession.
In this notice, the Deputy Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development designates the Order of Succession for the Office of Public Affairs.
October 27, 2000.
Virginia Kelly Ackermen, Senior Attorney, Procurement and Administrative Law, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 10180, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, (202) 708-0622. (This is not a toll-free number.) This number may be accessed via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (toll-free).
The Deputy Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d.
Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Office of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, the following officials within the Office of Public Affairs are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
(1) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
(2) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Planning
(3) Director, Press Operations
(4) Senior Public Affairs Specialist, Managing Editor
These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the Office in the order specified herein, and no official shall serve unless all the other officials, whose position titles precede his/hers in this order, are unable to act by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office.
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3535(d).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, HUD.
Notice of order of succession.
In this notice, the Deputy Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development designates the Order of Succession for the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. This Order of Succession supersedes the Order of Succession for the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, published at 60 FR 22404 (May 5, 1995).
October 10, 2000.
Virginia Kelly Ackermen, Senior Attorney, Procurement and Administrative Law, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 10180, 451 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410; (202) 708-0622. (This is not a toll-free number). This number may be accessed via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (toll-free).
The Deputy Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 USC 3345-3349d. This publication supersedes the Order of Succession notice on May 5, 1995 at 60 FR 22404.
Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Office of Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, the following officials within the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
(1) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intergovernmental Relations;
(2) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Planning.
These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the Office in the order specified herein, and no official shall serve unless all the other officials, whose position titles precede his/hers in this order, are unable to act by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office.
This Order of Succession supersedes the Order of Succession for the Assistant Secretary of Administration, published at 60 FR 22404 (May 5, 1995).
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3535(d).
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of order of succession.
In this notice, the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing designates the Order of Succession for the Office of Public and Indian Housing. This Order of Succession supersedes the Order of Succession for the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, published at 65 FR 51015 (August 22, 2000).
August 23, 2000.
John Opitz, Assistant General Counsel for
The Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the functions and duties of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d. This publication supersedes the Order of Succession notice on August 22, 2000 at 65 FR 51015.
Accordingly, the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provisions of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, the following officials within the Office of Public and Indian Housing are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office:
(1) General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing;
(2) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Assisted Housing Delivery;
(3) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives;
(4) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Housing Investments;
(5) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Troubled Agency Recovery.
These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the Office in the order specified herein, and no official shall serve unless all the other officials, whose position titles precede his/hers in this order, are unable to act by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office.
This Order of Succession supersedes the Order of Succession for the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, published at 65 FR 51015 (August 22, 2000).
Section 7(d), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3535(d).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications.
The following applicants have applied for a scientific research permit to conduct certain activities with endangered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests, capture, mark, band, and release) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit to take (collect eggs, hatchlings, and adults; band; collect blood samples; and apply radio transmitters) the Mariana crow (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture) the San Francisco garter snake (
The permittee requests a permit amendment to take (capture) the San Francisco garter snake (
The permittee requests a permit amendment to take (locate) the Morro shoulderband snail (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, collect and sacrifice) the Conservancy fairy shrimp (
The applicant requests a permit to take (harass by survey, locate and monitor nests) the southwestern willow flycatcher (
The applicant requests a permit to take (capture and sacrifice) the shortnose sucker (
The permittee requests a permit amendment to take (locate and monitor nests) the nene goose (
The applicant requests a permit to: take (capture, remove biological samples, translocate, and release) the Devil's Hole pupfish (
Written comments on these permit applications must be received on or before December 6, 2000.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Chief-Endangered Species, Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 911 NE. 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181; Fax: (503) 231-6243. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when submitting comments. All comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative record and may be made available to the public.
Documents and other information submitted with these applications are available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written request for a copy of such documents within 20 days of the date of publication of this notice to the address above; telephone: (503) 231-2063. Please refer to the respective permit number for each application when requesting copies of documents.
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior.
Notice of Council Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), 5 U.S.C. appendix 1, The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), announces a meeting of the New Mexico Resource Advisory Council (RAC). The meeting will be held on January 25 and 26, 2001, at the Holiday Inn Express Conference Center, in the Neptune Room, 1100 California N.E., Socorro, New Mexico 87801. There will be an optional all day field trip on Wednesday, January 24, 2001. Transportation will be provided for RAC members. The optional field trip will be organized by the Socorro Field Office of the BLM. The Field Tour will leave from the Holiday Inn Express at 8:00 a.m. The first stop will be The Box Special Management Area to visit the renowned rock climbing recreation area. Significant use has led the Socorro Field Office to enter into an extensive contracted cultural survey that will test, record, and mitigate significant cultural properties that are currently threatened by recreational users. There will follow a stop at Datil Well Campground before seeing the Horse Mountain urban interface hazardous fuels reduction project. Socorro Field Office is dedicated to protecting the sensitive natural resources within the Wildlife Study Area, and to protecting the rural homeowners in the area from potential catastrophic wildfire. The tour will proceed to Pelona Mountain to see how prescribed fire projects over the last seven or eight years minimized potentially catastrophic effects that were likely to have been evident during this summer's 32,000 acre Chance wildfire. Land exchange consolidation efforts and easement acquisitions will also be viewed along the way as will issues relative to access along a current powerline. The last stop will be at the Kellogg Canyon watershed project in which BLM and the USFS have worked cooperatively to complete fire and watershed restoration projects. Those interested may continue on to the proposed site of the Camino Real International Heritage Center and the Bosque del Apache Wildlife Refuge to see the birds return at dusk. In case of bad weather, there is an alternate plan for the tour. The meeting on Thursday, January 25, 2001, will start at 8:00 a.m. and will end about 5:00 p.m. The draft agenda for the RAC meeting includes agreement on the meeting agenda, any RAC comments on the draft minutes of the last RAC meeting on October 11 through 13, 2001, in Silver City, New Mexico, and a check-in from the RAC members. The focus of the meeting will be on all aspects of wildfire. Presentations will include discussion. Invited speakers are: Dr. Carl Edminster of the Rocky Mountain Research Station in Flagstaff, Arizona; Doug Boykin, District Forester with New Mexico Forestry and Resources Conseration Division in Socorro; Brad Vierra, President, New Mexico Archaeological Council; Tom Swetnam of the Tree Ring Laboratory at the University of Arizona; Bob Lee, Fire Management Officer, of the New Mexico State Office of the BLM, and Dave Heft, Wildlife Biologist and Dan Huisjen, Fire Management Officer, of the Socorro BLM Field Office.
The three established RAC Subcommittees may have late afternoon or evening meetings on Wednesday, January 24, after the optional field trip, or on Thursday, January 25, after the meeting. The exact time and location of possible Subcommittee meetings will be established by the Chairperson of each Subcommittee and be available to the public following the field trip on Wednesday, January 24, and during the RAC meeting on Thursday, January 25, for that evening. That information will also be available at the desk of the Holiday Inn Express on those two days.
These reports are followed by RAC discussions and any RAC recommendations, development of draft agenda items, selection of a location for the next RAC meeting and a RAC assessment of the current meeting.
Mary White, New Mexico State Office, Office of External Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, 1474 Rodeo Road, P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87502-0115, telephone (505) 438-7404.
The purpose of the Resource Advisory Council is to advise the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the management of public lands. The Council's responsibilities include providing advice on long-range planning, establishing resource management priorities and assisting the BLM to identify State and regional standards for rangeland health and guidelines for grazing management.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Correction.
This notice corrects an error in the legal description in the notice of proposed withdrawal published in 65 FR 59464, dated October 5, 2000, FR Doc. 00-25555. The land described as the E
Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770 U.S.C. App 1, section 10), that a meeting of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission will be held on Thursday, November 16, 2000.
The Commission was reestablished pursuant to Public Law 87-126 as amended by Public Law 105-280. The purpose of the Commission is to consult with the Secretary of the Interior, or his designee, with respect to matters relating to the development of Cape Cod National Seashore, and with respect to carrying out the provisions of sections 4 and 5 of the Act establishing the Seashore.
The Commission members will meet at 1:00 p.m. at Headquarters, Marconi Station, Wellfleet, Massachusetts for the regular business meeting to discuss the following:
The meeting is open to the public. It is expected that 15 persons will be able to attend the meeting in addition to Commission members.
Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Commission during the business meeting or file written statements. Such requests should be made to the park superintendent at least seven days prior to the meeting. Further information concerning the meeting may be obtained from the Superintendent, Cape Cod National Seashore, 99 Marconi Site Road, Wellfleet, MA 02667.
Nominations for the following properties being considered for listing in the National Register were received by the National Park Service before October 28, 2000. Pursuant to § 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 November 21, 2000.
A request for REMOVAL has been made for the following resource:
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given in accordance with provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 43 CFR 10.9, of the completion of an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects in the possession of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology and Museum of Anthropology, Denver, CO.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2 (c). The determinations within this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of these Native American human remains and associated funerary objects. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations within this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by University of Denver Department of Anthropology and Museum of Anthropology professional staff and a contract physical anthropologist in consultation with representatives of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma; Comanche Indian Tribe, Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Tribe of the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Juan, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
In 1932, human remains representing one individual were recovered from a site near La Veta, Huerfano County, CO, by Dr. E.B. Renaud of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology, and his assistant, Charlie Steen. No known individuals were identified. No funerary objects are present.
Dr. Renaud was taken to the remains by Karl Gilbert of the U.S. Forest Service. Dr. Renaud collected the long bones of the skeleton and reported, but did not collect, numerous glass beads associated with the remains. At the U.S. Forest Service office in La Veta, CO, Dr. Renaud examined the skull of the remains and a series of associated funerary objects that had been collected by John Durant in the winter of 1931-32. These funerary objects included one Barrett flintlock gun dated 1848, three metal arrow points, one saddle buckle, five saddle rings, one piece of copper, one spoon, and one stone pipe. Dr. Renaud was given the skull, which he took along with the long bones to the University of Denver. Currently, the university is in possession of eight long bones. The skull has not been located.
The date on the gun previously associated with the remains demonstrates that this individual died in the mid to late 19th century. At that time, south central Colorado, including Huerfano County, was the territory of the Eastern Bands of the Ute. This geographic association is confirmed by the oral testimony given in consultation, and is supported by ethnographical and historical evidence. Dr. Renaud's notes include a 1932 interview with Mr. I. Blasquez, a resident of La Veta since 1863, who also confirmed that the Ute lived in the La Veta area in the mid-19th century.
Based on the above-mentioned information, officials of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology and Museum of Anthropology have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(d)(1), the human remains listed above represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry. Also, officials of the University of Denver Department of Anthropology and Museum of Anthropology have determined that, pursuant to 43 CFR 10.2(e), there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between these Native American human remains and the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah; the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah; and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain
This notice has been sent to officials of the Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming; Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma; Comanche Indian Tribe, Oklahoma; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Jicarilla Apache Tribe of the Jicarilla Apache Indian Reservation, New Mexico; Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, Montana; Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Pueblo of Cochiti, New Mexico; Pueblo of Jemez, New Mexico; Pueblo of Isleta, New Mexico; Pueblo of Laguna, New Mexico; Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Pueblo of Picuris, New Mexico; Pueblo of Pojoaque, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Felipe, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Juan, New Mexico; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, New Mexico; Pueblo of Sandia, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Ana, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico; Pueblo of Santo Domingo, New Mexico; Pueblo of Taos, New Mexico; Pueblo of Tesuque, New Mexico; Pueblo of Zia, New Mexico; Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah; Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah; Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico. Representatives of any other Indian tribe that believes itself to be culturally affiliated with these human remains should contact Jan I. Bernstein, Collections Manager and NAGPRA Coordinator at the University of Denver Department of Anthropology and Museum of Anthropology, 2000 Asbury, Sturm Hall S-146, Denver, CO 80208-2406, email jbernste@du.edu, telephone (303) 871-2543, before December 6, 2000. Repatriation of the human remains to the Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah; the Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation, Colorado; the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Utah; and the Ute Mountain Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah may begin after that date if no additional claimants come forward.
Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
Amended Notice of Intent to Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS).
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) intends to be a cooperating agency (pursuant to 40 CFR section 1501.6) in the Bureau of Reclamation's (Bureau) preparation of a joint EIR/EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The joint EIR/EIS will be developed for: (1) the conservation and transfer of water from Imperial Irrigation District (IID) to the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and/or the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and (2) approval of a Habitat Conservation Plan, and issuance of an incidental take permit, pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, including consideration of conservation measures or plans addressing State-listed species.
This notice is being furnished pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR section 1501.22). Pursuant to regulations at 40 CFR (sections 1501.7 and 1508.22), the Bureau, as lead agency pursuant to NEPA, and the Service, as the Federally authorized permitting agency, are seeking suggestions and information from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues and alternatives to be considered in preparation of the joint EIR/EIS pertaining to possible issuance of a Federal incidental take permit. To satisfy both NEPA and CEQA, the Service, as a cooperator, with the Bureau as the Federal lead agency and IID as the State lead agency are conducting this additional scoping process for the preparation of the environmental documents.
In order to expedite the planning process, the above agencies request all scoping comments on this notice be received by December 6, 2000.
You should address written comments to Ms. Nancy Gilbert, Assistant Field Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker Avenue West, Carlsbad, California 92008. You may also send comments by facsimile to (760) 431-9618.
Contact Ms. Carol Roberts, Salton Sea Coordinator, or Mr. Pete Sorensen, Division Chief, at the above Carlsbad address or by telephone at (760) 431-9440. Persons wishing to obtain background material may contact Mr. Steve Knell of the Imperial Irrigation District at 333 E. Barioni Blvd., P.O. Box 937, Imperial California 92251, or by telephone at (760) 339-9266.
The Bureau is publishing this notice to amend the September 27, 1999 Notice of Intent (see 64 FR 52102) to provide public notice that the project EIR/EIS will include an evaluation of the impacts associated with the potential issuance of an incidental take permit. This was not specifically addressed in the initial Notice of Intent provided for the project. The Habitat Conservation Plan will cover a broad array of activities including: water conservation, water conveyance and drainage, operation and maintenance, system improvements, miscellaneous activities, and third party activities required to achieve the conservation and transfer of up to 300,000 acre-feet of water per year from IID to the SDCWA and to meet the voluntary cap on IID's water use of 3.1 million acre-feet per year from the Colorado River. Up to 100,000 acre-feet of the water conserved by IID may be transferred to the CVWD and/or MWD, instead of SDCWA, as part of the proposed Quantification Settlement Agreement on the Colorado River. The EIR/EIS will evaluate transfer volumes up to 400,000 acre-feet per year. The IID (Applicant) intends to request an incidental take permit for up to 96 listed (Federal and State) and unlisted species of concern (fish, wildlife, and plants) under specific provisions of the permit. In the case of unlisted species, the permit will provide coverage should these species be listed in the future. The Plan will cover all areas of IID's water delivery and collection system from the Imperial Dam on the Colorado River throughout the Imperial Valley (approximately 470,000 acres) into the Salton Sea.
During the comment period the documents will be available for public inspection by appointment during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
IID is an irrigation district formed under California law which provides irrigation water and power to the lower southeastern portion of the California desert. IID was established in 1911 to deliver Colorado River water to lands within the Imperial Valley, California for agriculture, domestic, industrial and other beneficial uses. IID maintains a complex system of delivery canals, laterals, and drains which serve approximately 470,000 acres of intensive agriculture. The project area is approximately bounded by the All-American Canal to the south, the East Highline Canal to the east, the Westside Main Canal to the west, and the Salton Sea to the north. Agricultural drainage flows into the New and Alamo Rivers and into the Salton Sea, a designated repository for agricultural drainage.
On April 29, 1998, IID and SDCWA executed an agreement for the conservation and transfer of up to 300,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year from IID to SDCWA. As part of the project, IID intends to implement a conservation program that includes the participation of Imperial Valley land owners and tenants so that on-farm as well as system based conservation can be implemented to achieve the required level of conservation. This transfer is a key part of the California 4.4 Plan that will result in California water agencies using only their 4.4 million acre-foot apportionment of the Colorado River. California is currently diverting up to 5.2 million acre-feet of Colorado River water per year. Subsequent negotiations with other Colorado River water rights holders in California have resulted in a proposed Quantification Settlement Agreement among IID, MWD, and CVWD which would reduce the maximum amount of conserved water transferred to SDCWA to 200,000 acre-feet per year and would provide for the transfer of the additional 100,000 acre-feet to the CVWD and the MWD.
A joint EIR/EIS is being prepared by the Bureau and the IID with the Service as a cooperating agency to address the impacts associated with the project and with permit issuance for the project. Additional information on the project can be found in the original Notice of Intent published at 64 FR 52102. Scoping meetings were held in response to that Notice of Intent on October 12-20, 1999, and no additional scoping meetings are planned in response to this notice.
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act and the Service regulations prohibit the “take” of threatened or endangered wildlife. Take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed animal species, or attempt to engage in such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1538). Harm may include significant habitat modification that actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding and sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. The Service, however, may issue permits to take endangered and/or threatened wildlife incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species are found at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.
In anticipation of applying for an incidental take permit the IID is developing a Habitat Conservation Plan. Accordingly, under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, the Service may issue a permit to the IID authorizing the take of listed and unlisted species incidental to the otherwise lawful conservation and transfer of up to 300,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water per year to the SDCWA, the CVWD, and the MWD, and additional conservation necessary to achieve the IID's voluntary cap of 3.1 million acre-feet/year on their use of Colorado River water.
The permit application will include a Habitat Conservation Plan (Plan) and an Implementation Agreement that define the responsibilities of all parties under the Plan. IID's Plan will cover roughly the area along the length of the All-American Canal and north of the All-American Canal to the Salton Sea bounded on the east by the East Highline Canal and on the west by the Westside Main Canal. The Plan will identify the species proposed for coverage under the Plan including federally-listed species for which take would be granted at the time of permit issuance as well as other species of concern for which take would be granted should those species be listed in the future. The Plan also describes alternatives to the action and includes measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to species covered in the Plan. The Plan will address minimization and mitigation using both a habitat based and a species by species approach. The joint EIR/EIS will consider IID's proposed project (Proposed Action Alternative) along with other alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Under the Proposed Action Alternative the Service would review IID's incidental take permit application under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act.
Environmental review of the Plan will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Service will utilize the joint EIR/EIS in its evaluation of the permit application, the Habitat Conservation Plan, Implementing Agreement, associated documents, and comments submitted thereon to determine whether the application meets the requirements of section 10(a) of the Endangered Species Act. If the Service determines that the requirements have been met, the Service will issue a permit for the incidental take of the covered listed species.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on August 2, 1999 (64 FR 41949) and determined on March 22, 2000, that it would conduct full reviews (65 FR 16632, March 29, 2000). 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 investigations to the Secretary of Commerce on October 25, 2000. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3362 (October 2000), entitled Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts from China and Taiwan: Investigations Nos. 731-TA-474 and 475 (Review).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Scheduling of full five-year reviews concerning the antidumping duty orders on furfuryl alcohol from China and Thailand.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) (the Act) to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty orders on furfuryl alcohol from China and Thailand would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The Commission has determined to exercise its authority to extend the review period by up to 90 days pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)(B). For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
October 30, 2000.
Larry Reavis (202-205-3185), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov).
On August 3, 2000, the Commission determined that responses to its notice of institution of the subject five-year reviews were such that full reviews pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (65 F.R. 50003, August 16, 2000). A record of the Commissioners' votes, the Commission's statement on adequacy, and any individual Commissioner's statements are available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's web site.
Persons, including industrial users of the subject merchandise and, if the merchandise is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations, wishing to participate in these reviews as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, by 45 days after publication of this notice. A party that filed a notice of appearance following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not file an additional notice of appearance. The Secretary will maintain a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the reviews.
Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these reviews available to authorized applicants under the APO issued in the reviews, provided that the application is made by 45 days after publication of this notice. Authorized applicants must represent interested parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1677(9), who are parties to the reviews. A party granted access to BPI following publication of the Commission's notice of institution of the reviews need not reapply for such access. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.
The prehearing staff report in the reviews will be placed in the nonpublic record on February 12, 2001, and a public version will be issued thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of the Commission's rules.
The Commission will hold a hearing in connection with the reviews beginning at 9:30 a.m. on March 1, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Requests to appear at the hearing should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before February 21, 2001. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearing. All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearing and make oral presentations should attend a prehearing conference to be held at 9:30 a.m. on February 23, 2001, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearing are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, and 207.66 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony
Each party to the reviews may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of section 207.65 of the Commission's rules; the deadline for filing is February 21, 2001. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as
In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the reviews may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the subject of the reviews on or before March 12, 2001. On March 29, 2001, the Commission will make available to parties all information on which they have not had an opportunity to comment. Parties may submit final comments on this information on or before April 2, 2001, but such final comments must not contain new factual information and must otherwise comply with section 207.68 of the Commission's rules. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's rules do not authorize filing of submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means.
In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the reviews must be served on all other parties to the reviews (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
These reviews are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.62 of the Commission's rules.
By order of the Commission.
Notice of extension of currently approved information collection; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (Transition Plan).
The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Office of Management and Budget approval is being 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 of public comment until December 6, 2000. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding this 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: Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-7285. Comments may be submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff, Attention: Department Deputy Clearance Officer, Suite 1220, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) 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;
(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,
(1) Type of information collection. Extension of Currently Approved Collection.
(2) The title of the form/collection. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Governments Services (Transition Plan).
(3) The agency form number and applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection. No form number. Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: State and Local or Tribal Government. Under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, State and local governments are required to operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities (“Program accessibility”). If structural changes to existing facilities are necessary to accomplish program accessibility, a public entity that employs 50 or more persons must develop a “transition plan” setting forth the steps necessary to complete the structural changes. A copy of the transition plan must be made available for public inspection.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 6,000 respondent at 8 hours per transition plan.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 48,000 hours annual burden.
If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1220, National Place, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of extension of currently approved information collection;
The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Office of Management and Budget approval is being 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 comment until December 6, 2000. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 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: 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 submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff, Attention: Department Deputy Clearance Officer, Suite 1220, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) 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;
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Notice of extension of currently approved information collection; Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local Government Services (Certification).
The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Office of Management and Budget approval is being 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 comment until December 6, 2000. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 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: 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 submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff, Attention: Department Deputy Clearance Officer, Suite 1220, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) 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;
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Notice of Extension of Currently Approved Information Collection.
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990/Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Discrimination Complaint Form.
The Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Office of Management and Budget approval is being 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 comment until December 6, 2000. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 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: 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 submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff, Attention: Department Deputy Clearance Officer, Suite 1220, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) 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;
(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,
(1) Type of information collection. Extension of Currently Approved Collection.
(2) The title of the form/collection. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act/Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Discrimination Complaint Form.
(3) The agency form number and applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection. No form number. Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice.
(4) Affected public who will be asked to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals alleging discrimination by public entities based on disability. Under title II of the Americans with Disability Act, an individual who believes that he or she has been subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability by a public entity may, by himself or herself or by an authorized representative, file a complaint. Any Federal agency that receives a complaint of discrimination by a public entity is required to review the complaint to determine whether it has jurisdiction under section 504. If the agency does not have jurisdiction, it must determine whether it is the designated agency responsible for complaints filed against that public entity. If the agency does not have jurisdiction under section 504 and is not the designated agency, it must refer the complaint to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then must refer the complaint to the appropriate agency.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 5,000 respondents per year at 0.75 hours per complaint form.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 3,750 hours annual burden.
If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1220, National Place, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530.
Notice of Information Collection Under Review; Extension of a Currently Approved Collection; Comprehensive Strategy for Serious, Violent, and
The Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, has submitted the following information collection request for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Office of Management and Budget approval is being 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 comment until December 6, 2000. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 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: 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 submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ), Justice Management Division, Information Management and Security Staff, Attention: Department Deputy Clearance Officer, Suite 1221, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530.
Written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) 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;
(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,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Mrs. Brenda E. Dyer, Deputy Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Information Management and Security Staff, Justice Management Division, Suite 1220, National Place, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20530.
The Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation will meet on November 11, 2000. The meeting will begin at 10 a.m. and continue until conclusion of the Board's agenda.
Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW, Washington, D.C
Open, except that a portion of the meeting may be closed pursuant to a vote of the Board of Directors to hold an executive session. At the closed session, the Corporation's General Counsel will report to the Board on litigation to which the Corporation is or may become a party, and the Board may act on the matters reported. The closing is authorized by the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act [5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10)] and the corresponding provisions of the Legal Services Corporation's implementing regulation [45 CFR § 1622.5(h)]. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
16. Consider and act on other business.
17. Public Comment.
Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, at (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.
The Operations and Regulations Committee of the Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors will meet on November 10, 2000. The meeting will begin at 11:30 a.m. and continue until the Committee concludes its agenda.
Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
Open.
Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, at (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.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Performance Reviews of the President and Inspector General of the Legal Services Corporation's Board of Directors will meet on November 10, 2000. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. and continue until conclusion of the committee's agenda.
Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
Except for approval of the committee's agenda and any miscellaneous business that may come before the committee, the meeting will be closed to the public. The closing is authorized by the relevant provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act [5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) & (6)] and the corresponding provisions of the Legal Services Corporation's implementing regulation [45 CFR § 1622.5(a) & (e)]. A copy of the General Counsel's Certification that the closing is authorized by law will be available upon request.
Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, at (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.
The Committee on Provision for the Delivery of Legal Services of the Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors will meet on November 10, 2000. The meeting will begin at 2 p.m. and continue until the Committee concludes its agenda.
Marriott at Metro Center, 775 12th Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
Open.
Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel & Secretary of the Corporation, at (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
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
Notice of meeting.
The Commission will hold its next public meeting on Thursday, November 16, 2000, and Friday, November 17, 2000, at the Ronald Reagan Building, International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m on November 16, and at 9:00 a.m. on November 17.
Topics for discussion include: draft report to Congress on risk adjustment; draft report to Congress on post-surgical recovery care centers; Medicare issues in rural areas including access to care; analysis of costs for hospital services in rural areas; coinsurance for hospital outpatient department services; updating Medicare payments for physician services; methods for determining payment adequacy and updates for hospital inpatient services; technology costs and hospital inpatient and outpatient services; and payments to skilled nursing facilities.
Agendas will be mailed on November 7, 2000. The final agenda will be available on the Commission's website (www.MedPAC.gov)
MedPAC's address is: 1730 K Street, NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006. The telephone number is (202) 653-7220.
Diane Ellison, Office Manager, (202) 653-7220.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given the National Council on the Humanities will meet in Washington, DC on November 16-17, 2000.
The purpose of the meeting is to advise the Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities with respect to policies, programs, and procedures for carrying out his functions, and to review applications for financial support from the gifts offered to the Endowment and to make recommendations thereon to the Chairman.
The meeting will be held in the Old Post Office Building, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. A portion of the morning and afternoon sessions on November 16-17, 2000, will not be open to the public pursuant to subsections (c)(4), (c)(6) and (c)(9)(B) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code because the Council will consider information that may disclose: Trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential; information of a personal nature the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate implementation of proposed agency action. I have made this determination under the authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority dated July 19, 1993.
The agenda for the session on November 16, 2000 will be as follows:
The morning session on November 17, 2000 will convene at 9 a.m., in the 1st Floor Council Room, M-09, and will be open to the public, as set out below. The agenda for the morning session will be as follows:
The remainder of the proposed meeting will be given to the consideration of specific applications and closed to the public for the reasons stated above.
Further information about this meeting can be obtained from Ms. Laura S. Nelson, Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20506, or by calling (202) 606-8322, TDD (202) 606-8282. Advance notice of any special needs or accommodations is appreciated.
The Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation has determined that the establishment of the Business and Operations Advisory Committee is necessary and in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed upon the National Science Foundation (NSF), by 42 U.S.C. 1861
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings of the Advisory Panel for Biological Infrastructure (1215):
1.
2.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following Meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems (1196):
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), The National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meetings of the Special Emphasis Panel in Physics (1208):
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (NRC).
Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information Pertaining to the Requirement to be Submitted:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Submit, by January 5, 2001, comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1F23, Rockville, MD 20852. 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 about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-6 E6, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail at BJS1@NRC.GOV.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (AmerGen, the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 which authorizes operation of the Clinton Power Station (CPS). The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) now or hereafter in effect.
The facility consists of a boiling water reactor located on the licensee's CPS site in DeWitt County, Illinois.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has established requirements in Appendix G of Part 50 to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G), to protect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary in nuclear power plants. This Appendix to Part 50 requires the pressure-temperature (P-T) limits for an operating plant to be at least as conservative as those that would be generated if the methods of Appendix G to Section XI of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (Appendix G to the Code) were applied. The methodology of Appendix G to the Code postulates the existence of a sharp surface flaw in the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) that is normal to the direction of the maximum applied stress. For materials in the beltline and upper and lower head regions of the RPV, the maximum flaw size is postulated to have a depth that is equal to one-fourth of the thickness and a length equal to 1.5 times the thickness. For the case of evaluating RPV nozzles, the surface flaw is postulated to propagate parallel to the axis of the nozzle's corner radius. The basic parameter in Appendix G to the Code for calculating P-T limit curves is the stress intensity factor, K
The methodology of Appendix G requires that P-T curves must satisfy a safety factor of 2.0 on primary membrane and bending stresses during normal plant operations (including heatups, cooldowns, and transient operating conditions), and a safety factor of 1.5 on primary membrane and bending stresses when leak rate or hydrostatic pressure tests are performed on the RCS. Table 1 to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, provides the staff's criteria for meeting the P-T limit requirements of Appendix G to the Code and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G.
By letter dated August 25, 2000, as supplemented September 21, October 14, and October 25, 2000, AmerGen submitted a license amendment request to update the P-T limit curves for CPS. In the submittals, AmerGen also requested NRC approval for exemptions to use Code Cases N-588 and N-640 as methods that would allow AmerGen to deviate from complying with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, for generating the P-T limit curves.
AmerGen has requested, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.60(b), an exemption to use Code Case N-588 as the basis for evaluating the axial and circumferential welds in the CPS RPV. The current methods of appendix G to the Code mandate consideration of an axial flaw in full penetration RPV welds, and thus, for circumferential welds, dictate that the flaw be oriented transverse to the axis of the weld. Postulation of an axial flaw in a circumferential weld is unrealistic because the length of the flaw would extend well beyond the girth of the circumferential weld and into the adjoining base metal material. Industry experience with the repair of weld indications found during preservice inspection, and data taken from destructive examination of actual vessel welds, confirms that any remaining flaws are small, laminar in nature, and do not transverse the weld bead orientation. Therefore, any potential defects introduced during the fabrication process, and not detected during subsequent nondestructive examinations, would only be expected to be oriented in the direction of weld fabrication. For circumferential RPV welds, the methods of the Code Case therefore postulate the presence of a flaw that is oriented in a direction parallel to the axis of the weld (
An analysis provided to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code's Working Group on Operating Plant Criteria (WGOPC) (in which Code Case N-588 was developed) indicated that if an axial flaw is postulated on a circumferential weld, then based on the correction factors for
Application of Code Case N-588 will only matter if the Code Case is applied for the case where a circumferential weld is the most limiting material in the beltline region of the boiling water reactor (BWR) designed RPV. Since application of the Code Case methods allow licensees to reduce the stress intensities attributed to the circumferential weld, the net effect of the Code Case would allow AmerGen to use the next most limiting base metal or axial weld material in the RPV as the basis for evaluating the vessel and generating the P-T limit curves, if the circumferential weld (girth weld) is the most limiting material in the beltline region of the vessel. In this case, the Code Case is relevant to the evaluation of the CPS RPV, because the CPS RPV is limited by Circumferential Weld AE (Material Heat 76492).
WGOPC has concluded that application of Code Case N-588 to plant P-T limits are still sufficient to ensure the structural integrity of RPVs during plant operations. The staff has concurred with WGOPC's determination and has previously granted exemptions to use Code Case N-588 for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station (NRC letter to Commonwealth Edison dated February 4, 2000). In the staff's letter of February 4, 2000, the staff concluded that the procedure in Appendix G to the Code was developed for axially oriented flaws and that such a procedure was physically unrealistic and overly conservative for postulating flaws of this orientation in a circumferential weld. The staff also concluded that relaxation of the requirements of Appendix G to the Code by application of Code Case N-588 is acceptable and would maintain, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the ASME Code and the NRC regulations to ensure an acceptable margin of safety for the Quad Cities RPVs and reactor coolant pressure. AmerGen's proposal to use Code N-588 for generation of the CPS P-T limit curves is predicated on the same technical basis as was used for generation of the Quad Cities P-T limits. The staff therefore concludes that Code Case N-588 is acceptable for application to the CPS P-T limits. Hence, the staff concurs that relaxation of the ASME Section XI, Appendix G, requirements by application of ASME Code Case N-588 is acceptable for CPS and would maintain, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the ASME Code and the NRC regulations to ensure an acceptable margin of safety.
AmerGen has requested, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.60(b), an exemption to use ASME Code Case N-640 (previously designated as Code Case N-626) as the basis for establishing the P-T limit curves. Code Case N-640 permits application of the lower bound static initiation fracture toughness value equation (K
Generating the RCS P-T limit curves developed in accordance with Appendix G to the Code, without the relief provided by ASME Code Case N-640, would unnecessarily require the RPV to be maintained at a temperature exceeding 212 °F during the pressure test. Consequently, steam vapor hazards would continue to be one of the safety concerns for personnel conducting inspections in primary containment. Implementation of the proposed curves, as allowed by ASME Code Case N-640, provides an adequate margin of safety and would eliminate steam vapor hazards by allowing inspections in primary containment to be conducted at a lower coolant temperature. Thus, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), the underlying purpose of the regulation will continue to be served.
WGOPC has concluded that application of Code Case N-640 to plant P-T limits are still sufficient to ensure the structural integrity of RPVs during plant operations. The staff has concurred with ASME's determination and has previously granted exemptions to use Code Case N-640 for the Quad
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. The staff accepts the licensee's determination that the exemption would be required to approve the use of Code Cases N-588 and N-640. The staff examined the licensee's rationale to support the exemption requests and concurred that the use of the code cases would meet the underlying intent of these regulations. Based upon a consideration of the conservatism that is explicitly incorporated into the methodologies of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G; Appendix G of the Code; and Regulatory Guide 1.99, Revision 2, the staff concludes that application of the code cases as described would provide an adequate margin of safety against brittle failure of the RPV. This is also consistent with the determination that the staff has reached for other licensees under similar conditions based on the same considerations. Therefore, the staff concludes that requesting exemption under the special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) is appropriate and that the methodology of Code Cases N-588 and N-640 may be used to revise the P-T limits for Clinton Power Station.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or common defense and security, and is, otherwise, in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.60(a) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix G, for Clinton Power Station.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact has been prepared and published in the
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Call for Nominations.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is re-advertising for nominations for the position of health care administrator on the Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI).
Nominations are due on or before January 5, 2001.
Submit nominations to: The Office of Human Resources, Attn: Ms. Joyce Riner, Mail Stop T2D32, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Betty Ann Torres, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-415-0191.
The ACMUI advises the NRC on policy and technical issues that arise in regulating the medical use of byproduct material. Responsibilities include providing comments on changes in NRC rules, regulations, and guidance documents concerning medical use; evaluating certain non-routine uses of byproduct material for medical use; providing technical assistance in licensing, inspection, and enforcement cases; and bringing key issues to the attention of NRC for appropriate action.
ACMUI members possess the medical and technical skills needed to address evolving issues. Currently, the ACMUI membership consists of the following: (a) Nuclear medicine physician; (b) nuclear cardiologist; (c) medical physicist in nuclear medicine unsealed byproduct material; (d) a therapy physicist; (e) a radiation safety officer; (f) a nuclear pharmacist; (g) two radiation oncologists; (h) health care administrator; (i) patients' rights and care advocate; (j) Food and Drug Administration representative; and (k) state representative.
The NRC is inviting nominations for the position of health care administrator on the ACMUI. The term of the individual currently occupying the health care administrator position ends September 30, 2001.
Nominees must include four copies of their resumes, describing their educational and professional qualifications, and provide their current addresses and telephone numbers.
Committee members serve a 3-year term, with possible reappointment to an additional 3-year term.
Nominees must be U.S. citizens and be able to devote approximately 80 hours per year to committee business. Members will be compensated and reimbursed for travel (including per-diem in lieu of subsistence) and secretarial and correspondence expenses unless the member is a full-time Federal employee. Full-time Federal employees are only reimbursed for travel expenses. Nominees will undergo a security background check and will be required to complete
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of availability.
Because of significant changes resulting from previous public comment, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is offering the opportunity for additional public review and comment on the revised Section 6.0, “Technical Safety Requirements,” and Section 8.0, “Nuclear Criticality Safety,” of the draft report NUREG-1671 entitled, “Standard Review Plan for the Recertification of the Gaseous Diffusion Plants.” (GDPs)
Submit comment to the address listed below by December 6, 2000. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Mail written comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm during Federal workdays.
Draft NUREG-1671 is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC public document room (PDR), located at the NRC's headquarters building, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. A copy of the draft revised Sections 6.0 and 8.0 may also be obtained from the NRC's website for the Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards at:
Christopher Tripp, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 415-7733.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”).
Notice of application for an order pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Investment Company. Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting exemptions from the provisions of Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder.
AIG Life Insurance Company (“AIG”), Variable Account I (“Variable Account”), American International Life Assurance Company of New York (“AIL”) and AIG Equity Sales Corp. (“AIGESC”).
Applicants seek an order of exemption pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act to the extent necessary to permit the recapture, under specified circumstances, of credits applied to premium payments made under the flexible premium deferred variable annuity contract described herein that AIG will issue through the Variable Account (the “Contract”), as well as other contracts that AIG or AIL may issue in the future through their existing or future separate accounts (“Other Accounts”) that are substantially similar in all material respects to the Contract (“Future Contracts”). Applicants also request that the order being sought extend to any other National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) member broker-dealer controlling or controlled by, or under common control with, AIG, whether existing or created in the future, that serves as distributor or principal underwriter for the Contract or Future Contracts (“Affiliated Broker-Dealers”).
The application was filed on February 17, 2000, and was amended and restated on October 10, 2000.
An order granting the application will be issued unless the SEC orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the SEC's Secretary and serving Applicants with a copy of the request, in person or by mail. Hearing requests must be received by the SEC by 5:30 p.m. on November 21, 2000, and should be accompanied by proof of service on Applicants in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the SEC's Secretary.
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0609. Applicants, c/o AIG Life Insurance Company, One Alico Plaza, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attn: Kenneth D. Walma, Esq.
Zandra Y. Bailes, Senior Counsel, or Lorna J. MacLeod, Branch Chief, Office of Insurance Products, Division of Investment Management, at (202) 942-0670.
The following is a summary of the application. The complete application is available for a fee from the SEC's Public Reference Branch, 450 Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549-0102 (tel. (202) 942-8090).
1. AIG is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of Pennsylvania and reorganized under the laws of Delaware. AIG is a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc., which is a holding company for a number of companies engaged in the international insurance business, both life and general, in approximately 130 countries and jurisdictions around the world.
2. The Variable Account was established in 1986 by AIG as a segregated asset account under Delaware law for the purpose of funding variable annuity contracts issued by AIG. It is registered with the Commission as unit investment trust under the Act (File No. 811-5301). The Variable Account will fund the variable benefits available under the Contract. The offering of the Contract is registered under the Securities Act of 1933 (File No. 333-93709).
3. That portion of the assets of the Variable Account that is equal to the reserves and other Contract liabilities
4. AIL is a stock life insurance company organized under the laws of New York and incorporated in 1962. Like AIG, AIL is a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc.
5. AIGESC is the principal underwriter for the Variable Account and the distributor of the Contract. AIGESC is registered with the Commission as a broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is a member of the NASD. The Contract is sold by insurance agents appointed by AIG who are also registered representatives of AIGESC or registered broker/dealers that have entered into distribution agreements with AIGESC. AIGESC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American International Group, Inc.
6. The Contract may be purchased with a minimum initial premium payment of $2,000. An owner may make additional payments of at least $1,000 at any time or pay scheduled subsequent premiums of $100 or more per month by enrolling an automatic investment plan.
7. Owners of the Contract may allocate their premium payments among seventeen investment options—sixteen variable investment options and one fixed investment option. Each subaccount of the Variable Account invests in shares in one of the variable investment options, which are corresponding portfolios of the Alliance Variable Products Series Fund, Inc. The fixed investment option is part of AIG's guaranteed account and earns a minimum of 3% interest. AIG, at a later date, may decide to create additional subaccounts to invest in any additional funding media as may now or in the future be available. AIG, from time to time, also may combine or eliminate subaccounts, or transfer the assets to and from subaccounts.
8. The Contract has the following charges: (i) a surrender charge as a percentage of the premium surrendered declining from 6% in premium years 1 and 2 to 0% in premium year 8; (ii) a $30 annual contract maintenance fee (waived if the value of the Contract is at least $50,000); (iii) a mortality and expense risk charge of 1.25%; (iv) an administrative charge of 0.15% (v) a distribution charge of 0.20%; (vi) a transfer fee of $10 after the first twelve transfers during a contract year; (vii) optional death benefit charges; and (viii) any applicable state premium tax.
9. The Contract provides for various death benefit alternatives—a traditional death benefit and two optional death benefits. In addition, an owner may select the accidental death benefit. If an owner elects an optional death benefit or the accidental death benefit, AIG will assess a daily charge against the assets in the Variable Account equal to an annual charge as follows:
10. AIG will credit an extra amount to the Contract (the “Credit”) equal to a maximum of 4% of an owner's premium payment. AIG will allocate the Credit pro rata among the investment options in the same proportion as the corresponding premium payment. AIG will fund Credits from its general account assets and intends to recover the cost through charges imposed under the Contract. AIG may discontinue offering Credits on additional premium payments at its discretion.
11. The Credit is not part of the amount an owner will receive if he or she exercises the free look provision. Credits applied within twenty-four months prior to the date of death are not included in amounts payable as a death benefit. Likewise, Credits applied within twenty-four months prior to a surrender are not included in the amount payable upon surrender. If an owner makes a partial surrender during the twenty-four month period following receipt of a Credit, except as part of the Contract's systematic withdrawal program, AIG will reduce the Credit in the same proportion as the partial surrender bears to the value of the Contract and deduct the amount of the reduction from the value of the Contract. Only Credits paid within twenty-four months prior to the partial surrender are subject to reduction.
12. Applicants seek exemption pursuant to Section 6(c) from Sections 2(a)(32), 22(c), and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act and Rule 22c-1 thereunder to the extent deemed necessary to permit AIG to issue the Contract, which provides for a Credit upon receipt of a premium payment, and to recapture the Credit in the following instances: (i) when an owner exercises the Contract's free look provision; (ii) when a death benefit is payable within twenty-four months after receipt of a Credit; and (iii) when a surrender is requested within twenty-four months after receipt of a Credit.
1. Section 6(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt any person, security or transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or transactions from the provisions of the Act and the rules promulgated thereunder if and to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act. Applicants request that the Commission, pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Act, grant the exemptions requested with respect to the Contract and any Future Contracts funded by the Variable Account or Other Accounts that are underwritten or distributed by AIGESC or Affiliated Broker-Dealers. Applicants undertake that Future Contracts will be substantially similar in all material respects to the Contract. Applicants assert that the requested exemptions are appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
2. Subsection (i) of Section 27 of the Act provides that Section 27 does not apply to any registered separate account funding variable insurance contracts, or to the sponsoring insurance company and principal underwriter of such account, except as provided in paragraph (2) of the subsection. Paragraph (2) provides that it shall be unlawful for such a separate account or sponsoring insurance company to sell a contract funded by the registered separate account unless such contract is a redeemable security. Section 2(a)(32) defines “redeemable security” as any security, other than short-term paper, under the terms of which the holder, upon presentation to the issuer, is entitled to receive approximately his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets, or the cash equivalent thereof.
3. Applicants submit that the recapture of the Credit under the circumstances set forth in the application would not deprive an owner of his or her proportionate share of the issuer's current net assets. An owner's interest in a Credit allocated to his or her Contract value upon receipt of an initial premium payment is not vested until the applicable free look period has expired without return of the Contract. Similarly, Applicants state that an owner's interest in the amount of any
4. In addition, Applicants state that permitting an owner to retain a Credit under a Contract upon the exercise of the free look provision would not only be unfair, but would also encourage individuals to purchase a Contract, with no intention of keeping it, and return it for a quick profit.
5. Furthermore, Applicants state that the recapture of Credits applied within twenty-four months prior to the date of death or the date of surrender is designed to provide AIG with a measure of protection against anti-selection. The risk here is that, rather than spreading premium payments over a number of years, an owner might make very large premium payments shortly before death or surrender, thereby leaving AIG little time to recover the cost of the Credits. As noted earlier, the amount recaptured equals the Credits provided by AIG from its general account assets, and any gain would remain a part of the owner's Contract value.
6. Applicants represent that it is not administratively feasible to track a Credit in the Variable Account after the Credit is applied. Accordingly, the asset-based charges applicable to the Variable Account will be assessed against the entire amount held in the Variable Account, including the Credit, during the free look period and the twenty-four month recapture periods. As a result, during such periods, the aggregate asset-based charges assessed against an owner's Contract value will be higher than those that would be charged if the owner's Contract value did not include the Credit.
7. Applicants represent that the Credit will be attractive to and in the interest of investors because it will permit owners to put up to 104% of their premium payment to work for them in the selected subaccounts. In addition, the owner will retain any earnings attributable to the Credits, as well as the principal amount of the Credit once vested.
8. Applicants further submit that the recapture of any Credit only applies in relation to the risk of anti-selection against AIG. In the context of the death benefit and surrender described in the application, anti-selection can generally be described as a risk that owners take undue advantage of the credit feature. AIG provides the Credit from its general account on a guaranteed basis and generally expects to recover its costs, including Credits, while a Contract is in force. The right to recapture Credits applied to premium payments made with twenty-four months prior to the date of death or the date of surrender protects AIG against the risk that an owner will purchase a Contract or make larger premium payments shortly before death or surrender knowing that the contingency that triggers payment of a benefit is likely or about to occur and leave AIG little time to recover the costs of the credits. With respect to refunds paid upon the return of the Contract during the free look period, the amount payable by AIG must be reduced by the amount of the Credit. Otherwise, investors could purchase a Contract for the sole purpose of exercising the free look provision and making a quick profit.
9. Applicants assert that the provisions for recapture of Credits under the Contract do not violate Sections 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A) of the Act. However, to avoid any uncertainty as to full compliance with the Act, Applicants request an exemption from Section 2(a)(32) and 27(i)(2)(A), to the extend deemed necessary, to permit the recapture of any Credit under the circumstances summarized herein, without the loss of relief from Section 27 provided by Section 27(i).
10. Section 22(c) of the Act authorizes the Commission to make rules and regulations applicable to registered investment companies and to principal underwriters of, and dealers in, the redeemable securities of any registered investment company to accomplish the same purposes as contemplated by Section 22(a). Rule 22c-1 under the Act prohibits a registered investment company issuing any redeemable security, a person designated in such issuers' prospectus as authorized to consummate transactions in any such security, and a principal underwriter of, or dealer in, such security, from selling, redeeming, or repurchasing any such security except at a price based on the current net asset value of such security next computed after receipt of a tender of such security for redemption or of an order to purchase or sell such security.
11. AIG's recapture of the Credit might be viewed as resulting in the redemption of redeemable securities for a price other than one based on the current net asset value of the Variable Account. Applicant assert, however, that the recapture of the Credit does not violate Section 22(c) or rule 22c-1. Applicants argue that the recapture of the Credit does not involve either of the evils that Rule 22c-1 was intended to eliminate the reduce as far as reasonably practicable, namely: (i) the dilution of the value of outstanding redeemable securities of registered investment companies through their sale at a price below net asset value or repurchase at a price above it, and (ii) other unfair results, including speculative trading practices. See Adoption of Rule 22c-1 under the 1940 Act, Investment Company Release No. 5519 (Oct. 16, 1968). To effect a recapture of a Credit, AIG will redeem interests in a Contract at a price determined on the basis of the current accumulation unit value(s) of the subaccount(s) to which the owner's Contract value is allocated. The amount recaptured will equal the amount of the Credit that AIG paid out of it general account assets. Although the owner will be entitled to retain any investment gain attributable to the Credit, the amount of that gain will be determined on the basis of the current accumulation unit value of the applicable subaccounts. Thus, no dilution will occur upon the recapture of the Credit. Applicants also argue that the second harm that Rule 22c-1 was designed to address, namely speculative trading practices calculated to take advantage of backward pricing, will not occur as a result of the recapture of the Credit. However, to avoid any uncertainty as to full compliance with the Act, Applicants request an exemption from the provisions of Section 22(c) and Rule 22c-1 to the extent deemed necessary to permit them to recaptured the Credit under the Contract.
12. Applicants assert that their request for an order that applies to the Variable Account and any Other Account established by AIG or AIL, in connection with the issuance of the Contract and Future Contracts, is appropriate in the public interest. Applicants state that such an order would promote competitiveness in the variable annuity market by eliminating the need to file redundant exemptive applications, thereby reducing administrative's expenses and maximizing the efficient use of Applicants' resources. Applicants state that investors would not receive any benefit or additional protection by requiring Applicants to repeatedly seek exemptive relief that would present no issue under the Act that has not already been addressed in the application. Applicants assert that having Applicant
Applicants assert, based on the grounds summarized above, that their exemptive requests meet the standards set out in Section 6(c) of the Act, namely, that the exemptions requested are necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
NASD Regulation proposes to amend NASD Rule 1120(a) to permit the in-firm delivery of the Regulatory Element of the Continuing Education Requirements. Currently, this computer-based training program can be administered to registered persons only at the location of an outside vendor. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics.
This Rule prescribes requirements regarding the continuing education of certain registered persons subsequent to their initial qualification and registration with the Association. The requirements shall consist of a Regulatory Element and a Firm Element as set forth below.
(a) Regulatory Element
(1) through (5) No change
(b) Firm Element No change.
In its filing with the Commission, NASD Regulation included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. NASD Regulation has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Regulatory Element is a 3
The Securities Industry/Regulatory Council on Continuing Education (“Council”) is responsible for the oversight of the continuing education program for the securities industry. The Council's duties include recommending and helping to develop specific content and questions for the Regulatory Element, and minimum core curricula for the Firm Element. The Council is comprised of 14 representatives from a broad cross section of broker/dealers, six self-regulatory organizations, including the NASD. The Council, working with representatives from the North American Securities Administrators Association, and with the knowledge of the Council's SEC liaisons, has developed a model under which broker/dealers may deliver the Regulatory Element computer-based training on firm premises. The model requires that the broker/dealer meet certain conditions for in-firm delivery relating to computer hardware and to the security of the training delivery environment. The proposed amendments to Rule 1120(a) encapsulate the delivery requirements as specified by the Council. Firms of any size may take advantage of the in-firm delivery procedures.
NASD Regulation believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
NASD Regulation does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. By order approve such proposed rule change, or
B. Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609. Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to this proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be available for inspection and copying at
For the Commission by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice is hereby given for Special Committee 194 meeting to be held November 28-30 (and December 1, if needed) 2000, starting at 9 a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036.
The agenda will include:
Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1020, Washington, DC 20036; (202) 833-9339 (phone); (202) 833-9434 (fax); or http://www.rtca.org (web site). Members of the public may present a written statement to the committee at any time.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval to renew seven information collections which are summarized below under Supplementary Information. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by January 5, 2001.
You may mail or hand deliver comments to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Dockets Management Facility, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telefax comments to 202/493-2251; or submit electronically at
You are asked to comment on any aspect of these information collections, including: (1) Whether the proposed collections are necessary for the FHWA's performance; (2) the accuracy of estimated burdens; (3) ways for the FHWA to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that burdens could be minimized, including use of electronic technology, without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of these information collections.
1.
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.48.
In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance with certain requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.
The Blue Ridge Scenic Railway Company of Blue Ridge, Georgia, has petitioned for a permanent waiver of compliance for one passenger coach from the requirements of the Safety Glazing Standards, 49 CFR Part 223, which requires certified glazing in all windows and a minimum of four emergency windows. The railroad indicates that the car is used in tourist service over 13 miles of track between Blue Ridge and McCaysville, Georgia, at a speed not to exceed 15 mph. The railroad indicates that there is no freight operated over this line, which is in a rural area along the Toccoa River.
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number (
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Announcement of Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC) Working Group Activities.
FRA is updating its announcement of RSAC‘s working group activities to reflect the current status of working group activities.
Trish Paolella or Lydia Leeds, RSAC Coordinators, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW, Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-6213 or Grady Cothen, Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards Program Development, FRA, 1120 Vermont Ave., NW, Mailstop 25, Washington, DC 20590, (202) 493-6302.
This notice serves to update FRA's last announcement of working group activities and status reports on December 17, 1999 (64 FR 70756). The fifteenth full Committee meeting was held September 14, 2000 at the Association of American Railroads Conference Center in Washington, D.C.
Since its first meeting in April of 1996, the RSAC has accepted sixteen tasks. Status for each of the tasks is provided below:
Task 96-6—Reviewing and recommending revisions to miscellaneous aspects of the regulations addressing Locomotive Engineer Certification (49 CFR Part 240). This Task was accepted on October 31, 1996, and a Working Group was established. Consensus was reached and an NPRM was published on September 22, 1998. The Working Group met to resolve issues presented in public comments. The RSAC recommended issuance of a final rule with the Working Group modifications. The final rule was published November 8, 1999 (64 FR 60966). Contact: John Conklin (202) 493-6318.
Task 96-7—Developing Roadway Maintenance Machine (On-Track Equipment) Safety Standards. This task was assigned to the existing Track Standards Working Group on October 31, 1996, and a Task Force was established. The Task Force finalized a proposed rule which was approved by the full RSAC in a mail ballot in August. The NPRM will be published in the Federal Register. Contact: Al MacDowell (202) 493-6236.
Task 96-8—This Planning Task evaluated the need for action responsive to recommendations contained in a report to Congress entitled, Locomotive Crashworthiness & Working Conditions. This Planning Task was accepted on October 31, 1996. A Planning Group was formed and reviewed the report, grouping issues into categories, and prepared drafts of the task statements for Tasks 97-1 and 97-2.
Task 97-1—Developing crashworthiness specifications to promote the integrity of the locomotive cab in accidents resulting from collisions. This Task was accepted on
Task 97-2—Evaluating the extent to which environmental, sanitary, and other working conditions in locomotive cabs affect the crew's health and the safe operation of locomotives, proposing standards where appropriate. This Task was accepted June 24, 1997. A draft sanitation NPRM has been circulated for approval of working group, with ballots requested by November 3. The Cab Working Group met in October to begin finalizing work on a noise exposure standard and will be meeting in November to complete a draft NPRM. The Cab Working Group has also considered issues related to cab temperature, and is expected to consider additional issues (such as vibration) in the future. Contact: Brenda Hattery (202) 493-6326.
Task 97-3—Developing event recorder data survivability standards. This Task was accepted on June 24, 1997. An Event Recorder Working Group and Task Force have been established and are actively meeting. A draft proposed rule is being reviewed. Contact: Edward English (202) 493-6321.
Task 97-4 and Task 97-5—Defining Positive Train Control (PTC) functionalities, describing available technologies, evaluating costs and benefits of potential systems, and considering implementation opportunities and challenges, including demonstration and deployment.
Task 97-6—Revising various regulations to address the safety implications of processor-based signal and train control technologies, including communications-based operating systems. These three tasks were accepted on September 30, 1997, and assigned to a single Working Group. A Data and Implementation Task Force, formed to address issues such as assessment of costs and benefits and technical readiness, completed a report on the future of PTC systems. The report was accepted as RSAC's Report to the Administrator at the September 8, 1999, meeting. The Standards Task Force, formed to develop PTC standards, developed draft recommendations for performance-based standards for processor-based signal and train control standards. The NPRM was approved by consensus at the full RSAC meeting held on September 14, 2000. The NPRM will be published in the
Task 97-7—Determining damages qualifying an event as a reportable train accident. This Task was accepted on September 30, 1997. A working group was formed to address this task and conducted their initial meeting on February 8, 1999. The working group designed a survey form to collect specific data about damages to railroad equipment. The survey started on August 1 and will end January 31, 2001. The working group is scheduled to meet in December 2000. Contact: Robert Finkelstein (202) 493-6280.
Task 00-1—Determining the need to amend regulations protecting persons who work on, under, or between rolling equipment and persons applying, removing or inspecting rear end marking devices. A working group has been formed and held its first meeting on October 16-18, 2000. Contact: Doug Taylor (202) 493-6255.
Please refer to the notice published in the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT
Announcement of grants for child passenger protection education.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announces a grant program under Section 2003(b) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to implement child passenger protection programs that are designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children, educate the public concerning the proper installation of child restraints, and train child passenger safety personnel concerning child restraint use. This notice solicits applications from the States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Territories and the Indian Tribes through the Secretary of the Interior.
Applications must be received by the office designated below on or before December 15, 2000.
Applications must be submitted to the appropriate National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Regional Administrator.
For program issues contact Ms. Joan Catherine Tetrault, State and Community Services, NSC-01, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-2121. For legal issues contact Mr. John Donaldson, Office of the Chief Counsel, NCC-30, NHTSA, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 366-1834.
Motor vehicle crashes remain the leading cause of unintentional injury-related deaths among children for every age from 6 to 14 years, despite an eight percent decline in the motor vehicle occupant death rate for children under age 15 from 1988 to 1999. During the same time period, the motor vehicle occupant nonfatal injury rate among children under age 15 has increased by seven percent. Motor vehicle injuries and fatalities occur when children ride unrestrained or are improperly restrained. This grant program is intended to help reduce injuries and deaths by educating the public about the importance of correctly installing and using child safety seats, booster seats and seat belts.
Approximately 20-25 percent of children ages 1 through 15 years ride unrestrained. Child safety seats reduce the risk of fatal injury in a crash by 71 percent for infants (less than 1 year old) and by 54 percent for toddlers (1-4 years old). In 1999, there were 550 occupant fatalities in passenger motor vehicles among children under 5 years of age. Of those 550 fatalities, an estimated 291 (53 percent) were totally unrestrained. The problem of riding unrestrained is not limited to infants and young children. From 1975 through 1999, the lives of an estimated 4,500 children were saved by the use of child restraints (child safety seats or adult safety belts). Among children under age 15 who were killed as occupants in motor vehicle crashes in 1999, 61 percent were not using safety restraints at the time of the collision.
Examination of the demographics of children killed in motor vehicle crashes (for which the most recent available year is 1995) shows that safety restraint use differs markedly by race. For example, while somewhat less than half (43.3%) of white children up to age 9 riding in passenger motor vehicles were using safety restraints at the time of their deaths, that was true of only about one-quarter (28.2%) of black children. Native American children under age 15 have a motor vehicle occupant death rate twice that of white children. (Injury and fatality data for other minority groups is currently being collected.) Restraint use is also lower in rural areas and low-income communities. Lack of access to affordable child safety seats and booster seats contributes to a lower usage rate among low-income families. However, research shows that 95 percent of low-income families who own a child safety seat use it. Improving access to affordable child restraint systems and educating parents and care givers about proper installation and use are key components to improving use rates in these communities.
In 1998, 97 percent of infants (children under age 1) were restrained while riding in motor vehicles, as were 91 percent of children ages 1 to 5. However, it is estimated that approximately 80 percent of children who are placed in child safety seats are improperly restrained. Furthermore, adult safety belts do not adequately protect children ages 4 to 8 (about 40 to 80 pounds) from injury in a crash. Although car booster seats are the best way to protect them, only six percent of booster-age children are properly restrained in car booster seats.
In addition, there is a high risk of severe injury or fatality to children riding in the front seat of vehicles equipped with a passenger side air bag, due to the deployment force of the air bag. However, even if the air bag is shut off or there is no air bag, the back seat is the safest place for children to ride. Under no circumstances should a parent place a rear-facing infant seat in front of an air bag. It is estimated that children ages 12 and under are 36 percent less likely to die in a crash if seated in the rear seat of a passenger vehicle.
Child passenger safety professionals, educators, emergency personnel and others need to be adequately trained on all aspects of child restraint use in order to help reduce the problems of misuse and encourage the safest seating positions for children riding in motor vehicles. In addition, parents and caregivers need easily accessible locations where they can receive information on choosing the correct child safety seat for their child, and identifying which child safety seats are compatible with various types of passenger motor vehicles. Parents and caregivers also need to know how to properly install a child safety seat and how to properly secure their child into that seat.
With these concerns in mind, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which the President signed into law on June 9, 1998, established a grant program under Section 2003(b) of Title 23, United States Code, to promote child passenger protection education and training.
Section 2003(b) provides Federal funds to States for activities that are designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children; educate the public concerning the design, selection, placement, and installation of child restraints; and train and retrain child passenger safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, and other educators concerning all aspects of child restraint use. A State may expend the funds itself or elect to distribute some or all of the funds to carry out the public education and training activities as grants to political subdivisions of the State or appropriate private entities. States are encouraged to direct funds obtained through this grant program to organizations that can deliver training and education to ensure positive impact in minority and low income communities where lack of child passenger protection is especially severe. Section 2003(b) provides that the Federal share of the cost of a program carried out with the grant funds is not to exceed 80 percent. A State that receives a grant must submit a report describing the program activities carried out with the funds.
To be eligible for funding under Section 2003(b), a State must submit an application that addresses how the State will implement child passenger protection programs that meet each of the three requirements listed below. For the education and training components, the grant application must identify expected program accomplishments, such as the estimated number of public education messages to be distributed (
Specifically, the State must implement a child passenger protection program that:
1. Is designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children. The State should provide a statement describing how its program supports efforts to prevent deaths and injuries to children.
2. Educates the public on all aspects of child passenger safety. The public education program may include strategies that emphasize a continuum of child restraint from infancy to age 16, increase use among targeted populations (
At a minimum, the public education program must:
(a) Provide a summary of the information that the State intends to include or develop in the public education program. The information must address at least the following topics:
• All aspects of proper installation of child restraints using standard seat belt hardware, supplemental hardware, and modification devices (if needed), including special installation techniques;
• Appropriate child restraint design, selection, and placement [NHTSA interprets this to include instruction about proper seating positions for children in air bag equipped vehicles]; and
• Harness threading and harness adjustment on child restraints.
(b) Include a description of the public education information methods that the State intends to employ, how these messages will be delivered to the target population, and expected
3. Trains and retrains child passenger safety professionals, police officers, fire and emergency medical personnel, and other educators concerning all aspects of child restraint use. At a minimum, States should include in the application a description of or reference to the curricula that the State will use to train and retrain child passenger safety experts to reach the targeted population and expected accomplishments.
All persons selected for training and retraining as child passenger safety professionals should achieve and maintain at least some minimum standards of expertise. In collaboration with several partners, NHTSA has developed several model curricula including: “Mobilizing America to Buckle Up Children” and “Operation Kids” for law enforcement officers; and the “Standardized Child Passenger Safety Training Program” for child passenger safety professional candidates. States are not restricted to using only these curricula, but States are encouraged to incorporate the learning objectives of these courses into the training and retraining provided to child passenger safety experts. Funding for this grant program is intended to help States develop and sustain adequate cadres of persons with technical expertise in child passenger protection who will directly serve the public through child safety seat clinics, checkpoints, workshops, fitting stations and other training and educational opportunities.
The State must submit certifications that: (i) It will use the funds awarded under this grant program exclusively to implement a child passenger protection program in accordance with the requirements of Section 2003(b) of P.L. 105-178 (TEA-21); (ii) It will administer the funds in accordance with 49 CFR Part 18 and OMB Circular A-87; and (iii) It will provide to the NHTSA Regional Administrator no later than 15 months after the grant award a report of activities carried out with grant funds and accomplishments to date.
Eligibility is limited to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Territories (which include the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) through their Governor's Office of Highway Safety, and Indian Tribes through the Secretary of the Interior.
The amount available for this program in fiscal year 2001 is $7,500,000. In FY 2000, NHTSA awarded $7.5 million to 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 4 U.S. Territories and the Indian Nations. A new application is required to seek an award of fiscal year 2001 funds. Awards to applicants meeting the requirements of this notice will be made based upon the formula used for Section 402 apportionment, subject to the availability of funds. The amount awarded to each State qualifying under this program shall be determined by multiplying the amount appropriated for this grant program for the fiscal year by the ratio that the amount of funds apportioned to each such State under 23 U.S.C. 402 for the fiscal year bears to the total amount of funds apportioned to all such States under Section 402 for such fiscal year. Applicants will be required to submit to NHTSA within 30 days of notification that an award is made, a program cost summary (HS Form 217) obligating the Section 2003(b) funds to child passenger protection education programs. The Federal funding share may not exceed 80% of the program cost, and States should clearly identify their share in the program cost summary (HS Form 217).
Each State must submit one original and two copies of the application package to the appropriate NHTSA Regional Administrator. Only complete application packages submitted by a Governor's Highway Safety Representative and received on or before December 15, 2000 will be considered for funding in fiscal year 2001.
A State that receives a grant must submit a report describing the activities carried out with the grant funds and the accomplishments to date. The report must be submitted to the NHTSA Regional Administrator no later than 15 months after the grant is awarded.
At a minimum, the report must contain the following:
(a) Describe how the State's child passenger protection program is supporting efforts to prevent deaths and injuries to children.
(b) For the education component, the report must identify program accomplishments, such as:
• A summary of the public education methods developed and how programs were delivered to the targeted population.
• The number of public education messages distributed (
• The number of child safety seat clinics or check-ups performed, and the number of fitting stations established. A State must also include the locations of child safety seat clinics, check-ups and fitting stations, specifying the target population served.
(c) For the training component, the report must include:
• The number of and type of training classes conducted and the individuals or groups trained (
• A description of or reference to the curricula that were used to train and retrain child passenger safety experts.
• The number of child passenger safety technicians and instructors certified during the grant period.
A number of NHTSA publications are available through the
Subaru of America, Inc., of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, has determined that certain headlamp lens assemblies manufactured by North American Lighting, Inc., are not in full compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment.” Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h), Subaru has petitioned for a determination that this
This notice of receipt of an application is published under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the application.
FMVSS No. 108 establishes the performance and equipment requirements for lamps, reflective devices and associated equipment. Under S7.5(g) of FMVSS No. 108, the lens of each replaceable bulb headlamp shall bear permanent marking in front of each replaceable light source with which it is equipped that states the official light source type designation.
Under S7.8.5.3(f)(2), the lens shall have a mark or markings identifying the optical axis of the headlamp visible from the front of the headlamp when installed on the vehicle, to assure proper horizontal and vertical alignment.
Approximately 87 headlamp lens assemblies manufactured by North American Lighting, Inc., for use in Model Year 2000 Subaru Legacy and Outback vehicles were installed on production vehicles from October 5, 1999, through December 5, 1999. During the manufacturing process, “headlamp assemblies were assembled with lens covers with the wrong marking specification required under FMVSS 108, S7.5(g) and FMVSS 108, S7.8.5.3(f)(2).”
Because there are two different headlamp designs, a 2-bulb version and a 1-bulb version, both the same shape, there are two different lenses that are molded. The manufacturing process for assembling these headlamps mismatched the 2-bulb lens and 1-bulb lens assemblies resulting in the noncompliance.
Subaru stated that the installation of the incorrect lens in the 2-bulb and 1-bulb headlamp assemblies does not result in performance variations in beam light patterns resulting in the noncompliances with FMVSS 108.
Subaru's supporting data, views and arguments are as follows:
(1) Headlamp aiming performed during the manufacturing process does not rely on lens marking for beam pattern alignment. The result is proper alignment regardless of the mismatch in headlamp assembly lens.
(2) The rate of replacement for headlamp bulbs within the 3/36 warranty period is 0.6 percent. The remaining parts demand for headlamp bulbs is due to collision which results in purchase and installation of new headlamp assemblies not containing the noncompliance.
(3) Installation of replacement headlamp bulbs is outlined in the Service Manual for Subaru Legacy vehicles. The Service Manual procedure for alignment of the headlamp does not rely on the markings found in noncompliance, but rather references the center marking on the bulb.
(4) Incorrect lens assembly installation results in the following light performance variations:
(5) There is a small possibility that consumers would purchase replacement bulbs for non-dealer installation based on the incorrect marking. However, the incorrect bulb will not install in the headlamp assembly irrespective of the incorrect marking. Additionally, the owner's manual provides the correct specification for replacement bulbs required.
Subaru also submitted data which show the difference in beam patterns of the four possible bulb combinations in the two lamp housings. The data are in the docket for this application.
The petitioner has indicated that the noncompliances will not result in any safety, reliability or serviceability concern for the operator of a subject motor vehicle.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments on the application described above. Comments should refer to the docket number and be submitted to : U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management, Room PL-401, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. It is requested that two copies be submitted.
All comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will be considered. The application and supporting materials, and all comments received after the closing date, will also be filed and will be considered to the extent possible. When the application is granted or denied, the notice will be published in the
On October 17, 2000, Camp Lejeune Railroad Company (CL), a wholly owned subsidiary of Norfolk Southern Railway Company, filed with the Surface Transportation Board (Board) a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10903 to discontinue service over 5.5 miles of rail line extending between milepost CK-2.5 at Camp Lejeune and milepost CK-8.0 at Marine Junction, in Onslow County, NC. CL operated the line under a lease from the United States Government that expired in August 1999. The line traverses U.S. Postal Service Zip Codes 28542 and 28547.
The line does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. However, the right-of-way is owned by the United States Government. Any documentation in CL's possession will be made available promptly to those requesting it.
The interest of railroad employees will be protected by the conditions set forth in
By issuing this notice, the Board is instituting an exemption proceeding pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10502(b). A final decision will be issued by February 2, 2001.
Any offer of financial assistance (OFA) under 49 CFR 1152.27(b)(2) will be due no later than 10 days after service of a decision granting the petition for exemption. Each OFA must be accompanied by a $1,000 filing fee.
All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No. AB-290 (Sub-No. 209X) and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) James R. Paschall, Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510. Replies to the CL petition are due on or before November 27, 2000.
Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment and discontinuance procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202) 565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations at 49 CFR part 1152. Questions concerning environmental
An environmental assessment (EA) (or environmental impact statement (EIS), if necessary) prepared by SEA will be served upon all parties of record and upon any agencies or other persons who commented during its preparation. Other interested persons may contact SEA to obtain a copy of the EA (or EIS). EAs in these abandonment or discontinuance proceedings normally will be made available within 60 days of the filing of the petition. The deadline for submission of comments on the EA will generally be within 30 days of its service.
Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.”
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of the Treasury, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning an existing final regulation, REG-252936-96 (TD 8780), Rewards for Information Relating to Violations of Internal Revenue Laws (§ 301.7623-1).
Written comments should be received on or before January 5, 2001 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Garrick R. Shear, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
Requests for additional information or copies of the regulation should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue Service, room 5244, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224.
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
An open meeting of the Brooklyn District Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held in Brooklyn, New York.
The meeting will be held Friday, December 8, 2000.
Eileen Cain at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555.
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an operational meeting of the Citizen Advocacy Panel will be held Friday, December 8, 2000, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Internal Revenue Service Brooklyn Building located at 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. For more information or to confirm attendance, notification of intent to attend the meeting must be made with Eileen Cain. Mrs. Cain can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555. The public is invited to make oral comments from 8:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Friday, December 8, 2000. Individual comments will be limited to 5 minutes. If you would like to have the CAP consider a written statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3555, or write Eileen Cain, CAP Office, P.O. Box R, Brooklyn, NY, 11201.
The Agenda will include the following: various IRS issues.
Last minute changes to the agenda are possible and could prevent effective advance notice.
In notice document 00-27158 beginning on page 63251 in the issue of Monday, October 23, 2000, make the following corrections:
1. On page 63252, in the first column, under the heading “
2. On the same page, in the second column, under the heading “Non-Liquid Alternative Fuels”, in the sixth line, “5/6 + 133 hours” should read “5/6 = 133 hours”.
In rule document 00-27653 on page 64372 in the issue of Friday, October 27, 2000, make the following correction:
On page 64372, in the second column, under the heading “
In rule document 00-1193, beginning on page 2864, in the issue of Wednesday, January 19, 2000, make the following corrections:
1.On page 2864, in the third column, in the sixth line from the bottom, remove the word “should”.
2. On page 2865, the table is corrected to read as follows:
In proposed rule document 00-27522 beginning on page 64178 in the issue of Thursday, October 26, 2000, make the following corrections:
1. On page 64184, in the second column, in §10.184(d), in the final paragraph, in the first line``(1)
2. On the same page, in the third column, in §10.184, in the fifth paragraph, the first line ``(B) A completed Customs Form (CF)'' should read ``(C) A completed Customs Form (CF)''.
3. On page 64186, in the third column, in §10.184(g), in the last paragraph, the first line ``(1)
4. On page 64187, in the first column, in §10.184(g), in the second paragraph, the first line ``(2)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend HUD's regulations for the Indian Community Development Block Grants program for Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages (the “ICDBG” program). These amendments will permit the incorporation of the ICDBG grant application and selection procedures into HUD's SuperNOFA process. The SuperNOFA approach, in which the great majority of HUD's competitive funds are announced in one document, is designed to simplify the application process, bring consistency and uniformity to the application and selection process, and accelerate the availability of funding. In addition to the SuperNOFA-related amendments, this proposed rule would amend the ICDBG program regulations to remove certain obsolete regulatory provisions and to clarify program requirements.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposed rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Facsimile (FAX) comments are not acceptable. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. weekdays at the above address.
Jacqueline Kruszek, Office of Grants Management, Office of Native American Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Suite 3390, 1999 Broadway, Denver, CO 80202, telephone (303) 675-1690, extension 3306 (this is not a toll-free telephone number). Hearing or speech-impaired persons may access this telephone number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. Ms. Kruszek may also be contacted via e-mail at: Jacqueline_A._Kruszek@hud.gov.
The Indian Community Block Grant Program for Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages (commonly referred to as the ICDBG program) provides eligible grantees with direct grants for use in developing viable Indian and Alaskan Native communities, including decent housing, a suitable living environment, and economic opportunities, primarily for low- and moderate-income persons. HUD's regulations implementing the ICDBG program are located in 24 CFR part 1003. The program is administered by the Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) in HUD's Office of Public and Indian Housing.
ICDBG funds are distributed as annual competitive grants. Funds are allocated to each of the six Area ONAPs, so applicants compete for funding only with other tribes or eligible Indian entities within their area. All federally recognized Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages are eligible to participate in the ICDBG program. Projects funded by the ICDBG program must primarily benefit low- and moderate-income persons. ICDBG funds may be used to improve housing stock, provide community facilities, improve infrastructure, and expand job opportunities by supporting the economic development of the communities, especially by nonprofit tribal organizations or local development corporations.
This proposed rule would amend the ICDBG program regulations in 24 CFR part 1003. Specifically, the rule proposes to make several amendments to subpart D of these regulations, which establishes the ICDBG grant application and selection process. The principal reason for the proposed changes is that they would allow or facilitate the integration of the application process for the ICDBG program into HUD's SuperNOFA process.
In Fiscal Year 1998, HUD first published its first Super Notice of Funding Availability (SuperNOFA). The SuperNOFA approach, in which the great majority of HUD's competitive funds are announced in one document, is designed to simplify the application process, bring consistency and uniformity to the application and selection process, and accelerate the availability of funding. Equally important, the SuperNOFA approach is designed to increase the ability of applicants to consider and apply for funding under a wide variety of HUD programs. The most creative and novel element of the SuperNOFA is that it places heavy emphasis on the coordination of activities assisted by HUD funds to provide (1) greater flexibility and responsiveness by potential grantees in meeting local housing and community development needs, and (2) greater flexibility for eligible applicants to determine what HUD program resources best fit the community's needs.
The most recent SuperNOFA, published on February 24, 2000 (65 FR 9322), included 39 grant categories within programs operated and administered by HUD. However, the application process for funding under the ICDBG program has been implemented through separate stand-alone NOFAs. This was based, in part, on a determination that the considerations for grant award were substantially different for the ICDBG program when compared with those included in the SuperNOFA. Based upon closer review, HUD has determined that the SuperNOFA process, especially as it has evolved in the last two years, affords the degree of flexibility necessary to address important distinctions in funding considerations (such as project specific thresholds), while at the same time providing a framework within which application simplification procedures may be implemented.
Certain regulatory changes are required in order to permit the incorporation of the ICDBG program in the SuperNOFA process. Accordingly, HUD is issuing this proposed rule to revise the ICDBG program regulations at 1003.301 and § 1003.303, which establish the ICDBG application selection and rating procedures.
The most significant SuperNOFA related amendments that would be made by this proposed rule are as follows:
Current § 1003.303 (entitled “Project rating”) establishes three separate rating categories: housing, community facilities, and economic development. Further, § 1003.303 establishes specific rating criteria for these categories (although some categories share similar criteria). The requirements for separate
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As a result of the proposed amendments to § 1003.303 described above, certain conforming changes must be made to § 1003.301, which establishes the ICDBG selection process. These conforming changes are as follows:
1.
In several instances the current threshold requirements have proven unnecessary, and will not be included in the SuperNOFA rating factors. For example, HUD has determined that current § 1003.301(a)(1)(ii), which requires that the proposed project be appropriate for the intended use, is unnecessary. In addition, the housing assistance threshold requirement contained in current § 1003.301(a)(3)(ii) has never been invoked. Given the changes brought about by the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, (25 U.S.C. 4101
The proposed rule would retain a revised version of the threshold requirement contained in current paragraph (a)(3)(iii) regarding outstanding obligations. Specifically, the proposed rule would continue to provide that an applicant that has an outstanding ICDBG obligation to HUD that is arrears, or has not agreed to a repayment schedule, will be disqualified from the ICDBG competition. The proposed rule, however, would revise existing paragraph (a)(3)(iii) by removing the language regarding the effects of the applicant's failure to respond to a non-monetary audit finding in a satisfactory manner. This requirement will be included in the SuperNOFA capacity rating factor. The wording of current § 1003.301(a)(3)(iii) would also be revised to provide that the outstanding obligation need not only be the result of an audit finding but could also be the result of a determination of expenditure ineligibility made through another process (such as HUD monitoring).
2.
In addition to the SuperNOFA-related amendments, HUD has taken the opportunity provided by this proposed rule to make several streamlining and clarifying amendments to 24 CFR part 1003. These proposed amendments are non-substantive, but remove obsolete regulatory language and clarify existing program requirements. These changes are as follows:
Section 1003.100(b)(2) identifies the factors that an Area ONAP may take into account in approving a grant amount less than the requested amount. This proposed rule would revise § 1003.100(b)(2) to clarify that the Area ONAP may consider the reasonableness of the project costs in making this determination.
The wording of existing § 1003.301(c) would be amended to remove the requirement that applications be rated by each Area ONAP. Although fund allocation and competition for these funds would be made for and limited to each Area ONAP jurisdiction, HUD wishes the flexibility to consider such options as a national rating panel to help expedite the funding approval process.
In general, it is HUD's policy that notices of proposed rulemaking are to afford the public not less than 60 days for submission of comments, in accordance with its regulations on rulemaking in 24 CFR part 10. However, HUD has determined that there is good cause to reduce the public comment period for this proposed rule to 30 days. As discussed in more detail earlier in this preamble, the proposed regulatory amendments are necessary to permit the incorporation of the ICDBG grant application and selection procedures into HUD's SuperNOFA process. Inclusion in the SuperNOFA will greatly benefit ICDBG program applicants. The SuperNOFA process simplifies and brings consistency to the application procedures for the majority of HUD's competitive funding programs. The SuperNOFA's promotion of coordination and comprehensive planning also provides greater flexibility to potential grantees in meeting local housing and community development
HUD wishes to ensure that the proposed regulatory amendments are effective in time to ensure inclusion of the ICDBG program in the Fiscal Year 2001 SuperNOFA. Provision of the customary 60-day public comment period has the potential to delay the rulemaking process and might jeopardize the incorporation of the ICDBG program in the SuperNOFA process. The reduced 30-day comment period will help to ensure that ICDBG program participants are not deprived of the benefits conveyed by participation in the SuperNOFA.
HUD also notes that it provided Indian tribes and Alaska Native Villages the opportunity to comment on the substance of the proposed regulatory changes during the development of this proposed rule. HUD received 7 comments on the proposed revisions, all in support of the regulatory changes and the incorporation of the ICDBG program requirements in the SuperNOFA process. Accordingly, the reduced 30-day comment period will not unduly restrict the ability of ICDBG program participants to express their views on this proposed rule, since they have already been afforded an opportunity to comment on the regulatory changes. Further, the comments received by HUD indicate that the proposed regulatory changes are not controversial, and are supported by most Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages.
For the above reasons, HUD has determined that the 30-day comment period for this proposed rule should provide sufficient notice and opportunity for interested entities to comment. However, HUD recognizes the importance of public comment in the development of its regulations, and welcomes public comment on the proposed rule. All public comments will be considered in the development of the final rule.
In accordance with 24 CFR 50.19(c)(2) of the Department's regulations, the amendments made by this proposed rule would not direct, provide for assistance or loan and mortgage insurance for, or otherwise govern or regulate, real property acquisition, disposition, leasing, rehabilitation, alteration, demolition, or new construction, or establish, revise, or provide for standards for construction or construction materials, manufactured housing, or occupancy. Therefore, this proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
The Secretary has reviewed this proposed rule before publication, and by approving it certifies, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. To the extent that the proposed amendments have an impact on small Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages, it will be to reduce burden and expedite the ICDBG funding process. As described more fully in the preamble, the amendments made by this proposed rule will permit the incorporation of the ICDBG program application and selection procedures into HUD's highly successful SuperNOFA process. The inclusion of the ICDBG program in the SuperNOFA will simplify the ICDBG application process, conform the ICDBG application and selection procedures with those of other HUD competitive grant programs, and accelerate the availability of funding. Notwithstanding HUD's determination that this rule will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, HUD specifically invites comments regarding any less burdensome alternatives to this rule that will meet HUD's objectives as described in this preamble.
Executive Order 13132 (entitled “Federalism”) prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This proposed rule would not have federalism implications and would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or preempt State law within the meaning of the Executive Order.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments, and on the private sector. This proposed rule would not impose any Federal mandates on any State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector, within the meaning of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number for the Indian Community Development Block Grant program is 14.862.
Alaska, Community development block grants, Grant programs—housing and community development, Indians, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons described in the preamble, HUD proposes to amend 24 CFR part 1003 to read as follows:
1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 1003 continues to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5301
2. Revise 1003.100(b)(2) to read as follows:
(b) * * *
(2)
3. Revise § 1003.301 to read as follows:
(a)
(b)
3. Revise § 1003.303 to read as follows:
Each project included in an application that meets the threshold requirements shall be competitively rated within each Area ONAP's jurisdiction under the five following rating factors. Additional details regarding the rating factors will be provided in the periodic NOFAs.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)